EggplantTrent

Someone told me that evolution, while not neccesarily false, depends on God pushing it along. He cites the fact that the human eye, in all it's complexity.... here... I'll give you a quote:

I dont' know enough about this subject to make any meaningful response, so I'm wondering what exactly I'm missing in my understanding of evolution, and hopefully some helpful links to read as well.

thanks
EggplantTrent

Doubting Didymus

Wow.

I really don't mean to be insulting to whoever wrote that quote, but if you want to improve your understanding of evolution your first step will involve taking just about every single sentence in that paragraph and affirming its absolute opposite. I've never seen anything quite so utterly opposite to the facts.

caravelair

"I'm saying that even a simple change to our eye makes it completely useless."

this is absolutely rediculous. here's a simply change to our eye: make us colour blind. that's a change, and it's not completely useless, now is it?

"There is no single point mutation that could have been made that would bring it to the point it is at now from a previous advantageous form. There is no eye under ours that works that only a simple mutation could form."

this is equally rediculous. there are animals with eyes in many stages of evolution. many similar to our own eye. this might be useful:

http://www.cs.colorado.edu/%7Elindsa...ye_stages.html

it's a theoretical sequence of eye evolution.

"And let me tell you, I know A LOT about genetic mutations."

ha ha. oh, i'm sure.

"The chances of mutations are slim with our DNA repair systems. When they do occur, they are NOT possitive."

that's also completely rediculous. we have observed beneficial mutations resulting in evolution. for example, a bacteria culture can easily become resistant to antibiotics. some insects have become resistant to certain pesticides. there is nothing to prevent a mutation from being beneficial.

"Millions, in fact, billions of years are NOT ENOUGH TIME for that many random mutations to occur."

and what exactly is this based on?

"Randomness never results in order."

that's not true either. a "random" distribution of matter in a vacuum would increase in complexity due to gravitational attraction between masses and dynamical mechanisms. that's how solar systems and galaxies form. besides, evolution is not strictly a random process. the mechanisms that drive evolution are natural selection and genetic drift. natural selection only allows positive mutations to be spread throughout the gene pool, so evolution is always an upwards process, not a random one. genetic drift is a little more complicated. there's a good page about it on talkorigins.org.

"By the second law of thermodynamics, random events...all events move toward greater entropy (chaos). That alone is good reason to suspect error in the theory."

anyone who quotes the 2nd law of thermodynamics as evidence against evolution is obviously very ignorant. this shows a complete lack of understanding of the law. the 2nd law does not apply to evolution for 3 reasons: (1) the ecosphere is not a closed system. the water cycle alone violates that. (2) the ecosphere has energy sources: the sun and geothermal energy. (3) the ecosphere is not isothermal. all of these 3 things violate the requirements for the 2nd law to be applicable.

Nickle

I'm saying that even a simple change to our eye makes it completely useless. There is no single point mutation that could have been made that would bring it to the point it is at now from a previous advantageous form. There is no eye under ours that works that only a simple mutation could form.

Talkorigins is always the best place to look (here). Fortunately, the eye's precursors are represented in many animals today.
PBS did a great show explaning the eye. You can start off with light sensitive cells and, by gradual imrovements, end up with the scary eyes of a cephalopod. So where's the problem?

And let me tell you, I know A LOT about genetic mutations.

Well, since "a lot" is in caps, I have to take his word for it.

The chances of mutations are slim with our DNA repair systems. When they do occur, they are NOT possitive. Millions, in fact, billions of years are NOT ENOUGH TIME for that many random mutations to occur.

There is no argument here. Go back and ask for numbers. I realize "NOT ENOUGH TIME" is in all caps, but I'd like to know where he came up with that conclusion. This article covers many of the points your friend raises.

Randomness never results in order. By the second law of thermodynamics, random events...all events move toward greater entropy (chaos). That alone is good reason to suspect error in the theory.

What's the 2nd Law again? I remember it being mathematical. So this violation should be calculable. I'll wait for the meat before responding.

I'm not saying there is no evolution. We just don't have it right yet.

If "we" means thousands of scientists with research for over a century, he's wrong. If "we" means fellow KFC employees, then I don't know.

Kimpatsu

As Richard Dawkins has pointed out, the answer to the question, "What use is half an eye?" is, "1% greater than 49% of an eye." (Read Climbing Mount Improbable for details.)
First, start with a flat sheet of photosensitive cells. Gradually, over time, those cells become a rudimentary eye that permits a creature to tell from shadows whether a predator is looming. The eye then continues to evolve, adding depth, focus, and so on, until you reach the nine different types of eye that have evolved independently throughout the animal kingdom. And the best of all? This process only takes half a million years! In geological terms, that's... why, it's the blink of an eye!
The eye is not only possible under evolution, it's probable. So much so, it's to be found developed independently in all manner of animals. Far from being an obstacle to evolution, the development of the eye actually supports the theory.
The problem with creationists is that they're too blind to see it. So instead, they make spectacles of themselves.

Nickle

:notworthy

Great vision, this one.

Ensign Steve

I tried and tried to find the source. I looked all over Dawkins and Huber. I thought it was in that "half an eye" article, but now I can't find it to save my life. I googled and everything. Maybe somebody else knows where this is?

It was something about how the squid or the octopus has an eye that's put together in such a way that the optic nerve does not cause a blind spot. Basically, they evolved with a better eye than ours.

I'm making myself nuts looking for it! :banghead: I have to give up, sorry.

Doubting Didymus

Ensign:

Check talkorigins.org

Kimpatsu

Try the World of Dawkins website. In fact, you can read the whole article, if you like.
HTH.

Kimpatsu

Oh, Ensign, sorry, I put up the article from which I paraphrased the famous quote, but for details of the squid eye's evolution, try Climbing Mount Improbable.
HTH.