The Evolution of the Eye. (page 2)

Judge Dread

But then presumably the designer of your camera isn't claiming to be an omniscient, omnipotent creator of the universe who demands worship.
JDW

notverylikely

Intelligence existed first before the camera (that's kinda my point).

So who created god?

Who decides if something is a flaw or not. People point to other living things that clearly have better eyesight than humans as proof "somehow" that God bungled human eye sight. To live my life I do not need eagle eye vision or radar sight or night vision - my eyes are just fine for me.

They are suggesting that if humans are the pinnacle of creation, it would seem odd that so many other creature have so many other superior features. Hardly proof of creation.

And design flaws are determined by "fundamentally not the best design". Of course, that presumes a designer.

Caedes

No - the designer is just an intelligent human (or group of humans) who design and construct cameras. If not for these humans digital cameras would not exist -or would they have evolved to? Intelligence existed first before the camera (that's kinda my point).

And the point I am making is that your analogy is flawed, if we were designed by a perfect omnipotent, omniscient god then why is the design so flawed? Natural 'designs' are not perfect, they are make do and mend. almost as if there was no intelligent thought process behind the 'design', almost as if the 'design' was an evolving iterative process that can't go back and correct mistakes. Unlike your hypothesis of intelligent design by a perfect being, which should be indicated by a lack of such flaws.

Who decides if something is a flaw or not. People point to other living things that clearly have better eyesight than humans as proof "somehow" that God bungled human eye sight. To live my life I do not need eagle eye vision or radar sight or night vision - my eyes are just fine for me.

The ones who survive long enough to reproduce, that is the filter for flaws. anything that stops you doing the former is filtered out. That is why your eyesight is sufficient to survive and no more. An intelligent perfect designer would have designed eyes that had the same working life as the rest of the body, not ones that start to fail just past puberty.

Judge dread,

Such an awesome comment there was nothing to add ehh?!

B-Rock

If God or some other omnipotent force was responsible for the human eye, it was something of a botched design

Judge Dread

Judge dread,
Such an awesome comment there was nothing to add ehh?!
Too much common sense for you, tiger lilly?
JDW

The Scotsman

Hey Caedes

You did not deny that my digital camera had a designer - in fact you stated that it definately did.

Now we will put the "human eye is a botched job argument" to once side for a moment.

I would wager that most people would agree that the human eye is more impressive than my cluncky 10 megapixel camera. Your view is that my inferior camera "definately" had a designer and yet tthe vastly more superior human eye did not - argument collapses.

As I said at the start - it is truly laughable that people actually believe wonderful, beautiful, detailed objects like the eye are the result of random processes. Of course the evolutionist community have got to attempt to explain the eye from a non creator perspective - but it seems to dig evolutionists into a deeper hole.

Anyway - no big deal - we agree to disagree.

The Scotsman -

notverylikely

I would wager that most people would agree that the human eye is more impressive than my cluncky 10 megapixel camera. Your view is that my inferior camera "definately" had a designer and yet tthe vastly more superior human eye did not - argument collapses.

It's irrelevant what most people think. The camera is inorganic, not self re-producing and isn't combing it's parts with another camera to make new models. Your analogy doesn't make sense and collapses.

As I said at the start - it is truly laughable that people actually believe wonderful, beautiful, detailed objects like the eye are the result of random processes.

They don't. Evolution is by no means random.

Of course the evolutionist community have got to attempt to explain the eye from a non creator perspective - but it seems to dig evolutionists into a deeper hole.

Very much like the question about who created God. He certainly is complex enough to require a designer.

The Scotsman

It's irrelevant what most people think. The camera is inorganic, not self re-producing and isn't combing it's parts with another camera to make new models. Your analogy doesn't make sense and collapses.

The argument makes perfect sense and by stating that a camera is inorganic is irrelevent - the camera exists because an intelligent being created it - simple really. If the intelligence was not there "first" we would have no camera.

Evolution is by no means random.

To deny the basic fact that the premise of evolution is in fact random processes does not help your argument. If not random - what is it? Controlled? If so - who / what is the controller?

If i pick up pots of paint and just through them at the canvas - THATS random. This will produce a very colourful canvas - but it is not going to be a portrait, or a landscape.

But if someone were to take some time, use brushes and use their talent they could produce beautiful artwork - same canvas, same paint - just not random. The key though is this - to produce the beautiful artwork requires understanding, tools and some talent BEFORE the painting is produced.

Anyway - I am breaking my own rule here - "never engage in a creation / evolution debate" - it is uttely pointless. You believe what you want and I will do the same.

notverylikely

The argument makes perfect sense and by stating that a camera is inorganic is irrelevent

Why is it irrelevant? Organic materials are known to be able to reproduce. Inorganic materials are not.

the camera exists because an intelligent being created it - simple really. If the intelligence was not there "first" we would have no camera.

Exactly. Some intelligence created the camera because it is an inorganic complex object that does not reproduce and can't recombine it's structure wiith other cameras or electronics. It has to be created. Life did not start out complex but has grown more complex. You are, of course, blurring abiogenesis and evolution, but that's ok.

To deny the basic fact that the premise of evolution is in fact random processes does not help your argument. If not random - what is it? Controlled? If so - who / what is the controller?

It's not random or controlled. It's a recominging and swapping of DNA through sucessive generations with traits that favor survival being retained and passed on to the sucessive generations. If the changes and combinations help something survive, that trait is retained. It's selection through survival.

If i pick up pots of paint and just through them at the canvas - THATS random. This will produce a very colourful canvas - but it is not going to be a portrait, or a landscape.

That's true. Evolution isn't painting, though. Nor is it random.

Anyway - I am breaking my own rule here - "never engage in a creation / evolution debate" - it is uttely pointless. You believe what you want and I will do the same.

I know. Learning it hard. It's easier to just believe what you want. Keep up the good work.

believingxjw

I have a question and if it's a stupid question please be patient because I'm not that studied on evolution.

"Every change had to confer a survival advantage, no matter how slight. Eventually, the light-sensitive spot evolved into a retina, the layer of cells and pigment at the back of the human eye. Over time a lens formed at the front of the eye. It could have arisen as a double-layered transparent tissue containing increasing amounts of liquid that gave it the convex curvature of the human eye."

My question: When sexual reproduction came about if I understand correctly both parents from the smallest sea life to the chimp contributed their share of DNA to the offspring. If at some point one small creature somehow made the step from a light-sentitive spot to the next important evolutionary step eventually leading to the eye wouldn't each step taken by animals that reproduced sexually genetically require the corresponding gene responsible for that change be found in the genetic material of both parents? And if so, what are the chances that at every step of the way there would be found two genetically changed individuals who would find one another and mate. And then their offspring, carrying that new step forward to again eventually take the next step and again mate with another individual of the same species who also had made the same step at the same point in their process of evolution?

How do evolutionary scientists explain this?

The Evolution of the Eye.

Share this