irreducible complexity

[Twentythree]

Hmmm...I don't get it. This thread is really starting to confuse me. Let me recap just so I know what you are arguing.

1 – when considering sense organs atheists can see areas where improvement could be used. That being the case you would like to see specifically how these designs could be improved.
2 – Since we are not fully aware of the designers overall intent even sense organs that appear to have flaws may not really be flawed at all they may be working perfectly in regard to the designers initial intent.

Is this right?

On one hand you are saying if there are improvement to be made then we should be able to prove it by becoming bioengineers. Yet how would we ever know what to improve because we may be tampering with something that to the designer is operating perfectly. This is what we are working with right?

And just so I'm up to speed... are we all on the same page that the eye was evolved. We all understand accumulated complexity and that the eye did not pop out of the skull fully formed like some kind of soufflé?

[Guardian85]

Do you have any idea how complex such a schematic would be? Making something like that from scratch would be a project for a whole team of biologists, and you expect someone on some forum to knock one up in a day? The schematic shown was a consept scetch, and it did show a design concept that would have been superior to the eye you are reading this with.

Basically what you're saying is that *you THINK the design flawed, but cannot come up with a better one.

Of course I realize how complex such a schematic would be...A Schematic!  That's the whole point.

It is an inescapable fact that if the human eye had been designed in a lab today, the designer would have been fired for making something so excessively flawed that you need a supercomputer just to run the basic software.

Inescapable fact?  Coming from one who I presume is happily using this flawed piece of equipment and has yet to demand science come up with a fix...?  I think your last sentence is very telling though.

Edit:  Added the "Of course..." line.

When did I, or anyone else here, demand that Science come up with a fix. The eye works, despite it's obvious flaws. All we are saying is that it is not perfect. As you would expect of something evolved, not designed. The only one demanding a better design is you.
And as for coming up with a better design, I know several things that could easily have been changed for the better had the eye actually been designed, for exampel the placement of the light sensitive cells, location of the capilaries in the eye, and the fact that the lens is made of a material that doesn't age well to name a few.
And science has come up wth fixes for some of the flaws assosiated with our evolved eye. Things like glasses, and eye surgery.

[AnimatedDirt]

When did I, or anyone else here, demand that Science come up with a fix.

I didn't say that.  Go back and re-read the post.  I said *you say the eye is flawed and "has YET to demand..."  In other words, no one has demanded science make a new one...it works fine.

The eye works, despite it's obvious flaws. All we are saying is that it is not perfect. As you would expect of something evolved, not designed. The only one demanding a better design is you.

This is funny.  Please show where I said the design is flawed...I think Tank is the person that first mentioned the flaw(s) of the eye.  Furthermore, I am not demanding a "better design", but rather demanding from the one's promoting that the eye is flawed, to present a better design.  Ok...where would you route the capilaries, the light sensitive cells...and what would you make the lens out of.  Present the design.  As I've said before, right now all you're doing is saying "Rocks make better building materials because termites don't eat rocks." and have yet to present a design of using rocks for building homes that every home builder that exists would say, "Hey, that is so much better, functional, AND easily and cheaply done."  The fact is, homes, regardless of termites, are still predominantly built using lumber as it's framing.  Others exist, but not widely used and they cannot compete with the price of wood.

And as for coming up with a better design, I know several things that could easily have been changed for the better had the eye actually been designed, for exampel the placement of the light sensitive cells, location of the capilaries in the eye, and the fact that the lens is made of a material that doesn't age well to name a few.

For the above.

And science has come up wth fixes for some of the flaws assosiated with our evolved eye. Things like glasses, and eye surgery.

To be fair, they've not fixed the problem, but have devised a workaround.  People still need glasses and eye surgery.

[Guardian85]

And science has come up wth fixes for some of the flaws assosiated with our evolved eye. Things like glasses, and eye surgery.

To be fair, they've not fixed the problem, but have devised a workaround.  People still need glasses and eye surgery.

