Keith

You have fallen into a trap. Nearly every atheist I've ever talked with, denys that nature displays any intelligent design at all, much less purposeful design. Now you want to demonstrate that the design of specific eye parts is not quite optimal. It could have been just slightly better!

By taking this position you are admitting my whole point about nature displaying intelligent design especially with respect to the intricate design of living things. You can't argue about sub-optimally designed eye parts without admitting that the eye was designed.

Keith

Lobstrosity

You do realize that genetic algorithms can be used to find optimal or near-optimal solutions to problems through random probing of phase space, right? You don't need intelligent design to find an optimal solution (the program I wrote about in my previous post is a prime example of this). In the light of these well proven facts, I'd say that your last line is a bit of a non sequitur.

Keith

Actually, I wasn't the one who originally raised the subject of soccer. I don't directly attribute soccer, or its rules and objectives to the blind, random forces of nature. Nature could have continued to do what it does even if soccer had never been invented. But regarding the process of evolution, this can't be said of reproduction can it? IOW, for evolution to work, there must be reproduction, right?

Keith

Happy Wonderer

Not logical. The claim that you are trying to refute is:

There is a lot you could do with the argument, but arguing that the premise implies the conclusion ain't gonna cut it.


HW

Keith

Then you've got the easy part done--saying that with a GA it can be done. Now just use your GA to design eyes and let's see if you can make a better one.

Keith

Happy Wonderer

Are we talking about nature (whatever that is) or the process of evolution?

So the reason that a goal scored by an individual playing "soccer" doesn't become a goal of nature is because you usually don't attribute soccer as a goal of nature. But you do think that reproduction by an an individual can be attributed as goal of the nature. IOW, your support for your assertion is that you assert it?



HW

Happy Wonderer

To be fair I see that you were trying to provide support for some argument, but whether reproduction is part of the TOE says nothing to the topic of:

Obviously, being necessary does not make something a goal. Some chemical processes will not happen without a catalyst, but it is unusual to imply the catalyst is the goal of the process.

The fact that we can observe creatures who have evolved reproducing doesn't make reproduction a goal of evolution. We can observe them sleeping, belching, playing soccer, and doing all sorts of things unrelated to any putative "goal" of evolution.

In fact, it is very unusual to claim that a process has a goal. Processes are not entities. You may claim that a process was set up in order to reach a goal (crude oil+catalyst->gasoline) but the process itself is a consequence of the physical nature of chemicals.


HW

MyKell

You realize that the evolution of a better eye needs an eye to begin with. Get the algorithm for a human eye and someone will sure get you a better one. You don't just "design" a better eye out of scratch, that's the whole process of natural selection that you are continuously missing. Nature took 4 billion years to run its program to get to what we observe. Of course that doesn't mean that nature is aware of anything. Just like an enzyme that is catalyzing a reaction, it doesn't do it because it wants to, it does it because it's structure dictates its function. Nothing magical

Lobstrosity, very impressive work there!!

Dr Rick

Been there, done that; not by design, but through evolution. The octopus doesn't have an inverted retina because its eyes evolved along a different course than mammalian eyes, so the selective pressures and random mutations over time produced a different algorithm that resulted in no inverted retina.

The flaws reveal that it didn't get intelligently designed at all; they in fact argue against ID and suggest that mindless evolutionary changes gradually produced a sub-optimal non-designed eye.


Rick

Jobar

Several months back, I recall a discussion of a TV special on evolution, which featured a computer simulation of the evolution of the eye, starting with nothing but light-sensitive cells, and certain simple survival pressures which made vision pro-survival, and a few simple mutation mechanisms. And, lo and behold, features extremely similar to eyes evolved virtually. Very much like Lobstrosity's program, I would guess.

Do any of our regulars recall that show, or the thread it engendered?