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

Irrelevant. The researchers specifically programmed the computer to generate designs and programs at random, and then select from them those that best met certain criteria.Just like evolution happens in the real world. It's not relevant who built the computer; the program runs the same whether or not it's running on hardware from Dell, or Intel, or whathaveyou.

I'm sorry I misread your statement, you didn't say their are no cases.
You did say "if" their are no cases. If you know of a case I'm all ears.
IC

the point is Crash, is that know matter who built them it took intelligence to do it and that is very relevent sir! A program requires a programmer.Making any kind of a choice involves a decision. A decision requires thought.Edited by ICDESIGN, : No reason given.Edited by ICDESIGN, : No reason given.

the question is " do you believe it is possible to have a design without any thought being involved?
forethought, thought, whatever. Thought is thought.Edited by ICDESIGN, : No reason given.

Are you accepting that the possible "intelligent design" is part of the evolution process?Implementation of a design requires an intelligent builder and building process. I perhaps could design a very good organic eye, but I couldn't even begin to be able to build it.Also, the eye (human or otherwise) does not come into existence as a finished product. It is part of a body that grows from a single cell origin.Well, the above may well not be relevant to this topic, but it's something I wanted to get out. I'll probably not participate in this topic any further. After all, I'm a dubious quality geologist, not a biologist.Moose

Did you even go and read the link? That's the point - these programs were generated without programmers. The programmers specifically programmed themselves out of the process.Nothing but random mutation and selection generated these programs and designs; intelligent was not only not necessary, but programmed out of the process.Look, ICDESIGN. You reminded us that true science follows the evidence. But you don't seem to be very interested in looking at the evidence we've been presenting to you. How can you therefore claim to be doing true science when you're ignoring evidence?

So who designed the alleged designer?

---

Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

No your the one not getting it Crash, with all due respect. Everything you are talking about leads back to intelligent people building computers for all this to take place on. This is why its so hard to talk with evolutionist's. You have baffled the issue with B.S.
just like you guys always do. The issue is that the human body is a complex design unequaled by any master design that man with all his combined wisdom and intelligence can come up with.
THE HUMAN BODY IS AN INTELLIGENT DESIGN. THIS IS A FACT AND I PRESENT THE HUMAN BODY AS MY PROOF OF THIS STATEMENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!now you show me all the transitional forms to prove millions of transitions happpened to get where we are today.

See, you say "respect", but nothing in your post comes off respectful to me or my arguments. Why is that? Sure. That's what people build computers to do - simulate things.In this case, they simulate the evolutionary processes of random mutation and natural selection, operating without intelligent guidance, and use them to create complexity.Something that you said couldn't happen. If it can't happen, IC, how is it that we're seeing engineers doing it? I'm sure that I could come up with an eye that didn't feature a backwards retina. I'm curious why you haven't addressed that point.I'll be honest with you, IC. We're used to a higher standard of debate here, and when you reply to content-rich posts with nothing but one-liners, you're not meeting that standard. I'm not an admin here, but believe me when I tell you - unless you drastically increase the standards of your posting you're looking at a suspension, probably.I was under the impression you wanted to debate, which is why I asked you to register here. If all you're interested in doing is calling me names and referring to evidence as "BS", then I see I was correct in not debating you via email. It would have been just a waste of my time.I think you can do better, though. But doing better is going to require you do a lot more than call your opponent's arguments "BS." As a suggestion? Post less, but write more in each post. You're not under an obligation to respond quickly. We prefer quality over quantity. Why don't you try posting only once or twice, and try to have a point in your post beyond "you guys are wrong?" There are far more transitional species than can be listed in a single post, and I'm not sure transitional species are the subject of this thread, but a great resource for seeing the known transitional fossils for vertebrates is located at: Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQAs you can see, there are many - not none, as you've been misinformed.

I believe the truth that while deep is also very simple. I told you from the start I was just a simple nuts and bolts kind of guy. I'm sorry I don't meet the standard you require on this web site.You guys are obviously highly educated and I do respect that.None of you has answered how you can have design without thought. I have seen many comments about other designs as if that somehow nullifies the designs I was talking about. And now the great Crash can even design a better body than the one we have.The reason I didn't mention the backwards retina is because the system works so well I don't have to stand on my head to see things upright.I admit the technology your are taking about with the computers is amazing stuff. The thing about technology is that it is the result of intelligent minds putting a lot of thought into the outcome which disqualifies it as accidental intelligent design.And finally Mr. condescending Crash, I wasn't aware that the missing link is no longer missing and even found in abundance. I think you should inform the rest of the world of this astounding news flash!FACT: THE HUMAN BODY IS AN INTELLIGENT DESIGN
SAD TRUTH: all of you will give an answer for you willful ignorance
...and may God have mercy on your souls!!good bye, ICDESIGNEdited by ICDESIGN, : No reason given.

