theIPU

Illustrates the absurdity of the philosophy of Evolutionism. How could the eye evolve from its parts if half an eye is useless? The fronts reads: "Evolution is a dead end."

http://www.cafeshops.com/objectivemin.2017145

what's with this have to do with evolution?

Godot

Absolutely nothing. At least they can make some money off of their strawman.

BRO3886

I'll translate it for you

"We're stuck in a either-or mind-set which has developed out of our religious 'and God said "alakazaaam!!"' upbringing. This has left us too intellectually retarded to even consider the possibility that the eye may have evolved from simpler forms , and we are , instead going to create a strawman and make money out of.....er we mean make unfounded assertions about said strawman , therefore refuting a well supported and well accepted theory which says nothing remotely near what we claim it does."

Chiron

I heard from my dad (who originally received a link to their part about how Apple, as evidenced by the logo, is a tool of Satan) that OBJECTIVE was made by a guy who wanted to see how many hits he could get, or something like that. So he went and created http://crossspot.net/objective/ (the current, temporary site location, because the Lycos one was shut down "Due to anti-Christian forces working inside Lycos Inc.").

The guy may actually be serious, but it's easier to laugh if you think of it as a joke.

-Chiron

lpetrich

Actually, an eye does not originate from "half an eye", but from a lower-quality eye; that's the way that evolution works.

Duvenoy

Indeed. I wouldn't even call these 'proto' eyes lower quality, as they did what was required of them quite well. As the demands on them increased, they became more efficent to meet them.

It is interesting to note that a once sighted organism living in an enviornment that no longer requires sight, loses it. Blind cave fish, for example. Parallels can be found in birds, such as some species of grebes that have lived in isolation. They have lost need and therefore the ability to fly.

Evolution is working on us, too. Some individuals of our species seem to be losing the ability to think.

doov

Arikay

Whats even better is a creationist article uses the eyes of a trilobyte as an example of inteligent design.

When trilobytes also fall into that catagory, as some trilobytes found themselves living in deep water, they ended up losing their eyes as they were not needed anymore.

So apparently, the design is smarter than the creator (hmm, new definition for inteligent design).

scigirl

I'd check out Dawkins - I forget which book, but he dealt with this issue at length in one of them.

I'd point out that vision is not an all-or-none phenomenon. People who lose 50% of their visusal field via cataracts or glaucoma are not completely blind. Furthermore, humans don't have the best vision - eagles kick our ass. Just like with many biological systems, if you make one aspect of the system better, one of the other aspects is compromised.

I would like to see them define "perfect eye" since I can think of a few ways to make our eye even more efficient and better. For one thing, don't have it wired backwords. For another, make it so humans are better with near-sighted vision. I think scientists agree that our eyes were designed for a lot more far-sighted vision, and since we do a lot more near-sighted stuff, our eyes suffer for it. Dang, you think that if God created us for the purpose of worshipping his Glory and reading that Babble of his, he would have given us a better visual system to do so. Alas, it appears that we evolved this visual system in the ancestral environment, when we were doing much less reading.

scigirl

scombrid

We've got a list of design flaws floating around. Maybe we should start a list of "springless mousetraps"; a list of novel features that served some function other than their "designed" function or that worked fine as "half-assed" features but have improved.

Fish Gas Bladders:

Used for buoyancy and some fish produce sound with them in addition to the buoyancy use. Fish that don't produce sound with them get by just fine but fish like sciaenids use them when mating. Non-sound producers could be considered as having a half-assed gas bladder.

The gas bladders is just an outpouching of an esophagus. It works in fish that have to gulp air to inflate but most modern fish have a gas gland and rete mirabile that pull gas from the blood to regulate the inflation of the gas bladder. Fish without the gas gland and rete are tied to the surface while the others can live demersal lives if it suit them. Fish without gas glands could be considered as having a broken bladders but it still works for them.

Some physostomus (gas bladder maintains connection to esophasus) fish can gulp air to get O2 when DO gets too low for their gills to do the trick. Those fish probably share an ancestor with us as they've still got protolungs. It's a half-assed lung compared to ours but it gets the job done.

scombrid

You know, If it wouldn't benefit their retarded ministry that shirt would make a fantasitc gag gift.