Writer@Large

No, you didn't. You put *half* of what Darwin said about the eye, either purposely omitting (or parroting someone who purposely omitted) the part that refutes you. And you've already been corrected. Don't play the innocent; you were wrong and you've been called on it.

Sorry, I'll go back to quietly reading now ...

--W@L

Arrowman

In other words, you have read "Origin" (or at least the relevant part), and derived this quote yourself.

(I don't actually believe that; I am quite sure you copied the quote from a creationist source but you're the one claiming responsibility.)

It is you, therefore, not a creationist source, who is responsible for the misrepresentation. You are being dishonest, and not misled by your sources.

Your error/dishonesty has been pointed out to you by several posters, and the sum total of your response is the words I quote above.

In that case, how about acknowledging the misrepresentation, which has been pointed out to you? How about showing you understand the meaning of the term "rhetorical question"? How about being honest, for crying out loud?

You claim to be reading the references being given to you, but when on this board you make a simple error and it is pointed out to you, you refuse to acknowledge it. How can we possibly believe that you are actually reading, let alone understanding, the material being pointed out to you?

This is I suppose a pretty good measure of whether someone (creationist) is worth debating. If they use "Darwin's Eye" and then ignore or debate the rebuttal, then they're either terminally dishonest or terminally stupid.

Come to think of it, I don't think I've ever seen any creationist accept the rebuttal of "Darwin's Eye". I should be able to draw a conclusion from that....

hyzer

davidH:

“Just want some straight answers that's all.”

Answers, in the form of informative links and clear explanations, have been given. Are you using some definition of ‘straight’ that I am unaware of? If you’re not satisfied go take some college level courses, go to the library and REread all the links provided.

davidH:
davidH:

“Just want some straight answers that's all.”

Answers, in the form of informative links and clear explanations, have been given. Are you using some definition of ‘straight’ that I am unaware of? If you’re not satisfied go take some college level courses, go to the library and REread all the links provided.

davidH:

“One more thing - if evolution doesn't provide a proven explanation of how the nucleic acids first came about then doesn't that put a question mark over all evolution?”

No. Evolution explains how changes happen. The evidence is over whelming. Just because scientists are not as sure of the first step(s), as they are of the later steps, in NO way invalidates evolutionary thought.

A man is seen running from a house with a bloody knife in his hands. His rich brother lies dead in the house, dead of knife wounds. No one else is home. The ME examines the body and determines that the victim died during the time frame when the running man was the only person in the house. If we don’t know where the running man bought the knife does it change the out come of the trial?

davidH:

“If they said that was how it happened but can't give any proof of it or a satisfactory answer then how can you just accept it?”

Science. It’s science. Evidence, not proof.

CodeMason

The photopigment retinal which is used in the eye, is simply Vitamin A2. It easily combines with an opsin peptide. Opsins are part of a very large and very old family of peptides, with a multitude uses within organisms. This opsin + retinal molecule is called rhodopsin. When a particle of light hits the retinal part, it deprotonates, which makes the opsin part "twitch". To me, this seems to be a clear way evolution could easily link light with behaviour, in very few steps.

davidH

So you say that all that is needed is a pigmented cell and some way of the cell interpreting this information.

Yet that is really complicated! I actually can't see how a cell could interpret this information
- any offers? Cause surely you need more cells to interpret this. ie. nerve cells leading to specialised brain cells etc.

But assuming this is true I'm going to view it in mutations.
Ok, so we have a cell, and it undergoes a mutation
(UV light, radiation - something like that?).
Per chance this mutation isn't harmful or fatal to the cell but affect the DNA that controls a protein synthesiser. This causes the protein to change and that DNA now codes for a pigment protein. The cell now begins to produce that pigment, but doesn't produce the former protein that it use to make.
Therefore the protein that the mutation happened to affect musn't have been a vital one as the cell would still have to survive.
So, now we have a cell that is producing a pigment. However if the cell is producing a pigment - one that it has never produced before it has no DNA that codes for an enzyme to break it down or resynthesis it. But if light breaks it down then the pigment is broken down into it's "components". However the problem remains - the pigment must leave the cell in someway, but since the cell never produced this before can it get rid of it?

