“”“ Asa Gray, a famous Harvard botany professor, who was to become a leading advocate of theistic evolution, wrote Darwin expressing doubt that natural processes could explain the formation of complex organs such as the eye. Darwin expressed a similar concern in his return letter of February 1860.
The eye to this day gives me a cold shudder, but when I think of the fine known gradations [available through millions of years of evolution], my reason tells me I ought to conquer the cold shudder. Charles Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. 2, editor Francis Darwin (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1899), pp. 66––67.
And yet, Darwin admitted that
““To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.”” Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 75.
Darwin then proceeded to speculate on how the eye might nevertheless have evolved. However, no evidence was given. Later, he explained how his theory could be falsified.
If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 179.
““The eye, as one of the most complex organs, has been the symbol and archetype of his [Darwin’’s] dilemma. Since the eye is obviously of no use at all except in its final, complete form, how could natural selection have functioned in those initial stages of its evolution when the variations had no possible survival value? No single variation, indeed no single part, being of any use without every other, and natural selection presuming no knowledge of the ultimate end or purpose of the organ, the criterion of utility, or survival, would seem to be irrelevant. And there are other equally provoking examples of organs and processes which seem to defy natural selection. Biochemistry provides the case of chemical synthesis built up in several stages, of which the intermediate substance formed at any one stage is of no value at all, and only the end product, the final elaborate and delicate machinery, is useful——and not only useful but vital to life. How can selection, knowing nothing of the end or final purpose of this process, function when the only test is precisely that end or final purpose?”” Gertrude Himmelfarb, Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution (Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1959), pp. 320––321.
““Of what possible use are the imperfect incipient stages of useful structures? What good is half a jaw or half a wing?”” Stephen Jay Gould, ““The Return of Hopeful Monsters,”” Natural History, Vol. 86, June––July 1977, p. 23. “”“”“”
Darwin "shudder(s)" at the Design o...
by Escargot 30 Replies latest jw friends
-
Escargot
-
Lionel_P_Hartley
Escargot,
That is a typically dishonest CS tactic, although you do say that Darwin "went on to speculate," but why not let him speak for himself. Are you worried about using Simon's disk space up?
To suppose that the eye [...] could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.
[Let's look at the rest]
When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but
the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous
gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor,
as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case and if such
variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye
could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.In that context Darwin's words are perfectly sensible.
-
Escargot
These are Darwin own words! nice try..............How about some substance?
-
Simon
small simple organisms exist that don't have eyes but very simple sensors that can detect light. If this gives them an advantage in their environment ie. the ones that can sense light better increase their chance of survival then these charcteristics will be passed on and continue to develop. There are numerous creatures with all sorts of vision ranging from very simple to very complex. We're probably not the most complex as eagles can see further and there is sea life that have a cross hair type vision but our eyesight is ideal for our environment.
Of course no creature develops 'half a wing'. That is rediculous - each creature must be viable in it's own right and is never really a stepping stone to anything else at the time. There is clear fossil evidence that limbs, wings etc developed over time and gradually became increasingly complex.
I guess what you are saying is that the single most advanced life form ever came first (or just 'was always here') and then made simpler stuff? That sounds a lot more incredible than the gradual development of evolution to me.
-
Escargot
"""""After Darwin published The Origin of Species in 1859, many came to believe that all forms of life had a common ancestor. Those who believed that over long periods of time molecules had turned into man thought that the “evolutionary tree” had only a few gaps, which would be filled as scientific knowledge increased. Just the opposite has happened. As science has progressed, obvious “missing links” in this hypothetical tree have multiplied enormously, and the difficulties in “bridging” these gaps have become even more apparent. For example, in Darwin’s day, all life fell into two categories (or kingdoms): animals and plants. Today we know life falls into five radically different kingdoms, only two of which are animals and plants. This, of course, does not include viruses, which are complex and unique in their own way. In the 1800s, the animal kingdom was divided into four animal phyla; today there are about forty.
Darwin suggested that the first living creature evolved in a “warm little pond.” Today, most evolutionary biologists will admit in private that science has no explanation for how life evolved. However, a few recent writers have imagined that life arose in an “organic soup”—a more sophisticated sounding but equally vague version of Darwin’s warm pond. We now know that the chance formation of the first living cell is a leap of gigantic proportions, vastly more improbable than the evolution of bacteria into humans. In Darwin’s day, a cell was thought to be about as simple as a ping-pong ball. Even today, most evolutionists think of bacteria as simple—one of the first forms of life to evolve. However, bacteria are marvelously integrated and complex manufacturing plants with many mysteries, such as bacterial motors, yet to be understood. Furthermore, cells come in two radically different types—those with a nucleus and those without. The evolutionary leap from one to the other is staggering to imagine.
