Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evidence of design .... ?
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 16 of 52 (44302)
06-26-2003 7:05 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Number_ 19
06-26-2003 5:35 AM


In case you weren't joking .... no-one says that's how
evolution of the eye (or anything else for that matter)
happened.
Do a web-search and you will doubtless find several
suggestions for how the eye could have developed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Number_ 19, posted 06-26-2003 5:35 AM Number_ 19 has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 17 of 52 (44304)
06-26-2003 7:29 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Number_ 19
06-26-2003 5:35 AM


Number_19 says:
quote:
The eyeball can't be explained by evolution because there is no way these parts could have been laying around then suddenly combine.
Um, nobody says that the eye evolved by taking a lens that was just sitting around doing nothing and sticking it in front of a retina that had no function until the rest of the eye showed up.
Instead, vision evolved from slowly building up structure. The most primitive eyes are simply photosensitive spots. There are organisms today that have just that. A little spot that has some photo-sensitive pigments in it.
Now, this isn't very sophisticated. All it will tell you is when it is bright and when it is dark. But if the alternative is absolutely no sight at all, it's a vast improvement.
So what if this photosensitive spot were in a recessed area? That would give some more directionality. You could tell when things were bright in a specific direction. Again, we still don't have a very sophisticated system, but it's better than what came before. And again, there are creatures living today whose eyes are just like this: Photosensitive spots set in recesses.
We can eventually close off this depression and we get a pinhole camera. Suddenly, we can actually focus the light. And again, there are creatures alive today with eyes just like this.
Keep slowly building up the system and eventually you end up with eyes that have irises and lenses and retinas.
For more information, see here:
Evolution: Library: Evolution of the Eye
Of course, there is a problem: If eyes were designed, why did we get the crappy model that has an inside-out retina? In mammalian eyes, the photosensitive layer is behind the nerve layer. Thus, in order to see something, light has to pass through a layer of cells. This results in a loss of acuity: You lose photons that are striking cells that don't react to them. You'll need more light and even so, you'll never get as much accuracy. Think of how fuzzy things look when looking through a piece of sheer fabric. Well, that's how your eyes actually are...you just don't notice it.
Too, by having the nerve layer in front of the photosensitive layer, the nerves have to actually pierce the photosensitive layer, thus creating a blind spot.
Cephalopoid eyes, on the other hand, don't have this problem. The photosensitive layer is in front of the optic nerve. Thus, they don't suffer from the "through gauze" effect nor do they have a blind spot.
So if eyes were designed, can I get mine returned for the newer model?
------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Number_ 19, posted 06-26-2003 5:35 AM Number_ 19 has not replied

  
Pogo
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 52 (44334)
06-26-2003 10:44 AM


Eyes seem to be quite flawed
I have to agree with Rrhain; I have myopia (nearsightedness) and I would think that if I were designed by anybody that I would have at least better vision than I presently have. As far as flaws in the human body, such as our incredibly weak skin, fixed position of our ears, slow regenerative rates(if at all, depending on the wound) and the total vuneralbility of our internal organs, I would think that we are at best, an experiment if we were designed at all.
Hey, Rrhain; what does JWRTFM mean?
Just curious
Tim

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Rrhain, posted 06-27-2003 1:14 AM Pogo has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 19 of 52 (44408)
06-27-2003 1:14 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Pogo
06-26-2003 10:44 AM


Re: Eyes seem to be quite flawed
Pogo asks of me:
quote:
Hey, Rrhain; what does JWRTFM mean?
Jesus Would Read The F'in Manual.
RTFM is an old joke among tech support types.
------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Pogo, posted 06-26-2003 10:44 AM Pogo has not replied

  
Pogo
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 52 (44464)
06-27-2003 1:18 PM


Yeah, I thought it was something like that. Being in tech support, that has become my mantra.

  
DBlevins
Member (Idle past 3776 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


Message 21 of 52 (44510)
06-28-2003 3:07 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Peter
02-12-2003 1:51 AM


...such as a Panda's thumb. Not really a thumb at all but a wrist bone that has been modified by evolution. It serves its function but I would think a designer would just be kind and give the Panda another finger/thumb. Another clue that God has a sick sense of humor.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Peter, posted 02-12-2003 1:51 AM Peter has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by MrHambre, posted 06-28-2003 10:34 AM DBlevins has not replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1393 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 22 of 52 (44523)
06-28-2003 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by DBlevins
06-28-2003 3:07 AM


Behe even mentioned the panda's thumb in 'Darwin's Black Box,' and tried to counter a lot of the arguments in the pop-science literature concerning sub-optimal design. What it boiled down to was that we know how to detect Design because we know how a Designer would design something, but we can't be sure how the Designer wouldn't design something.
If I understand this correctly (and I'm not saying I do), it's saying that only Intelligent Design Creationists are allowed to assume the Designer's intentions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by DBlevins, posted 06-28-2003 3:07 AM DBlevins has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Peter, posted 06-30-2003 9:54 AM MrHambre has not replied

  
King Crimson
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 52 (44608)
06-29-2003 10:58 AM


quote:
As far as flaws in the human body, such as our incredibly weak skin, fixed position of our ears, slow regenerative rates(if at all, depending on the wound) and the total vuneralbility of our internal organs, I would think that we are at best, an experiment if we were designed at all.
You got a point. In fact, I now understand why my car is at best, an experiment. That is, if it was designed at all.
The body of my car is incredibly weak. The most common speed limit I encounter is 35 mph. Yet if I hit a telephone pole at this speed, my car does not bounce off it. It folds, pops, and crumbles.
Fixed positions? Yep, everything is essentially fixed. Headlights, for example.
Slow regenerative rates? Hell, the human body has my car beat. It can’t regenerate at all. I have to buy new freakin’ parts!
Vulnerability? I have had enough flat tires to know how totally vulnerable that part of my car is.
The flaws in my car are everywhere.

