One in the eye for intelligent design

| 52 Comments

We are all familiar with the creationist argument about the eye, an argument which Darwin already addressed in his original work. And while creationists are still in much of a denial about eye evolution, science keeps on closing gaps.

In the Australian a second paper addressing eye evolution is discussed.

A SECOND publication this week by Australian National University scientists on the evolution of the eye has rebuffed intelligent design proponents who argue that such a complex organ could not have been arrived at gradually. Paleobiologist Gavin Young discovered in a 400-million-year-old exposed former tropical reef that a fossil of a placoderm, a bone-covered predator fish, had eye casings that showed a transitional arrangement of muscles and nerves.

Earlier, ANU Centre of Excellence in Vision Science head Trevor Lamb published a paper that called the deep-sea hagfish, with primitive photoreceptors for eyes, the missing link in the evolution of the organ of sight.

Dr Young’s placoderm and its visible muscle and nerve canals were evidence of an intermediate stage between jawless and jawed vertebrates, he said.

“It is transitional … in that it is the only example among all living jawed species and all extinct jawed vertebrates where we have the combination of jaws plus a primitive eye muscle arrangement.”

The eyeball was connected to the braincase by cartilage, as in modern sharks, and there was a primitive eye muscle arrangement as in living jawless fish.

Dr Young said that arrangement was different from all modern vertebrates, in which there is a consistent pattern of tiny muscles for rotating each eyeball.

Creationists and proponents of intelligent design argue that knowledge of evolution is gleaned from living creatures and that there is no historical evidence of evolution.

So while science is advancing at a quick pace, some Intelligent Design proponents are still stuck in last decade, wonder where do eyes come from.

Compare the output of science with the output of Intelligent Design as it applies to our understanding of the evolution of the eye and ask yourself a simple question: How does ID explain the eye? The answer or lack thereof may shock you and yet that is the full extent of ID’s contribution to science. Nothing.

The paper by Young can be found here, titled “ Number and arrangement of extraocular muscles in primitive gnathostomes: evidence from extinct placoderm fishes”

Abstract : Exceptional braincase preservation in some Devonian placoderm fishes permits interpretation of muscles and cranial nerves controlling eye movement. Placoderms are the only jawed vertebrates with anterior/posterior obliques as in the jawless lamprey, but with the same function as the superior/inferior obliques of other gnathostomes. Evidence of up to seven extraocular muscles suggests that this may be the primitive number for jawed vertebrates. Two muscles innervated by cranial nerve 6 suggest homologies with lampreys and tetrapods. If the extra muscle acquired by gnathostomes was the internal rectus, Devonian fossils show that it had a similar insertion above and behind the eyestalk in both placoderms and basal osteichthyans.

As a reminder, Darwin’s comments, which are often presented out of context to suggest that evolution cannot explain the eye, read as follows

To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree. (Darwin 1872)

and continues

Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound. (Darwin 1872, 143-144)

Darwin continues with three more pages describing a sequence of plausible intermediate stages between eyelessness and human eyes, giving examples from existing organisms to show that the intermediates are viable.

Source: Index to Creationist Claims: Claim CA113.1: Charles Darwin acknowledged the inadequacy of evolution

Not surprisingly, science has been slowly uncovering the pathways of eye evolution and found that contrary to creationist beliefs, natural pathways seem to exist. No wonder that some creationists are still stuck in last decade as scientific knowledge has closed many of the gaps that existed then.

I hope to discuss this paper and the Nature paper on eye evolution in an upcoming posting as they show how science goes about closing gaps of ignorance and how ID stands by unable to contribute much of anything other than pointing out that there are still gaps remaining.

52 Comments

”…science keeps on closing gaps.”

Don’t you mean that science keeps on opening two gaps for every one that it closes?! (Just kidding!)

When it comes to eye evolution, they rather seem not even stuck in last century, but the one before that.

Ian:

“…science keeps on closing gaps.”