So there's a cell that produces a pigment from a protein that wasn't essential to the cell surviving.
However the cell needs a way to get rid of the pigment. Yet again there's another mutation in the cell, it occurs to an enzyme that again musn't have been essential to the cell function and by pure chance this enzyme is perfectly suited to the resynthesis of the pigment once it has been broken down by light.
However since this is an energy requiring process there must be a form of energy present.
If we guess that by that stage mitochondria were present then the mitochondria must provide the energy. But what attracts them to the site of the pigment synthesis? Maybe more mutations happen to cause a chemical to be secreted by the cell whenever it is activated by light and this causes the mitochondria to become activated.

I haven't a clue. All this is just my guess but this is the kind of thing I would like explained.
Not just a general - a mutation caused a pigment cell.

You see at this point natural selection must be thrown out the window.

Because just because a cell has mutated and happened to produce a light sensitive pigment doesn't give it any advantage over the other cells. Because at that point in time the cell will have no way to interpret the break down in pigment. Therefore there is no natural selection because although the cell has the pigment it is no different from any of the others because it can't interpret it.
Therefore the cell has to wait for another chance mutation (that theoretically could never happen)to develope something that could control the pigment, then interpret it.
The odds are vast.
If any of you can explain to me how it could have happened in terms of mutations I'd be grateful. Not anything vague - like a mutation occurred and the cell produced pigment and all it needed was something to interpret it. That's what I'd like to know.

Again about the quote from Darwin I gave. Are you saying that Darwin was lying when he said that

" To suppose the eye with all its initmitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances....could have been formed by natural selection,seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."

He then goes on to explain how he believes it could have happened. I didn't put in the rest because I thought you all would have known what he said. But it seems I was wrong.
However that doesn't refute the fact that Darwin did say it seemed absurd that the eye could have formed like that. Note the "I freely confess"
The whole paragraph is in the link I was given in this topic a while back , chapter 6 I think it was.

So Darwin did say that it seemed absurd to assume that the eye could have been formed by natural selection. However that's not to say that he didn't believe it happened cause he obviously did.
So I see nothing dishonest in quoting Darwin as having said that. I was merely showing what Darwin said in relation to the eye not trying to prove that he believed it impossible that it could occur.
Many of you do seem to forget that it was Darwin's Theory of Evolution. Note the theory.

I wasn't being dishonest at all!!! Come on! I would have been dishonest if I had said - here's what Darwin said and he didn't even believe in it himself so why should you? Now that would have been dishonest because I would have told a lie. The fact is that although Darwin believed it to be absurd he also believed that absurd though it seemed that was the way it happened.
Believe me, I wasn't being dishonest nor even remoting intending to be and I'm sorry if some of you took it the wrong way.

Liquidrage

You see at this point natural selection must be thrown out the window.

Why?
That would seem to be your opinion based upon a preconcieved notion.


Because just because a cell has mutated and happened to produce a light sensitive pigment doesn't give it any advantage over the other cells. Because at that point in time the cell will have no way to interpret the break down in pigment. Therefore there is no natural selection because although the cell has the pigment it is no different from any of the others because it can't interpret it.
Therefore the cell has to wait for another chance mutation (that theoretically could never happen)to develope something that could control the pigment, then interpret it.
The odds are vast.


<a href="http://google.yahoo.com/bin/query?p=evolution+pigment+light+sensitive&hc=0&hs= 0" target="_blank">http://google.yahoo.com/bin/query?p=evolution+pigment+light+sensitive&hc=0&hs= 0</a>

The above is just a basic search on the topic of light sensitive pigment in ragerds to evolution.
Many good links.

But why do you assume that by it self a light sesitive pigment holds no advantange?