As for the capilaries, run them arund the outside of the eyeball, rather than through it, so that they don't interrupt the flow of light to the light sensitive cells. As for the light sensitive cells themselves, simply placing them in front of the interconnecting tissues would make the transferrence of light less complicaed and less needing of the brain to interpret the information it recieves. As for what the lens could be made of, I have no idea. I work security, not biology, but even I know that it is made of a decaying material.
These are all general, as I am not a doctor of biology, but I see that making a camera with all the wiring in front of the lens is a bad idea.
If you really want a better design, talk to a biologist. In fact, talk to a biologist anyway. You need all the education you can get.

[The Magic Pudding]

My mother had her teeth replaced with false teeth.
Many people did in the old days.
Does this prove the non-existence of god?
Fluoride, improved dental hygiene products and practice mean you don't have to have your teeth pulled.
God has foreseen the invention of modern dental care and created vulnerable teeth to suit them.
I have just proved the existence of god!
Can someone nominate me for a Templeton please?

Ears, he put them there to hang glasses on.
Don't tell me it's a coincidence that rings fit on fingers so naturally.

[Tank]

Yet they work perfectly.  I have yet to see anyone come up with even a schematic of a "better" design.

You have now.



Please choose A or B and explain your reasoning for the choice you made.
You chose which is the more reasonable arrangements of elements.

It's not the schematic I hoped.  It's still just a thought.  How about a schematic that shows the thought process on HOW there is a better design and not just some cartoon pictures.  DESIGN it.  *You know...rewiring of muscles, the eye, it's workings inside...just basic stuff.

Then you draw the schematic.

A = Human (mammal eye)
B = Molluscan (octopus eye)

B is better. If you can't see that you have no concept of good design, which makes your opinion on this matter worthless.

AD I've had enough of you obfuscating ceationist bullshit.

[Guardian85]

Basically what you're saying is that *you THINK the design flawed, but cannot come up with a better one.

Yeah. In the same way I can also say that I think the Mercedes 190E is the worst car I have ever driven, and that it was designed with quite a few flaws. I can point out several things that are wrong with it, and that I would change, even if I am not qualified to redesign the entire car myself.

(P.S. the car is an analogy for the eye.)

[AnimatedDirt]

Yet they work perfectly.  I have yet to see anyone come up with even a schematic of a "better" design.

You have now.



Please choose A or B and explain your reasoning for the choice you made.
You chose which is the more reasonable arrangements of elements.

It's not the schematic I hoped.  It's still just a thought.  How about a schematic that shows the thought process on HOW there is a better design and not just some cartoon pictures.  DESIGN it.  *You know...rewiring of muscles, the eye, it's workings inside...just basic stuff.

Then you draw the schematic.

A = Human (mammal eye)
B = Molluscan (octopus eye)

B is better. If you can't see that you have no concept of good design, which makes your opinion on this matter worthless.

AD I've had enough of you obfuscating ceationist bullshit.

I'll hold off on a reply.

[Tank]

Yet they work perfectly.  I have yet to see anyone come up with even a schematic of a "better" design.

You have now.



Please choose A or B and explain your reasoning for the choice you made.
You chose which is the more reasonable arrangements of elements.

It's not the schematic I hoped.  It's still just a thought.  How about a schematic that shows the thought process on HOW there is a better design and not just some cartoon pictures.  DESIGN it.  *You know...rewiring of muscles, the eye, it's workings inside...just basic stuff.

Then you draw the schematic.

A = Human (mammal eye)
B = Molluscan (octopus eye)

B is better. If you can't see that you have no concept of good design, which makes your opinion on this matter worthless.

AD I've had enough of you obfuscating ceationist bullshit.

I'll hold off on a reply.

Very sensible.

[Sweetdeath]

I'm over 50% blind in my right eye. I can technically wear a patch. Yaaargh xD

[Asmodean]

I'm over 50% blind in my right eye. I can technically wear a patch. Yaaargh xD

Anyone can wear a patch, no..?  ???

[superfes]

One of my favorites >_>

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W96AJ0ChboU

[Tank]

One of my favorites >_>

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W96AJ0ChboU

That's a good one.

[superfes]

One of my favorites >_>

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W96AJ0ChboU

That's a good one.

Yeah, I like that video for two reasons, it's very related to what people always bring up, and it explains better than I can why the concept of "Irreducible Complexity" is a poor argument against evolution.

[xSilverPhinx]

QualiaSoups videos are all very good. The ones he made on morality also helped me explain a non theistic perspective on one occasion.