Don’t you mean that science keeps on opening two gaps for every one that it closes?! (Just kidding!)

Yes, but the sum of the two new gaps is necessarily less than the original gap. Though the number of gaps increases and tends towards infinity, the magnitude of each gap approaches zero faster. Thus in the limiting case the sum of the gaps tends towards zero. What are the odds fundies will get that?

William Dembski will summarize this as:

The evolutionist has conceded that … the number of gaps increases … towards infinity … thus … limiting [the] case [for evolution].

On the development of the eye, creationist crank William Dembski recently wrote:

more biological constructs of the imagination. Where is the actual fossil evidence for these?

http://www.uncommondescent.com/inte[…]mment-155254

Someone who has not been banned from UD should post an invite to Dembski to drop by and examine the evidence.

Mr_Christopher:

Someone who has not been banned from UD should post an invite to Dembski to drop by and examine the evidence.

And take a snapshot of the post really quick, ‘cuz it won’t be there long.

Yes, but the sum of the two new gaps is necessarily less than the original gap. Though the number of gaps increases and tends towards infinity, the magnitude of each gap approaches zero faster. Thus in the limiting case the sum of the gaps tends towards zero. What are the odds fundies will get that?

Sure. However, each gap constitutes nothing, and they can only argue from lack of evidence (note that this really does tie their “ID science” with their “critiques” of evolution–they focus on the lack of evidence, while pointedly ignoring the evidence and all explanation of that evidence).

So any gap is good, for it is the only place that they have for their God. And a god who designed malaria and the rest of the poorly- and cruelly-designed aspects of life is already a very small god, not needing much space.

Hence the expanding gaps give their miniscule god increasing scope and ability to hide, no matter how small the gaps have become.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

“Someone who has not been banned from UD should post an invite to Dembski to drop by and examine the evidence.”

Dembski would just point out that you don’t have the eyeball itself with the lens, retina, cornea, etc all intact. Of course if some wonderfull Lagerstatten did turn up such a find, it would be ‘Blah, blah, blah, pathetic level of detail, yadda, yadda, yadda. Did I mention I’m a genius? Yak, yak, yak.’

…should post an invite to Dembski to drop by and examine the evidence Evidence? Weee don’t neeed no steeenking evidence! You think the guy really understands this stuff?

These so-called ID scientists aren’t looking for any truth other than what they perceive to be in the Bible. I am aware that they claim (ID) independence from wacko creationists, but I am also aware of Barbara Forrest’s work that proves the contrary. Enjoy.

The only way to satisfy a creationist/ID’er is when someone will actually catch a dinosaur fossil with their pants down, i.e., in the act of begetting the next generation. Until that time, there will always be an infinite number of gaps to close, and even then the creationist will not accept it.

science keeps on closing gaps.

And sometimes opening new gaps as well.

At any rate, even with this new Australian business, the gaps are still there when it comes to so-called eye evolution.

Nor does this Australian stuff rescue Richard Dawkins from the black eye that Uncommon Descent recently gave to him…

http://www.uncommondescent.com/inte[…]mment-155254

FL

FL you’re too funny.

Um, would you mind telling is what the scientific theory of intelligent design is? Thanks

I would like to read the paper but I’m not affiliated with a university, and the website won’t let me see it unless I pay them $30. Could someone please send it to me? My email address is [Enable javascript to see this email address.].

FL:

science keeps on closing gaps.

And sometimes opening new gaps as well.

At any rate, even with this new Australian business, the gaps are still there when it comes to so-called eye evolution.

Nor does this Australian stuff rescue Richard Dawkins from the black eye that Uncommon Descent recently gave to him…

http://www.uncommondescent.com/inte[…]mment-155254

FL

Go away.

Mr_Christopher:

FL you’re too funny.

Um, would you mind telling is what the scientific theory of intelligent design is? Thanks

You would have far better luck squeezing blood and honey from stones than asking a loquacious know-squat like FL about what Intelligent Design is.

FL:

science keeps on closing gaps.

