Shadow Wraith

I don't have time for a whole post, so I'll just do a quick post.

I could ask some of the same questions to you. How did 6 billion humans come from 2? Wouldn't the inbreeding have destroyed the gene pool withing a very short time? Evolution doesn't state something came from nothing. Actually, it explains the development of life, not its origins. Life develops gradually, optimizing and adapting itself over long periods. Question: How could God get there if he existed forever? Riddle me that? And the same theists criticize the idea of an infinite universe. HAH! Study your science books before you blast a theory kid.

Coragyps

Oh oh. David, I don't think you should have quoted that little piece about the eye by Mr Darwin. Do you know what a rhetorical question is? If not, you will very soon.

Vorkosigan

To suppose the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.

David, Darwin is posing rhetorical question here, which he answers that nevertheless, the eye did evolve, just like all other complex organs.


Here is what he actually said:
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. 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.

This is a common creationist out-of-context quote, and one we're a little tired of hearing. You should get in the habit of searching the net whenever you see a creationist quoting Dawkins, Darwin, Gould, Mayr and other evolutionary thinkers. All of them are blatant misquotes. What we call "lies" in ordinary usage.

In your post above you list many of the amazing evolved traits of the eye, including the tremors. You seem to be making an argument from incredulity -- basically, it seems "incredible" that this could have evolved. Actually, this is a very weak argument, since as far as anyone knows, all organs of every species of plant and animal evolved. There are no known exceptions, except in the biotechnology industry.

So instead of complaining that it seems amazing that it evolved, you have to come up with an argument to support your claim. You have to show how the eye could not have evolved. Since we know of thousands of different kinds of eyes, from the advanced eyes of squids to mere photoreceptors in microscopic animals, this will be difficult.

Further, with respect to the human eye, you will have to answer some very fundamental questions. For example, if the eye is designed, why do the nerves and blood vessels create a blind spot? Why does the eye take in images upside down, forcing the brain to take an extra step in processing them? Why can't we see as well as other animals, such as hawks or cats (wouldn't you have given us a more powerful eye?) Why can't we see into the ultraviolet and infrared, like some animals (wouldn't you have given us a greater capability?). Why do so many people haev inherited eye problems (why couldn't the eye have been made better?) There is no answer to those questions; all you can do is maintain that the Designer gave us what it thought we needed, which is pointless. But to those of us who look at the question more objectively, it is obvious that the Designer was both stupid and stingy. In fact, the Designer behaved just like an evolutionary process.

Michael

Major Billy

It seems to me that bees, with their compound eyes, are able to find flowers just fine without "tremors, drifts and saccades".

Major Billy

BTW, it's considered rude to <a href="http://www.csinfo.org/eye.htm" target="_blank">copy another person's website</a> without giving proper credit.

[ January 08, 2002: Message edited by: Major Billy ]</p>

Major Billy

[ January 08, 2002: Message edited by: Major Billy ]</p>

Major Billy

[ January 08, 2002: Message edited by: Major Billy ]</p>

Paul Case

The Adam and Eve myth is SO lame.

Tinman

DavidH,

You have my deepest respect for staying with this discussion when lesser mortals would have ignored the answers or fled.

Tinman

RufusAtticus

DavidH,

Yes, human eyes are not simple organs. But you cannot argue based on this fact alone that they could not have been designed by organic evolution. Eyes are determined by genetics. Since the modern synthesis there is no question that an observed, inheirtable feature is the result of descent with modification, aka evolution. You have a large moutain of biology to climb before you even approach overturning that one. You should pick up a copy of the PBS/BBC series "Evolution." There is a segment devoted to eye evolution which is very interesting.

With regards to the vitamin C gene:
It is a knock-out mutation due to a point mutation. The gene produces a shortened protein sequence that is completely useless. Viral infection does not cause this type of mutation. This mutation occured in one of our ancestors. This ancestor acquired enough vitamin C from its diet to survive with no ill effects. This mutation was thus neutral. By chance (drift) or possibly by linkage with another gene, this mutation allele became fixed in an ancestral population. This population eventually speciated into humans, chimps, and gorillas, and these species took the broken copy of the allele with them. Guinea pigs also have a "broken" vitamin C gene, but from a different mutation.

Also note that the same virus, can affect both humans and the other apes specifically because we are related.

Final questions: What is your background in (evolutionary) biology (classes, degrees, directed research)? What makes you think that you can provide worthwhile critisms of evolutionary biology?

-RvFvS