|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1479 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evidence of design .... ? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1479 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
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 severalsuggestions for how the eye could have developed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Number_19 says:
quote: 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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pogo Inactive Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Pogo asks of me:
quote: Jesus Would Read The F'in Manual. RTFM is an old joke among tech support types. ------------------Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pogo Inactive Member |
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: |
...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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MrHambre Member (Idle past 1393 days) Posts: 1495 From: Framingham, MA, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
King Crimson Inactive Member |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MrHambre Member (Idle past 1393 days) Posts: 1495 From: Framingham, MA, USA Joined: |
quote: At least it's still going somewhere, unlike your argument.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
King Crimson Inactive Member |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
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).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
delete duplicate
[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 06-29-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
King Crimson Inactive Member |
quote: In exactly what way is the analogy off base? Because cars don’t reproduce themselves, we cannot identify flaws in car design?
quote: You miss the point.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
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?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024