And sometimes opening new gaps as well.

At any rate, even with this new Australian business, the gaps are still there when it comes to so-called eye evolution.

Nor does this Australian stuff rescue Richard Dawkins from the black eye that Uncommon Descent recently gave to him…

http://www.uncommondescent.com/inte[…]mment-155254

FL

Finally, we have evidence.…that FL is not in the least sincere about his stated convictions, but is just a pathetic denialist and troll.

Finally, we have evidence….that FL is not in the least sincere about his stated convictions, but is just a pathetic denialist and troll.

I hope the “Finally” was an exasperated sarcasm.

FL,

What you know about biology, the evolution of the eye…or science, for that matter, you could shove up a gnat’s ass and have room for an icecube.

How God what the eye five or six times, by WD and MB. The IDiots will add it to their list of papers they’ll get around to producing one day. And when they do then you’ll see the Darwinist utopia fall. Did you see that Miss Iblogcrap Leary has got yet another blog repeating the crap she normally comes out with, what is it with these people that they have 4 or 5 blog going at the same time talking about the same things. Is the idea to make it look like there are more of them?

FL:

Apart from your own or anybody else’s incredulity (and ignorance, as pointed out above) about how the eye could evolve, would you please explain how any of the developmental, comparative, genetic, or paleontological evidence that corroborates the long-standing predictions of eye-evolution made in Darwin’s time, fails to constitute support for the hypothesis? For example, could you personally expound on your insights into developmental homologies of the ocular muscles in vertebrates, or the comparative and developmental homologies between ocular structures among different animals? I am also curious about your personal insights into the comparative genetics of opsin genes, and how these are in fact inconsistent with the evolution of color vision? For that matter, your knowledge of the comparative anatomy of retinal summation might help us understand how such structures could not evolve as a consequence of selection on natural variation.

Once again, I’m waiting for you to present some evidence. And please, no quotes from Dembski, Coulter, TV guide, yourself, or any other of your normal sources. You can easily access the primary literature on this. My mind is open to the evidence.

I’m waiting.…

Eye is simple physics and chemistry It is the easiest optical system in physics – one focusing lens. That is, most eyes, fish, people, etc. There is only one transparent protein – any deviation isn’t transparent, producing a greatly reduced chance of reproduction for the unfortunate creature that has it. The eye spot – look at planaria for instance – that becomes curved to focus has an advantage. Nerves and retinas evolve with it. This is not a hard thing to understand. Should be easy to explain to anyone who has fallen under the spell of creationists. Sadly, I once heard no less a literary light than John Irving on the radio declaiming about the ‘complexity’ of the eye.

(I don’t know anything scientific about bees’ eyes – those do seem complicated to me.!)

blackant:

(I don’t know anything scientific about bees’ eyes – those do seem complicated to me.!)

You should look into bees’ eyes and dragonflies’ eyes and crabs’ eyes. (grin) They are an utterly different solution to evolution’s problem of vision.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compound_eye and http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ul[…]oundEye.html might be a good start for you. Enjoy!

How often do creationists discover fossils that completely confound the experts, and don’t fit into MET at all?

Father Wolf:

How often do creationists discover fossils that completely confound the experts, and don’t fit into MET at all?

Such as a rabbit from the Precambrian?

How often do creationists discover fossils that completely confound the experts, and don’t fit into MET at all?

They seem to rediscover and rebrand Paley every couple of decades, but I wouldn’t say rediscovering that fossil confounds the experts.

GuyeFaux:

Finally, we have evidence….that FL is not in the least sincere about his stated convictions, but is just a pathetic denialist and troll.

I hope the “Finally” was an exasperated sarcasm.

Of course it was! LOL!

some Intelligent Design proponents are still stuck in last decade

I guess it is appropriate to rather say they are stuck in the 19th century if not the middle ages.