Hrm, actually I've told you a couple of different times, but maybe I wasn't being clear.Random mutation and natural selection, the mechanisms of evolution, are how you can have design without a designer. It is these processes that are responsible for the diversity and history of the Earth's various life forms. Unless the lights are out.Doesn't work so well then, does it? But that's exactly what it is. Those programmers took the thought out of the outcome. That's what they set out to do. Are you saying that they failed?I'd like to point you to one more article. Call it the "case of the accidental radio." It proves that intelligence really has nothing to do with it. In this case, a group of researchers set out to use these genetic algorithms to develop an oscillator - a simple electronic circuit. They wanted to see if random mutation and selection could be used to design electronic circuits.To their surprise, their program invented a functional radio instead! See, it turns out that's one way to make an oscillator - build a radio and just tune in to the various oscillating frequencies currently being transmitted for other applications. Page has gone | New ScientistIf intelligence had been involved in the design, they wouldn't have wound up with a radio. No human being would have thought to build a radio just to get an oscillator. So who designed the radio?The processes of random mutation and natural selection programmed into the simulation, that's who. Just as the processes of random mutation and natural selection at work in the real world are responsible for the living things on our planet. Talkorigins.org has been working hard to do exactly that, but as you can see, scientific ignorance is very widespread and pernicious. It doesn't help that there's all those creationists out there, telling lies about the science and misinforming people, as you were misinformed.Surely you can appreciate how hard it is to accurately inform the public on science matters, when so many of them are just "simple nuts and bolts" kinds of people? Not to say that they're dumb - intelligence doesn't have anything to do with it - but just about everybody has something better to do than devote their interest to biology and evolution beyond what they half-remember from school.We're different, you and I. You, I, the people at this board. Our interest in the debate is an interest in the science. We have a responsibility to inform the public about true science, and that starts with learning the science, ourselves. Who else is going to do it?

While it is true that the image that gets to your brain is inverted (and the brain has to compensate) the point is that the light sensitive cells are behind other cell layers. Light is absorbed on its way to the light sensitive cells.There could be two reasons for this:Incompetent design, ora gradual meandering increase of functionality over time leaving at least one sub optimal funtion present because it works 'good enough'.Like Crash said, take a look at the eye's evolutionary progress. If you take an a priori creator out of the picture evolution does a dany job of building things that are 'good enough'. Edited by Larni, : No reason given.Edited by Larni, : No reason given.

This post is riddled with numerous PRATTs (points refuted a thousand times) all of which have been have been tackled on this very site. Here's how:-Evolution of the eye. You've proven nothing. All you have offered is a list of bare assertions and arguments from ignorance. You'll find that you have to do much better than that at EvC.

Let's clear this up. If scientists simulate the weather on a computer, this does not prove that God makes the thunder by shouting. If scientists simulate evolution on a computer, this does not prove that God made species appear by magic out of nowhere. If scientists simulate gravity on a computer, that does not prove that the planets are being pushed round by angels.Rather, these simulations prove the exact opposite: that no supernatural explanation is required.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

But this is simply untrue. A non-thinking source doesn't know anything. Can you not even pose the question without anthropomorphism? Blind faith is not required. Knowledge of the evidence is. Such as those intermediate forms to which you are, how shall I put this, "blind".Knowledge of the theory is also necessary. If you're still at the stage of asking "how would a non-thinking source even know that we needed to see to begin with?" you are "blind" to what the theory says. So, perfect roundness is a hallmark of design, is it?Did you ever notice that the arc of a rainbow is a segment of a perfect circle?I presume that you learnt why this is in school, but just to remind you, it's the result of physical laws, not God getting busy with a paintbrush. Or evolution.You are still at the stage of assuming the thing which you want to prove. If the only way I knew to produce the appearance of design was in fact design, then I should take your argument to be a valid one. As I know of lots of other processes which produce the appearance of design, I do not find your argument convincing.