True science follows the evidence wherever it leads (The design of the eye)

Here is my beef with the theory of evolution in a simple nutshell. I don't see evolution (macro) taking place in the world in which I live right now today. What I see are species reproducing after their own kind only. Furthermore, if evolution took place in the past their would have to be thousands upon thousands of transitional forms among the millions of fossils we have uncovered in the past century and a half but their are none that the scientific community agrees are truly transitional. I just don't have the tremendous blind faith it takes to believe such a theory.In my opinion Intelligent Design is a fact not a theory. True science follows the evidence wherever it leads so lets look at the evidence closest to home for each of us, the human body. When we examine the human body we find complex systems working together that enable us to do very amazing things such as walk, talk, hear, eat, think, heal, etc. Now each of these systems are extremely complex are they not? Complexity requires forethought.As an example lets take a very simple view of sight. First of all how would a non-thinking source even know that we needed to see to begin with? Much less create the vast network that works in harmony to produce the ability to see. I mean come on people, think about it. You have the sclera made of a tough material that acts as an outer coat with all the blood vessels running through it to deliver blood. (how would a non-thinking source know it needed blood?) You have the cornea as a transparent dome that helps the eye focus as light makes its way through. ( how does a non-thinking source even know a focus is needed to see clear?) Then we have the iris that has muscles attached to change its shape to control how much light goes through the pupil. Again, all of this is design that requires thought. DESIGN REQUIRES THOUGHT!!!Then we have the anterior chamber as the space between the cornea and the iris that is filled with a special transparent fluid that nourishes the eye and keeps it healthy. How bout the retina? Talk about genius design on display? It holds millions of cells that are sensitive to light. It takes the light the eye receives and changes it into nerve signals so the brain can understand what the eye is seeing! Come on you guys, HOW COULD A NON-THINKING SOURCE build this kind of extremely complex system, put all the right parts in the right order and integrate it with all the other complex systems the body has to offer without the ability to think? What about the simple aspect of the eyeball being perfectly round? That is design all by itself! Their is much more that I could say about the genius design of the eye and sight but I feel like I have proven my point!ICDESIGNEdited by ICDESIGN, : needed a better formatEdited by Admin, : Fix formatting and spelling.Edited by Admin, : Missed an extra line break.Edited by ICDESIGN, : had to correct a couple punctuation'sEdited by Adminnemooseus, : Added the "(The design of the eye)" part to the topic title. Also added one more blank line before the "ICDESIGN".

As presented, your message is quite difficult to read. Please break things down into some sort of paragraphs, with blank lines between the paragraphs. Also, get rid of the random line breaks.You can change your message 1 by using the "edit" button at the bottom of the message. I also encourage you to use the "preview" button one or more times before submitting your changes.Once that is done, we'll take a further look at your message.Adminnemooseus

---

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

I know how you feel, IC. When I look at how complex the workings of a cell are, or how all the organs of a body must work together for the survival of the organism, or all the myriad relationships in an ecosystem, these things all seem way too complex to be designed. I just can't imagine how any living being could have been purposely designed. The notion seems way to fantastic for me to accept.

---

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

...thats funny Charley, ur a man after me own heart if you love a good pancake.So you believe it is possible to have a design without any thought being involved then? If so, can you produce one or know someone who can. I would pay good money to see an accidental intelligent design!
ICEdited by ICDESIGN, : wanted to correct a spelling

This statement so clearly shows your lack of understanding about the Theory of Evolution, that I cannot even know where to begin to start. Perhaps you should read a simple book on the subject. The children's section of your local library (if you even know how to find it) should have a descent amount of information to get you on your way. You have to prove this, and it will be difficult for you to do. You must show that there are NO cases of complexity without forethought. If there is even ONE case of complexity arising without forethought, then your claim that forethought is required for complexity goes out the window. You should know, that the light our eyes detect are only a small span of the Electromagnetic spectrum. Also, there are many creatures who survive just find without sight, including blind humans, which I don't think you were considering when you wrote this. Well, the chances of any working parts of the body evolving without blood vessels is unlikely. Understanding what blood is will help you to understand why. The main functions of blood as they would pertain to an organ would be in oxygen and water/nutrients delivery and waste disposal for each of the cells. Nutrients is energy, and anything that does work requires energy. The eye does work, thus needs energy. So, if an eye had evolved without blood vessels, it would not have worked, and that creature would not have had the advantage that a creature with working eyes had. Those working eyes would only work with blood. So, a creature without blood in the eyes = no sight = no advantage. A creature WITH blood in the eyes = sight (even if just the detection of blurred light) = advantage. That advantage will pass on. This is an interesting statement. In fact, the method used by the human eye to focus is horrible in terms of its ability to sustain good sight. The focus method used employs a sort of rubber sphere which is stretched to make it thick or thin and change the focus. The problem, is that this sphere hardens as we grow old, and sooner or later it can only focus within a short range. So, old folk generally need some sort of optical assistance. A BETTER system (a system one would expect to see in an eye designed by an all-powerful Creator who put some forethought into His design) would use a moving lens--forward/backward--like a camera uses. This would limit the amount of parts susceptible to breaking down, and the only focus problems from sight then would be due to a lack of functionality in the moving parts, which would not have to be combined with that annoying rubbery sphere. But then we have northern European and Inuit folks who, if they had been put in their environment and created for it, should have different systems in place to better control light and prevent things like snow blindness. If there was a Creator, He put very little thought into what He was doing, and now people suffer from His slackly attitude toward His project. Like I said before, light is only a small part of the many EM waves our eyes could be sensitive to. You think it is special because we sense it, but many animals could give a flying hoot about light and have no need for it at all, because they sense other EM radiation. Sensing light isn't special at all. In fact, it's almost restrictive because we see so little of the spectrum. No, that's a false statement is what it is. No, you have not. Have I proven mine?__________Jonicus "i DONT cdesign" MaximusEdited by Jns, : Added to a quoted piece.