As usual, UD won’t post my comments, so for the hell of it, I’ll reply to bornagain77 here…

bornagain77: In fact from the crushing evidence coming in from genetics, molecular analysis of proteins, coupled with the fossil record, it seems that the imagination of evolutionary scientists is given more weight in biology than the evidence has now been given.

You have got to be joking, right?

What is a deep profound mystery, that I have a very hard time understanding, is why is this one mans pathology, for inventing cunningly devised fables, persisting in science, and indeed, defies being brought to the justice of overwhelming evidence now present in science?

Here’s an even better question: Have you ever known of any little boy who did not make up stuff from time to time? Darwin actually admitted it, at least.

Unless you can show that Dembski et al have, unlike every other human, never told a lie as a child, then you’d have to disregard what they say as adults, just as you’re trying to do with Darwin.

Besides, unlike ID, evolution actually has physical evidence for it. (provided you actually look at the links)

Father Wolf:

How often do creationists discover fossils that completely confound the experts, and don’t fit into MET at all?

One finds fossils wherever one digs. Since most creationists dig the Bible, they find fossils there. Laws like polyester-cotton blend is an abomination to God, or food hygiene practices of the pre-germ theory era like “thou shalt not top cheese pizza with pepperoni”! Aren’t these fossils really?

Of course it’s not like there is good molecular evidence that there are multiple different proteins that can readily take over the function of forming the eye lens. Oh wait there are completely different proteins in different taxa that are used to build the lens. in birds for example the so-called crystallin is actually arginiosuccinate lyase. Better no for being part of the urea cycle. Even more interesting is that the match between sequences is so close that some of the crystallin proteins still retain significant arginiosuccinate lyase activity. Others don’t as one of the key active site amino acids is mutated and is apparently not key to the proteins optical function.

Um, would you mind telling is what the scientific theory of intelligent design is?

I did. You may have missed it, but I spelled out the 3-point ID hypothesis in an earlier thread, and demonstrated why it was not religious. It is scientific, but you will not agree with that position. Nevertheless, the ID hypothesis has been spelled out for you already.

********

Now, your turn. Ttell me exactly how the human eye evolved from no-eye-at-all, just explain it step by step, and don’t leave those many gaps unfilled, okay? Thanks in advance.

FL

FL wrote:

“Now, your turn. Ttell me exactly how the human eye evolved from no-eye-at-all, just explain it step by step, and don’t leave those many gaps unfilled, okay? Thanks in advance.”

Well I’m not going to take the bait. We don’t have to rise to your pathetic level of detail… oh never mind.

Seriously, apparently FL will never believe any scientific explanation unless all questions are definitively answered once and for all and no questions remain whatsoever. Well, all I can say is that that attitute betrays a profound ignorance of science. It is an unreasonable expectation and one that is only characteristic of people who believe they have the ultimate Truth already. It sure doesn’t have anything to do with what science is or the way that science works.

Just for the record, science seeks to construct theories that explain all of the available evidence. The conclusions are always tentative and there is always more to learn. The question is never whether we have all the answers or not. The question is only whether we have the best possible explanation for the available evidence. In this case, all of the evidence from many independent fields once again converges on the exact same answer. The eye evolved. We know the genes involved. We know many of the intermediate stages. We know the timing of events and even the lineages in which they occured. We don’t have all the answers, we probably never will. SO WHAT?

Now if FL can do better than that, fine. Let him explain the evidence more convincingly. Let him provide a better explanation. “Poof” will definately not do here. Did ID predict the discovery of this fossil? Can ID explain it? Can ID explain the genetic events that have occured in the genes involved in the evolution of the eye? If they have a better exolanation where is it? If they have all the answers, surely they have published somewhere. Well, maybe not in a real journal, but somewhere. Demanding all the answers from others and providing none yourself is not intellectually honest.

FL:

Um, would you mind telling is what the scientific theory of intelligent design is?

I did. You may have missed it, but I spelled out the 3-point ID hypothesis in an earlier thread, and demonstrated why it was not religious. It is scientific, but you will not agree with that position. Nevertheless, the ID hypothesis has been spelled out for you already.

