peer reviewed-int. design?

Richard Dawkins covers eye design in his book "The Blind Watchmaker" - see chapter 4 (p77 in paperback edition)also see:
Evolution: Library: Evolution of the Eyeenjoy.

ok[This message has been edited by AbbyLeever, 03-15-2004]

ROFLOL(1) behe is not credible, as has been shown on many occasions.
(2) this is just a statement on your part. details some of the specifics please. perhaps you can explain what you mean by "gross anatomy" -- parts of the body that you find gross?what I see is a listing of various stepsvolve an eye without the need to do it "all at once" complete with needed to e examples of current organisms with similar functions. This not only lays out a path of evolution but shows actual examples along the path.I have the feeling that "gross anatomy" would still be the complaint if every single little evolutionary step was shown to exist in related species of one genera, somthing that obviously is not needed to show that the claim of "irreducible complexity" is hogwash in this case: every single existing working eye along the ladder of evolution is a refutation of the claim that the eye needs to be evolved all at once.Notice in particular the Nautilus eye -- without a lens: like a pin-hole camera, but otherwise very similar to the human eye ... except for one minor(?) difference of a better arrangement of the retina and the optical nerves: know what it is?Notice also that the webpage referenced is not Dawkins but PBS info with a video clip, information that is not covered by Behe's bombast.care to give more than opinion?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

there have been whole topics on the lack of credibility of Behe, go find them. In otherwords, denial. I notice you did not answer the question, no small surprise.The concept is called "Irreducible Complexity" because it is supposed to be something that cannot operate without all the parts co-evolved at one time. The undeniable fact that there are hundreds of different eyes that are credible intermediate stages in existence in the real world and that they function perfectly well for their needs means that the eye is not irreducibly complex. That is all that needs to be shown to blow Behe's use of the eye out of the water, and any denial of it is just chest puffing bravado void of any reason.One intermediate example is enough to disprove the concept. That is how science works. Facts are just a bit more than opinion when it comes to things like this.Sorry, the loss of credibility is yours (oh, and by extension, Behe's, again).Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This is the part of the argument where you are supposed to keep going.Either (A) concede that the eye is not an irreducibly complex structure or (B) show where the irreducability remains, noting that each part of the eye can be removed in a certain order to become similar to an existing eye in another species.This argument of "Gross Anatomy" is a faulty smoke screen for the reason that it is the claim of IC that gross anatomical parts cannot be removed and still have a functioning organ.Balls in your court.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

I've seen your "trash talk" on other topics, so let me see if I can spell this out in terms you will feel are intellectually stimulating enough for you to deem appropriate to answer:

• Behe says the eye is "irreducibly complex" (IC) and defines IC as something that cannot have anything removed from it and still operate.
• In other words if you remove the lens of the eye it won't operate as an eye.
• Dawkins has listed a number of different species with eyes in various stages of development from light sensitive patch to a very complex organ.
• In other words the Nautilus eye functions perfectly well and it doesn't have a lens, ergo the eye with a lens is not irreducibly complex.
• Each of the other examples cover similar stages of development of a complex type of eye.
• Behe says this is an argument from "Gross Anatomy" (and you think this is a valid rebuttal).
• You say "Gross anatomy means that the details are missing, and deflect the argument to evolution saying that "you haven't the evidence to substantiate that claim."
• This specific argument is not about the evolution of the eye but about the concept of "irreducible complexity" -- thus removing substantial elements of the eye and still having a functioning vision system is an appropriate rebuttal of the IC eye concept, specifically if they are "gross anatomy" elements.

In other words elements of "gross anatomy" used to disprove the concept of IC is just the kind of disproof that should be used rather than secondary features (like eye lashes or nictating membranes).Now you have three alternatives:(1) acknowledge that the eye is not an irreducibly complex organ.(2) keep telling yourself that you are right and others just don't understand, and it is too much work to enlighten them (this is also known as the "declare victory and run from the field"(3) explain how one could possibly look at intermediate stages that are all known viable vision systems for the various species involved and still think that the eye is an example of an irreducibly complex organ.I'm betting on door #2Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

I thought it was him, but I could be mistaken.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

hmmm ... sounds like god of the gaps thinking ...Studies of light exposure as a way to adjust people to different time zones or work schedules have found that exposing the backside of the knee joint to sunlight helps shift the body processes.The conclusion was that these cells are sensitive to sunlight.Anyone that sunbathes knows that you can feel not only the heat but the effect of too much UV light ... even before you get burned by it.For evolutionists it is easy to understand that once a system is available, and where improvement of that system increases survival, that it will undergo development to improve the system.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

PaxB, Pax6, pax vobiscum ... Looks like significant overlap and indicates a common Pax anscestor in both lineages -- perhaps used for a different purpose and co-opted into eye production by independant evolution (as suggested) or related to more primative sensitivity to light (light sensitive skin?)interesting, thanks.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}