I could think of many ways it could be an advantage.
One way could be thermal based.
Different pigments could absorb or deflect light better then others.
Maybe many times light sensitivity did evolve with no advantage and it went away.


If any of you can explain to me how it could have happened in terms of mutations I'd be grateful. Not anything vague - like a mutation occurred and the cell produced pigment and all it needed was something to interpret it. That's what I'd like to know.

I believe you're asking quesitons that you know can not be answered to your satisfaction.
Hell, they can't be answered to my satisfaction either. Though many people have good theories on this particular aspect, it's so ancient and complex that we might never know exactly how and when. Does that mean the whole theory of evolution is flawed? No. People have shown it's possible to evolve an eye. Though no one can say for sure.

Again about the quote from Darwin I gave. Are you saying that Darwin was lying when he said that

" To suppose the eye with all its initmitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances....could have been formed by natural selection,seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."

He then goes on to explain how he believes it could have happened. I didn't put in the rest because I thought you all would have known what he said. But it seems I was wrong.
However that doesn't refute the fact that Darwin did say it seemed absurd that the eye could have formed like that. Note the "I freely confess"
The whole paragraph is in the link I was given in this topic a while back , chapter 6 I think it was.

So Darwin did say that it seemed absurd to assume that the eye could have been formed by natural selection. However that's not to say that he didn't believe it happened cause he obviously did.
So I see nothing dishonest in quoting Darwin as having said that. I was merely showing what Darwin said in relation to the eye not trying to prove that he believed it impossible that it could occur.
Many of you do seem to forget that it was Darwin's Theory of Evolution. Note the theory.

I wasn't being dishonest at all!!! Come on! I would have been dishonest if I had said - here's what Darwin said and he didn't even believe in it himself so why should you? Now that would have been dishonest because I would have told a lie. The fact is that although Darwin believed it to be absurd he also believed that absurd though it seemed that was the way it happened.
Believe me, I wasn't being dishonest nor even remoting intending to be and I'm sorry if some of you took it the wrong way

It seems dishonest to me.
That quote is basically saying,
"This seems like it isn't possible but it is."

To quote only the first part is very missleading.
When one reads the entire piece it is clear Darwin felt the eye could evolve.
When one reads only the first part it seems Darwin finds the eye contradictory to evolution.

[ January 12, 2002: Message edited by: Liquidrage ]</p>

butswana

That is a fairly common approach to exlaining a scientific position. First you pose a problem, then you provide the answer.
If you knew the following paragraph gave an explanation, then why even bring it up?

Synaesthesia

DavidH,
The interpretation of sensory stimulus is confined to those animals which occupy the cognitive niches. For the vast majority of animals who posess photosensitivity, all that is required is to respond in a manner that will increase chances of survival.

Your post seemed primarily to appeal to irreducible complexity. That is to say, since the scenario that you present, based upon the erronious assumption that the pigment (and other components of photosensitivity) could ONLY have been used in a fully formed photosensitive system is implausible and since you lack the knowledge to imagine any other possibility, natural selection should be “thrown out the wondow”, baby and all. May I suggest that it is your theory rather than natural selection which is at fault here.

I am aware that theories of the evolution of various components of visual systems exist(some may be found here: <a href="http://www.world-of-dawkins.com/Catalano/box/published.htm" target="_blank">http://www.world-of-dawkins.com/Catalano/box/published.htm</a>
).

tronvillain

davidH:
I'm going to assume you meant to say "codes for" rather than "controls", because otherwise nothing that follows makes any sense. Now, what exactly is a "protein synthesiser"? The closest thing a cell has to that would be a ribosome, but there seems no reason to choose any of its components as pigment precursors.

Since the difference between the mutated protein and the orginal protein is probably quite small, it's entirely possible that it could still perform its original function. Still, other possibilities present themselves - a gene duplication may have occurred, so that the cell still produces the original unaltered protein.