---

In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist... might come to the conclusion that each species had not been independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species. - Charles Darwin On the Origin of Species

That was NOT your original argument. It was: Then it changed to: We have: complexity = thought = design, do we not? If so, then you need to actually show WHY complexity requires thought. IF you prove that complexity requires thought, then you must prove that the eye is complex. Then we would have: eye = complexity = thought = design Where your argument is lacking is in the area of support for your claim that the eye is complex and that complexity requires thought.Jonicus

How to you propose that the intelligent design is implemented? To design something is one thing, to actually get it built is a whole 'nother thing.IMO, "intelligent design" is evolution with a bit of guidance added. Perhaps a better term would be "intelligent evolution" or "guided evolution".Moose

---

Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment. "Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham

​

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith

​

"I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose

quote:

---

So you believe it is possible to have a design without any thought being involved then?

---

It's no stretch for me to imagine that natural selection could result in the biological structures we see. What I do have trouble comprehending is that anyone could (or even would) design anything as complicated and messy as what we see in nature.

---

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

There's no need to pay money; it's sufficient to use the internet.

quote:

---

Genetic programming (GP) is a patented[1] automated methodology inspired by biological evolution to find computer programs that perform a user-defined task. Therefore it is a machine learning technique that uses an evolutionary algorithm to optimize a population of computer programs according to a fitness landscape determined by a program's ability to perform a given computational task. The first experiments with GP were reported by Stephen F. Smith (1980)[2] and Nichael L. Cramer (1985),[3] as described in the famous book Genetic Programming: On the Programming of Computers by Means of Natural Selection by John Koza (1992).

---

Genetic programming - WikipediaIn other words, they're using the "accidental" mechanisms of random mutation and natural selection to design computer programs and solve problems. Other researchers are using the same technology to design things like electronics and jet airplanes.Hi, IC. Glad to see you participating. Since the topic of this thread is ostensibly the evolution of the eye, I'll pop in later with a post that describes how scientists (following the evidence) construct the evolutionary history of the eye, from the simple light-sensitive spots found in flatworms to the complex, lenticular eye of cephlopods. As an aside, you may be interested to know that your perfect human eye actually suffers from a major design flaw - the retina is inside out! It's true - the light sensitive cells of the eye actually point backwards into the skull, and light that enters the eye actually has to pass through the network of capillaries and nerves that connect those cells to the rest of the body.That's why we have blind spots; that's why our low-light vision is so poor compared to other mammals. Inside-out retinas.

What are you so mad about Mr. blind man. You said it well when you said their are no cases of complexity without forethought. Sence their
are non, the burden of proof is on you to disprove my statement!!
IC

Guidance requires a guide. "Intelligent evolution" requires intelligence sir, and intelligence requires thought!
IC

I don't think I ever said that. Please point out where I said that. In fact, I think I addressed that pretty clearly here:

quote:

---

Jonicus Message 6:
You must show that there are NO cases of complexity without forethought.

---

So, show me how my statement means what you think it means. It's somewhat sad to see our newest Creationist member revert to the cheap-shot strategies so quick in the game. I can't imagine what you have for us next.JonicusEdited by Jns, : removed reference to specific post 13, since it ended up being my own :-

Then I suggest we keep our replies content-rich, rather than reinforcing his behavior.He's new here, and I don't think he's been a lurker - he only registered because I asked him to, because I don't debate evolution via email. Perhaps it would be prudent for our own posts to be the example for him to follow.

Excuse me for wondering, but where did the computer and the programs come from that generate these "accidents"?
IC