No you have not spelled it out. Your “spelling” consisted only of you saying that your 3-point/plank version of ID was not religious. You have continued to refuse to demonstrate ID’s alleged descriptive power, as well as demonstrating why ID can be considered a science to begin with.

And as such, FL, until you explain why ID is a science, and what ID can do as a science, and not use the excuse that “it’s not religious,” you can not legitimately demand that we answer your questions, as you continue to refuse to answer our questions.

Mr Christopher Wrote:

Someone who has not been banned from UD should post an invite to Dembski to drop by and examine the evidence.

Is there a merit badge like OM and FCD that I can put after my name if I’ve been banned from UD? Is Dembski banned here or simply absent?

FL:

I’m still waiting. Your only reply to people is a request for a detailed step-by-step explanation. In broad brush strokes, that’s easy, and all steps are represented in the natural world and fossil record. Photosensitive neural cells are concentrated in one spot (a primitive retina). Epithelium covering said cells becomes transparent. Fluid sac appears between covering and photoreceptors. Photoreceptors are wired for more refined detection of edges and movement through summation and patterns of stimulation and inhibition of neighboring cells. Epithelium over the sac thickens in the middle, tending to focus light on the retina. Somatic musculature near the eye differentiates allowing movement of the tissue mass. Everything else is just fine-tuning.

But this exercise, of course, is silly, because your requirement is little more than the classic “move the goal post” tactic whereby you will ultimately not accept any evidence whatsoever. In the real world, naturalists made some pretty astonishing and counter-intuitive predictions that eyes have evolved. These predictions have been corroborated over and over and over again with evidence from comparative anatomy, development, paleontology, and now overwhelmingly genetics. Meanwhile, the model is able to explain a wide variety of weird observations in nature. ALL SCIENCE works this way. Sadly, you can’t make up the rules to suit yourself as you go along, just because you don’t like the conclusion.

Meanwhile, yet again, you utterly fail to provide the least shred of evidence for your stance. I’m still waiting.

Syntax Error: mismatched tag at line 1, column 312, byte 312 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.16/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187.

Mr_Christopher:

FL babbled, I spelled out the 3-point ID hypothesis in an earlier thread, and demonstrated why it was not religious. It is scientific, but you will not agree with that position. Nevertheless, the ID hypothesis has been spelled out for you already.

Good god (could be a space alien wink wink) man, you’re claiming you’ve done something no one in the history of mankind has done - come up with a scientific theory for intelligent design? You’ve succeeded where Dembski, Wells, Behe and others have failed, is that what you’re saying? I mean Behe is a molecular biologist and HE has never offered a scientific theory of intelligent design! Have you spoken with him about your accomplishment yet?

Holy crikey stop the presses! Have you presented your theory to any scientific organizations? This is the kind of thing that would win you all sorts of prizes, awards and recognition. YOU could change the way we approach biology and even science in general.

So where is this scientific theory of yours, I did not find it. And it doesn’t matter if I agree with it, a theory is scientific or it is not, opinions don’t matter. It’s about predictions and standing the test of reason.

So, let’s hear it! Also, let’s hear how your ID theory approaches the eye. Can you use your ID theory and tell us how the human eye developed (or was created)?

Thanks in advance!

FL:

Um, would you mind telling is what the scientific theory of intelligent design is?

I did. You may have missed it, but I spelled out the 3-point ID hypothesis in an earlier thread, and demonstrated why it was not religious. It is scientific, but you will not agree with that position. Nevertheless, the ID hypothesis has been spelled out for you already.

********

Now, your turn. Ttell me exactly how the human eye evolved from no-eye-at-all, just explain it step by step, and don’t leave those many gaps unfilled, okay? Thanks in advance.