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by MrHambre, posted 06-29-2003 11:38 AM King Crimson has not replied
 Message 25 by NosyNed, posted 06-29-2003 12:05 PM King Crimson has not replied
 Message 31 by Peter, posted 06-30-2003 9:52 AM King Crimson has not replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1393 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 24 of 52 (44609)
06-29-2003 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by King Crimson
06-29-2003 10:58 AM


quote:
The flaws in my car are everywhere.
At least it's still going somewhere, unlike your argument.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by King Crimson, posted 06-29-2003 10:58 AM King Crimson has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 25 of 52 (44611)
06-29-2003 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by King Crimson
06-29-2003 10:58 AM


Ah, you're using the car as something designed and thinking that it is a good analogy for a living thing.
Did it occur to you that there is a very large difference between animals and cars? What might that difference be? Care to guess. There is a specific difference which invalidates that kind of anaology completely.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by King Crimson, posted 06-29-2003 10:58 AM King Crimson has not replied

  
King Crimson
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 52 (44615)
06-29-2003 12:38 PM


quote:
Did it occur to you that there is a very large difference between animals and cars? What might that difference be? Care to guess.
Let me guess. Animals reproduce themselves and cars do not? That’s a design flaw of the car. Cars are completely dependent on extrinsic agents to fuel them, clean them, use them, fix them, and bring them into existence. Compared to an animal, a car is a kludge.
Then again, I suppose what constitutes a flaw depends on one’s idealistic expectations.
Take the incredibly weak skin. When it comes to serving as a barrier to water, UV light, and infectious organisms, the skin is not incredibly weak. Yet, when it comes to bullets and knifes, the skin is incredibly weak. Are we arguing that the skin should be strong enough to repel bullets?
The problem with the flaw argument is that it has a built-in moving goalpost. Let’s say we fix the flaws in Pogo’s list. Someone will eventually come along and find ways in which the improvements are not good enough or point to other flaws. Because no matter how well you make the system, there is one flaw that serves as the ultimate escape-hatch: the body eventually dies. In other words, the only way around the flaw argument is to propose that a designer should build perfect, immortal bodies.

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by NosyNed, posted 06-29-2003 2:40 PM King Crimson has not replied
 Message 28 by NosyNed, posted 06-29-2003 2:41 PM King Crimson has not replied
 Message 29 by King Crimson, posted 06-29-2003 3:00 PM King Crimson has not replied
 Message 33 by Peter, posted 06-30-2003 10:00 AM King Crimson has replied
 Message 34 by MrHambre, posted 06-30-2003 10:27 AM King Crimson has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 27 of 52 (44619)
06-29-2003 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by King Crimson
06-29-2003 12:38 PM


Let me guess. Animals reproduce themselves and cars do not? That’s a design flaw of the car.
That's it! Good going.
However, you miss the point. It isn't a design flaw of the car I'm talking about. It is what makes the analogy totally off base.
It's the imperfect reproduction with selection which can produce a form of design (just not "intelligent" design).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by King Crimson, posted 06-29-2003 12:38 PM King Crimson has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 28 of 52 (44620)
06-29-2003 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by King Crimson
06-29-2003 12:38 PM


delete duplicate
[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 06-29-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by King Crimson, posted 06-29-2003 12:38 PM King Crimson has not replied

  
King Crimson
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 52 (44621)
06-29-2003 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by King Crimson
06-29-2003 12:38 PM


quote:
However, you miss the point. It isn't a design flaw of the car I'm talking about. It is what makes the analogy totally off base.
In exactly what way is the analogy off base? Because cars don’t reproduce themselves, we cannot identify flaws in car design?
quote:
It's the imperfect reproduction with selection which can produce a form of design (just not "intelligent" design).
You miss the point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by King Crimson, posted 06-29-2003 12:38 PM King Crimson has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by NosyNed, posted 06-29-2003 3:50 PM King Crimson has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 30 of 52 (44623)
06-29-2003 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by King Crimson
06-29-2003 3:00 PM


In exactly what way is the analogy off base? Because cars don’t reproduce themselves, we cannot identify flaws in car design?
It isn't the flaws I'm talking about. It's useing a manufactured thing (flawed or not) as an analogy to talk about a reproducing thing. I guess I was guessing that was what you were on about when you suddenly brought the car up.
We were talking about the kind of thing you might expect out of an "intelligent" design process and one out of an evolutionary process. There the difference between a car and a body is pretty large. The car is a better design in the engineered sense. For example, it leaves out unnessary parts and is very simple over all.
However a car would be a lousy starting point for an evolutionary process even if it did reproduce. It doesn't have enough complexity or any redundancy to allow the process to work well.
You miss the point.
What point do I miss?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by King Crimson, posted 06-29-2003 3:00 PM King Crimson has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024