The more evolutionists learn about life, the greater complexity they find. A century ago there were no sophisticated microscopes. Consequently, theorized leaps from single to multiple-cell organisms were underestimated. Development of the computer has also given us a partial appreciation of the vast electronics, extreme miniaturization, and storage capabilities of the brain. The human eye, which Darwin admitted made him shudder (see item 9b on page 52), was only a single jump in complexity. We now know there are at least a dozen radically different kinds of eyes, each requiring similar jumps if evolution happened. Likewise, the literal leap we call “flight” must have evolved not once, but on at least four different occasions: for certain birds, insects, mammals, and reptiles. Fireflies have a lighting system, called bioluminescence, that does not produce heat. Many other species, including fish, crustaceans, squids, plants, bacteria, and fungi, also have lighting systems. Did these remarkable capabilities all evolve independently?
Until recently, it was thought that sunlight provided the energy for all life. We now know that complex organisms, living at widely separated locations on the dark ocean floor, use only chemical and thermal energy. For one energy-conversion system to evolve into another would be like changing a home’s heating system from gas to electricity by thousands of rare accidents—but slowly, one accident each year. The occupants risk freezing each winter. Furthermore, surviving on the ocean floor without solar energy—an unexplained capability—would need to evolve several times in different oceans.
Many other giant leaps must have also occurred if evolution happened: the first photosynthesis, cold-blooded to warm-blooded animals, floating marine plants to vascular plants, placental mammals to marsupials, egg-laying animals to animals that bear live young, insect metamorphosis, the transition of mammals to the sea (whales, dolphins, porpoises, seals, sea lions, and sea cows), the transition of reptiles to the sea (plesiosaurs, ichthyosaurs), and on and on.
Gaps in the fossil record are well known. A century ago evolutionists argued that these gaps would be filled as knowledge increased. Most paleontologists now admit this prediction failed. Of course, the most famous “missing link” is between man and apes. However, the term is deceiving. There would be not one intermediate link, but thousands, if the evolutionary tree were to connect man and apes with their many linguistic, social, mental, and physical differences.
Scientific advancements have shown us that evolution is an even more ridiculous theory than it seemed in Darwin’s day. It is a theory without a mechanism. Not even appeals to long periods of time will allow simple organisms to “jump gaps” and become more complex and viable. In fact, as the next section will show, long periods of time make such leaps even less likely. All the breeding experiments, which many hoped would show macroevolution, have failed. The arguments used by Darwin and his followers are now discredited or, at best, in dispute, even among evolutionists. Finally, research in the last several decades has shown that the requirements for life are incredibly complex. Just the design that most people can see around them obviously implies a designer. Nevertheless, evolutionists still argue against this design by, oddly enough, using arguments which they spent a great deal of time designing. The theory of organic evolution is invalid. """""
-
Simon
Darwin's words are the substance and that is the point. Creationists always seem to make very selective quotes to prove their weak arguments. The way you quoted Darwin is exactly the same as the WTS does in the Creation book.
-
JanH
Escargot, this is a classic misquotation of Darwin. The WTS abused it in the same way. Thanks for demonstrating your gross dishonesty.
- Jan
--
"Doctor how can you diagnose someone with Obsessive Compulsive Disorder and then act like I had some choice about barging in here right now?" -- As Good As It Gets -
Lionel_P_Hartley
Escargot,
I forgot that you have no abilities at comprehension. Dawrin is saying - Just as it once seemed ridiculous to think that the Sun did not orbit the Earth, so too, it seems equally ridiculous to think that the eye could evolve. In fact, deeper consideration shows that both things, though not superficially obvious, are in fact the case. It just goes to show that what seems obvious is not only correct - do you get it now?
Or should I try it again using only words containing two syllables or less?
-
Escargot
"classic misquotation of Darwin"
No mis quote here, he did write it.............SORRY, LET THE READER THINK FOR HIMSELF.
-
Simon
It seems that creationists continually harp on about the absence of a 'missing link' whereas there are numerous examples that have been found.
Of course their will be gaps in the fossil record - the chance of something being preserved and found is extremely rare which is why despite the miliions and millions and millions of creatures that have ever walked, swam or flown this planet there are a very small number of specimens.
What has been found though tells a fascinating story and unfortunately, like so many 'modern' discoveries, doesn't tally with the bible story of superstition and magic which was written before these things were known - further proof that it can not be divinely inspired as surely god would have knowledge of such things?