FL

Stop posting, you inept, imbecilic, intellectual infant. I’m certain you weren’t burdened with an overabundance of education*, so let me spell it out. The precious, beloved 3-point hypothesis you insist on reiterating is not science, let alone a scientific theory for intelligent design. It’s merely a grasp for straws by a plummeting mental zombie who fancies himself a scientist - a psychological sloth whose dismal droppings you devour and dub “Godiva”.

Like a deranged mother bird, you carry your mouthful of found fudge to real chocolatiers and insist that we replace our tried and true recipe with your sanctimonious snack, then deny deny deny when we find bits of corn nestled throughout. Well, until you get rid of the kernels and show us the milk and cocoa, we’re not buying it. Don’t come back until you can do that.

*Sci-Fi had a Firefly marathon recently.

NGL:

Ha! Brilliant! Best smackdown I’ve read yet.

I’m just an average (arts) schmoe and I know very little about science; I leave that to the experts. Why on Earth these IDiots can’t see that they know even less than I do is beyond my comprehension. But I do know a thing or two about writing, and thus I’m going to snip the above post and put it in my collection of Brilliant Things I’ve Found Online, located in my Directory Of Things To Remind Me I’m Not The Only Non-Retard Left In America.

So thank you.

* * *

Why on Earth these IDiots can’t see that they know even less than I do is beyond my comprehension.

Quite simple, really. Because they know The TruthTM.

“Once your faith persuades you to believe what your intelligence declares absurd, beware, lest you likewise sacrifice your reason in the conduct of your life.”
Voltaire (1694-1778)

“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.”
Bertrand Russell (1872-1970)

Why? Because they have declared their own truth, and refuse to deny any of it now matter what. Science is just a word that needs to be coopted to convert people to the faith.

Cut and pasted from the Answers in Genesis Web site…

“No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.”

I’ll give the AiG credit – at least they don’t lie. Folks like Dembski simply lie. They claim publicly that ID has nothing to do with religion, or God, as quoted so gullibly (?) by FL, then write

“Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory” (Dembski 1999, 84).

Please FL, I’m simply dying to know how explain THAT one form da man hisself!

Syntax Error: mismatched tag at line 16, column 2, byte 1122 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.16/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187.

FL wrote “Now, your turn. Ttell me exactly how the human eye evolved from no-eye-at-all, just explain it step by step, and don’t leave those many gaps unfilled, okay? Thanks in advance.”

It could be raining cats and dogs and unless we observed every rain drop FL would deny its even raining.

FL, fortunately science doesn’t demand the level of detail you require. Anybody can set some arbitrary burden of evidence and make the bar high as they want in an effort to avoid having to confront the vast amount of data there already is. If you wish to remain inetllectually paralyzed, that is OK with me. Just understand that your intellectual paralysis is self-inflicted. IF science waited until all of the intellectual gaps in a theory were filled before moving on to other matters and avenues of research we’d still be somwhere in the 17th century. Lo, all science demands is testable propositions and actually testing them. It doesn’t demand we know and document each and every mutation that has occurred in the course of eye evolution. Again, that is simply an arbitrary burden of proof creato babblers concoct so they can relieve themselves of the burden of actually understanding what is known, and what the implications of that knowledge are. No, its much easier to be smug and demand a ridiculous amount of detailed evidence. FL has confused being scientific with invincible ignorance. By placing such an arbitrary burden FL has relieved himself of the burden of independent thought and has safely shrouded himself with invincible ignorance. You’re intellectually invisible now FL. Congratulations.

You are not to be mocked, FL. Merely pitied.

The broad outlines of eye evolution were apparent to Darwin; nature has a diverse number of eye types ranging in complexity form the simple light sensitive ganglia of a flatworm to the complex vertebrate eye. We don’t have to fill in every detail of what occurred.

OF course the IDer’s can’t give us any details. They can’t even tell us how many designers were involved or what exatcly was designed. Was the vertebrate eye with its upside down retina the work of one designer and the molluscan eye with its right side up retina designed by another designer? Perhaps a third to deign the compound eyes of insects?

