Why don't backwards wired eyes fit in an ID design model? I don't understand why this is a design flaw because presumably if it was then evolution wouldn't have done it in other words there mustn't be anything detrimental about or somewhere back in the eye developing process all it would take is a correctly wired version to massively outcompete the reverse wired model. The brain runs on a miniscule amount of energy considering what it does. Are we sure that the arrangement of the eye and its processing isn't meant to be that way?
Questions Surrounding Evolution
by The wanderer 43 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
stevenyc
Qcmbr: life as a self-replicating and information increasing and preserving mechanism
Could you expand on this? I'm not sure what you are referring too.
steve
-
Qcmbr
OK Satanus - while your designing the reason for existence (and I appreciate that you probably don't think its food but we can start from that) you need to determine what the point is. You've described how but not why. Why wouldn't you have death or pain? What would your designed world accomplish. How would you teach your creations anything (assuming this is part of your design) if you have nothing opposed to happiness, no loss, no 'bad' consequences?
-
Qcmbr
Hi Steven - I'm refering to DNA and genes that have progressed (according to evolutionary teaching) and gathered information including redundant backup systems from some basic self replicating strand of information.
-
Satanus
Qcmbr
Why wouldn't you have death or pain? What would your designed world accomplish. How would you teach your creations anything (assuming this is part of your design) if you have nothing opposed to happiness, no loss, no 'bad' consequences?
You are, of course thinking of humans. But, what about about the suffering of animals being eaten? What does the cow learn from being raised and nurtured by humans and then getting eaten by them? What does the little fish learn by being eaten by a bigger fish? The bacteria eaten by an ameaba or whatever?
Many humans are involved in attempting to reduce suffering of other humans and animals, alike. Apparently they are undoing the suffering built into a system designed by god. They prove themselves to be more humane than is god.
S
-
stevenyc
Qcmbr, would I be correct in interpreting your statement:
:::If this wasn't designed then there has been a magnificent coincidence between opportunity (this single solitary planet with exactly these conditions that exactly regulate themselves) and organisation intelligence (life as a self-replicating and information increasing and preserving mechanism.)
As this: If this wasn't designed then there has been a magnificent coincidence between the environmental conditions for life on the planet and the progression of genetic complexity starting from some basic self replicating strand of amino acids in a protein.
steve
-
Qcmbr
Sure Steven. I find the aggregation of information by dna and genetic material absolutely incredible and an example of perfect design - a systm of storing information in temporary storage, passing that information on while gathering new information about the environment, sorting it, discarding the useless, storing the potentially useful and utilising a switching mechanism to select different bits of information to turn on and off during the life of a single organism and also over the span of the species. The selection of that information is alongside a set of external rules that have no corrolary in the biological world and these are:
1/ Pass on the stored information (there are no non-biological systems in the universe that we(I?) know of that obey this law bar things we have actually built - in fact on a galactic scale black holes seem to theoretically erase information before popping cleaned matter back out)
2/ Seek to consciously live and unconsciously die (short term selfish survival against long term suicidal aging)
3/ Seek symbiotic relationships either with similar information or useful but unrelated information carriers (sex through to mitochondria and the cell)
4/To seek consciousness (us)- there has been an inexorable progression of less and less effecient systems as though the end goal was always the main goal (in other words the cost to pass on information for a complex organism is huge and inefficient until you achieve consciousness through evolution at which point the advantage becomes worth the past billion years) If consciousness and hence the ability to process information at an incredible level - we can conceive another dimension(time) - is also just another happy coincidence of the inexorable nature of evolution then we have something arguably much more significany and fortuitous than the first life form containing fortunate information that is encoded to keep going.
You can bite my nutt(hehe I spotted this already posted typo but it made me giggle I meant butt!!) all you like and quote scientists to 'prove' all this as cr*p but that beloved Occam's razor points to design for me at each and every step of the way.
-
AlmostAtheist
>>Why don't backwards wired eyes fit in an ID design model?
Because it's bad design. If an intelligent person had designed the human eye, he would have wired it like the other creature's eyes, so that light had the fullest possible exposure to the light receptors.
Evolution isn't intelligent, it just selects from what's available. Since the eye is still functional as it is, even if a human were born with properly-wired eyes, it wouldn't make much difference. Evolution's "design" is "good enough". But a god wouldn't be satisfied with that, would he? Especially if an obviously better design existed?
Dave
-
Abaddon
Hi QC, how's life?
Sure Steven. I find the aggregation of information by dna and genetic material absolutely incredible and an example of perfect design - a systm of storing information in temporary storage, passing that information on while gathering new information about the environment, sorting it, discarding the useless, storing the potentially useful and utilising a switching mechanism to select different bits of information to turn on and off during the life of a single organism and also over the span of the species.
It is also the logical nature of a system of inheritance that would develop under evolution by natural selection, as sytems of inhertance that were not so suitable for an idealised system of inheritance would have less inhertants, quand erat demonthingdom.
If we say (for the sake of argument) an idealised system of inheritance would exist EITHER by design OR as this is the one you would logicaly find in any 1,000 of millions year old macro-ecosystem, then we have to look at the likihood of the preconditions of each of those cases existing.
Excluding special pleading and magical thinking (my daughter was a great one at special pleading for the existence of fairies, as she maintained (with great determination) a conceit they DID long after she knew they didn't), we have;
A: The God-did-it hypothesis;
- The existence of a complex entity that must have needed and equally complicated designer, reducio ad absurdo
- The existence of a complex entity arrived at by naturalistic abogenesis and evolution.
B: The Abio hypothesis;
- Things are as they are because of naturalistic abogenesis and evolution.
A both A2 and B1 require the same process to take place, we can assume their probability is the same.
The probability of A1 is determined by calculating the liklihood of an infinate train of complex designers. This is incalculable and total speculation.
<aybe in the next twenty years we'll have figured out how abiogensis happened. That would mean a pretty accurate theory of abiogensis and evolution will have taken less than 200 years to develop.
Religion has had 200,000 years (or 6,000 or so, whatever) and still has not a chance of developing a theory of god.
I feel B1 and A2 are far more likely than A1. You don't, It's a wonderful world.
The selection of that information is alongside a set of external rules that have no corrolary in the biological world and these are:
1/ Pass on the stored information (there are no non-biological systems in the universe that we(I?) know of that obey this law bar things we have actually built - in fact on a galactic scale black holes seem to theoretically erase information before popping cleaned matter back out)
2/ Seek to consciously live and unconsciously die (short term selfish survival against long term suicidal aging)
3/ Seek symbiotic relationships either with similar information or useful but unrelated information carriers (sex through to mitochondria and the cell)
4/To seek consciousness (us)- there has been an inexorable progression of less and less effecient systems as though the end goal was always the main goal (in other words the cost to pass on information for a complex organism is huge and inefficient until you achieve consciousness through evolution at which point the advantage becomes worth the past billion years) If consciousness and hence the ability to process information at an incredible level - we can conceive another dimension(time) - is also just another happy coincidence of the inexorable nature of evolution then we have something arguably much more significany and fortuitous than the first life form containing fortunate information that is encoded to keep going.
You can bite my nutt all you like and quote scientists to 'prove' all this as cr*p but that beloved occam's razor points to design for me at each and every step of the way.
-
stevenyc
Qcmbr: I'm not going to bite your nutt or anything. You are obviously a bright person who enjoys dialog. We both can learn a thing you two from each other I'm sure.
I've got to make dinner now, but I will respond to your comments soon. In the mean time can you expand on point 3, as when I asked for clarification before I thought by information you were referring to genetic information not personal 'conscience' information.
steve