Since this hypothetical light sensitive molecule of yours is a protein, there is no reason a specific enzyme would be required to break it down - the "problem" is a figment of your imagination. If it is broken down by light rather than simply undergoing a conformational change, then the cell is simply going to have to make more unless an existing enzyme catalyses the reverse reaction. Not especially efficient, but then we're talking about the origins of light sensitivity.

[ January 12, 2002: Message edited by: tronvillain ]</p>

Arrowman

David, you persist in making yourself look foolish and/or dishonest in your treatment of the "Darwin's Eye" misrepresentation. And yet, as I said earlier, a person's treatment of this misrepresentation is a strong indicator of their understanding of the subject, and of logic in general. Let me take you through it step by step:

1. The quote in question is a clear misrepresentation, either deliberate or through ignorance.
- When the quote is used, the clear inference is "See! Even Darwin thought the evolution of complex organs such as the eye was absurd!" Most creationists, when using this quote, steer clear of making this inference outright, because it is so clearly dishonest. Yet there can be no other reason for using this partial quote. Instead they rely on the inference seeping into the minds of their readers as part of their overall rhetoric. Like a vampire, the inference cannot bear to be exposed to the light!

2. Where the quote is copied from a creationist source, the copier is exposing their lack of understanding of the subject (because the misrepresentation is so well known, and because it shows they have not read the source).
- But creationists who copy this quote never acknowledge the rebuttals and explanation of the way it has been misused. This is because creationists cannot bear to acknowledge any failing in their sources, no matter how obvious.

3. Where the quote has been provided direct from "Origin" (as you claim to have done), then ignorance is no defence. This dishonesty rests entirely with the person making the quote. Since you claim to have derived this quote directly (difficult to believe, but possible), you are responsible for the misrepresentation.
- Yet even when this misrepresentation has been explained to you, you refuse to acknowledge it.

To acknowledge the misrepresentation in the partial Darwin quote in no way damages the creationist overall argument. Yet failure to acknowledge terminally damages the quoter's credibility.

Get it?

Now let's turn to your latest effort on this subject, so we see directly how poor is your understanding and/or honesty:

Er, no. No-one is saying Darwin was lying when he said that. That you think this is possible, shows that you do not understand what is going on here. You don't really think anyone here thought this was a lie on Darwin's part, do you?

Er, no. The fact that your misrepresentation was rebutted so promptly by several of us, shows that we know exactly what he went on to say. You have been accused of misrepresentation, and that is a very credible charge given the crystal clear nature of the full quote (which you must have read, since you were working directly from "Origin" and not from a creationist source).

Er, yes. Words like "I freely confess" are often used in rhetorical questions. Now, you note "seems ... absurd..." and the context, which clearly shows this to be a rhetorical question.
Are you getting this yet?

And the reason for doing this would be? That's right - to imply that Darwin had a problem with his own theory. The inference which cannot bear to see the light of day.
Without that inference, the quote is almost entirely irrelevant to this debate. There can only be one purpose in using it, and that is to mislead.

In other words "I do not understand enough science to understand the meaning of the word "Theory" in a scientific context."

Then why did you make the quote? 25 words or less. What was the point?

Now, you might think all of this is "mountain and molehill" stuff - but, David, you have
1. Made the misrepresentation - and not only that, claimed it was original, thus doubling your responsibility.
2. Refused to directly acknowledge the explanations as to why it was a misrepresentation.
3. Continued your defence of your use of this quote, without saying why it (the quote) is relevant to this discussion (because to do so would expose the misrepresentation).
4. Compounded your errors and misunderstandings with
a. the completely unfounded and absurd speculation that anyone here could be thinking that Darwin could have been "lying",
b. the demonstrably false and absurd speculation that the people who are arguing the point on this, did not know the full quote,
c. exposing your misunderstanding of the word "Theory" in a scientific context, and
d. a refusal to acknowledge or understand the reasons why the partial quote is misleading and irrelevant (I'll say again - "rhetorical question").

Why would anyone bother debating with someone who is guilty of all that?