No, basic questions of how many designers, how they designed and when they did it, IDers can’t answer. But that doesn’t stop them from demanding a much higher burden of evidence from scientists. In addition to being intellectually dishonest, they reek of hypocrisy.

Hopefully with a little febreeze the stench of anti-inetllectualism and hypocrisy will go away.

mplavcan:

Why? Because they have declared their own truth, and refuse to deny any of it now matter what. Science is just a word that needs to be coopted to convert people to the faith.

Cut and pasted from the Answers in Genesis Web site…

“No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.”

I’ll give the AiG credit – at least they don’t lie. Folks like Dembski simply lie. They claim publicly that ID has nothing to do with religion, or God, as quoted so gullibly (?) by FL, then write

“Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory” (Dembski 1999, 84).

Please FL, I’m simply dying to know how explain THAT one form da man hisself!

No, AIG does lie. Quite a lot, actually. It’s just that when it comes to their motivations, they’re up front about it. It’s because of that, actually, that some YECists don’t like the ID people all that much, simply because the IDists try to pussyfoot around the “creator” being the biblical god. Those YECists should read the Wedge Document.

Agreed: my mistake of omission. Yes, Ken Hamm and company do a lot of that. But the point was only that they don’t pretend that they are something other than what they are – something about which Dembski is almost pathalogic.

What are the steps for eye evolution that has evidence now?

If you don’t want to give every step from “no-eye-at-all” to “the human eye evolved”, what are steps you can explain?

Is there a flow chart or some organized outline and details somewhere?

yqbd:

What are the steps for eye evolution that has evidence now?

If you don’t want to give every step from “no-eye-at-all” to “the human eye evolved”, what are steps you can explain?

Is there a flow chart or some organized outline and details somewhere?

I assume you agree with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye

yqbd said: “What are the steps for eye evolution that has evidence now?

If you don’t want to give every step from “no-eye-at-all” to “the human eye evolved”, what are steps you can explain?

Is there a flow chart or some organized outline and details somewhere? “

As if right on cue, PZ Myers has presented some remarks based on a comprehensive review of eye evolution. You can find a link to it in this forum. Its currently the newest article on the thumb.

yqbd said:

If you don’t want to give every step from “no-eye-at-all” to “the human eye evolved”, what are steps you can explain?

Have Behe or Dembski or any of the rest of the “give me a step-by-step explanation” crew considered just how long such a detailed explanation would take to read? With all the starts and stops and lack of long-term direction, and the time involved (500 million years+?), the evolutionary pathway from no eye at all to the human eye could easily involve a million changes! Even if we were able to read the description of each change in one second on average, it would take almost 11 days of straight reading to cover it all.

This would seem to be an attack on their position that any layman could understand. It’s like refusing to believe the pyramids are over 2,000 years old until you are allowed to view a film of their entire history.

I’m wondering if ID, on the spirit of the season, will launch its step-by-step mechanism on Immaculate Copulation :-D

Despite all the usual assumptions, arguments, and explanations evolutionists have for the eye (since that is the subject of this article), I have yet to have one of these ‘informed’ souls fully and logically explain to me in a manner that is both understandable, logical, makes sense, and isn’t chock full of other hypothoses and guesses, something about the eye.

And that something is this: if there never ever was such a thing as an eye (and apparently there wasn’t in the original primitive organisms), first, how did these creatures know what an eye was? Second, how & why did they know they needed one or two, as the case may be, when there never was one before? Third, how did they come to ‘develop’ their eye(s) when there never ever was one before and they didn’t know what it should look like and how it should function and where it/they should be placed?

Any takers? No one has satisfied my curiosity on this yet.

Oh, come off it, you don’t want your curiosity satisfied, you want everyone to read your words and say, “Oh dear, I’ve been wrong all these years, hallelujah, praise Jeezus!”

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by PvM published on December 18, 2007 11:42 AM.

Last Call for Openlab 2007 Submissions was the previous entry in this blog.

No Compromise. I agree is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.381

Site Meter