how do we explain the evolution of such things? the eyes and heart are examples of this.
Pre-adaption. The evolutionary path of the eye is one of increasing efficiency and effectiveness. The first 'eyes' were little more than pigmented surface cells and each refinement built on the capabilities of its precursor. Evolution progresses a little like an amoeba and nothing like a grasshopper. The developmental progress of any trait is contiguous with branching occurring at points of advantageous mutation.
What tank said.
Neither eyes nor the cardiovascular system are irreducibly complex. Both have evolved from less efficient versions. In some cases, the process goes the other way too, such as cave-dwelling creatures potentially losing their eyes due to the lack of need for such.
It's been a while but I think Richard Dawkins covered this pretty well in Climbing Mount Improbable.
There are no cases of truly irreducible complexity that I'm aware of, including the eye and the heart. Some research into the topic would show that. There may be some issues that warrant further scientific investigation, but I don't think any biologist (who isn't pushing an intelligent design/Creationist agenda) who is worth their salt has thrown up their hands and said, "Well, that's clearly something which could not have possibly evolved, therefore it must be the product of a designer."
Michael Behe has tried to advocate for intelligent design through use of the argument from irreducible complexity. He's a qualified biochemist, so his ideas have some weight to them. That doesn't mean that he's right. You can find several resources on the web which point out the problems with Behe's thesis. One of my favorites is a review of Behe's Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution by H. Allen Orr (http://bostonreview.net/BR21.6/orr.html).
Quote from: Crocoduck on December 28, 2011, 11:07:10 PM
It's been a while but I think Richard Dawkins covered this pretty well in Climbing Mount Improbable.
Yes, including an explanation of the single most contentious biological conundrum with regard to irreducible complexity - the freely-rotating axle. Though not providing irrefutable proof, RD did argue a good story.
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=UFY18Bep5ygC&pg=PA301&img=1&zoom=3&hl=en&ots=6Ss3TiO4dF&sig=ACfU3U3G51AGrnVUjXLRAaxbw86Wfio4aQ&w=685 (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=UFY18Bep5ygC&pg=PA301&img=1&zoom=3&hl=en&ots=6Ss3TiO4dF&sig=ACfU3U3G51AGrnVUjXLRAaxbw86Wfio4aQ&w=685)
There are two things you have to keep in mind regarding the evolution of complex biological systems. The first is paramount and that is time. The earth is something like 4 billion years old. In 4 billion years a lot can happen. A lot especially in the way of accumulated complexity. Accumulated complexity is basically making a system more complex with each new revision of that system. Complexity does not mean better or worse it just means more complex. As a matter of fact efficiency only plays a small part in the actual accumulation of complexity. Only so much so as excessive waste in energy conversion or function will result in those characteristics being selected out; whereas increases in complexity that only marginally improve the chances of gene survival and transmission will tend to prosper in subsequent generations. To help illustrate this let's look at a possible very rudimentary explanation for the formation of an eye.
At some point there was a cell. Which is basically a vehicle for genetic material and a chemical factory for the creation and distribution of protein to other parts of the cell. If this cell exists in an environment where necessary molecular materials for its survival are found in more abundance closer to a light source than further away it would be beneficial for this cell to stay in a more well lit area. Light travels as photons, so if one cell had a mutation to create a sensitivity to photons then this cell should be influenced to move in the direction of the most photons or the most chemically rich environment for it to thrive. This would then lead to the photon sensitive mutation to pass on into future generations with more frequency and abundance eventually selecting out those cells with no photo sensitivity. Over the course of eons the photo sensitivity will become more acute and possibly a mutation would occur for photosensitive cells to attract to one another and cluster together. You can sense more photons with more photosensitive cells. Therefore a trait for clustering and a trait for photo sensitivity are evolved and you have a very primitive eye like organ. This could have happened independently but more likely it happened as a part of cellular specialization in a more primitive multi-cellular organism. Either way you can see how without a conscious drive, chemical reaction to stimuli combined with deep time and accumulated complexity can create an eye.
As Tank had mentioned, look up exaptation - something many ID proponents neglect to address or just outright brush off as insignificant or false. Research says otherwise.
Yes what everybody else said and eyes and lots of things aren't perfect, they have what a designer who was free to start from scratch would consider as flaws. This is due to way they have been been blindly cobbled together by evolution.
To use the example that Kenneth Miller used to refute Behe: a mouse trap, with all it's parts is irreducibly complex - for a mouse trap. But if you took the pin you could do something with your neck tie or something (didn't really catch that part, and am too lazy to look it up) and it would be useful, until some sort of mutation came along to change it and the result of which underwent a selective process.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTWB65WXxyQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mb9_x1wgm7E&feature=related
Sir David Attenburrough and Dr. Richard Dawkins take on irreducible complexity in these videos, with the example of the eye.
They explain it better then I can. Probably because they are proffesional biologists...
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on December 29, 2011, 03:58:38 AM
Yes what everybody else said and eyes and lots of things aren't perfect, they have what a designer who was free to start from scratch would consider as flaws. This is due to way they have been been blindly cobbled together by evolution.
Yes. I always thought it was bizarre that creationists claim the eye as proof of creation, when the eye is such a perfect example of something that no sensible creator would design that way. If any organ shows the sort of jury rigging that happens when nature is left to it's own devices, it's the eye.
Quote from: Ali on January 13, 2012, 09:18:11 PM
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on December 29, 2011, 03:58:38 AM
Yes what everybody else said and eyes and lots of things aren't perfect, they have what a designer who was free to start from scratch would consider as flaws. This is due to way they have been been blindly cobbled together by evolution.
Yes. I always thought it was bizarre that creationists claim the eye as proof of creation, when the eye is such a perfect example of something that no sensible creator would design that way. If any organ shows the sort of jury rigging that happens when nature is left to it's own devices, it's the eye.
What I always find odd is the switch some do, first they reference how amazing and complex it is, then when pointed out how not so amazing it is, they say that's the way it was designed to be... cancelling out their appeal to how amazing it is, but pretending that both are true: that it's both amazing and designed not to be amazing so it's not amazing.
Quote from: Ali on January 13, 2012, 09:18:11 PM
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on December 29, 2011, 03:58:38 AM
Yes what everybody else said and eyes and lots of things aren't perfect, they have what a designer who was free to start from scratch would consider as flaws. This is due to way they have been been blindly cobbled together by evolution.
Yes. I always thought it was bizarre that creationists claim the eye as proof of creation, when the eye is such a perfect example of something that no sensible creator would design that way. If any organ shows the sort of jury rigging that happens when nature is left to it's own devices, it's the eye.
Darwin mentions the eye as a highly complex organ, so it became a target for creationists.
The blood vessels in the eye are in front of the optic nerve. That's like designing a camera with all the wiring in front of the lens. Very bad design!
Quote from: Guardian85 on January 13, 2012, 11:26:08 PM
The blood vessels in the eye are in front of the optic nerve. That's like designing a camera with all the wiring in front of the lens. Very bad design!
Well, and I think I recall from my anatomy class that the optic nerve is crossed so that when the images come in to the brain, they are upside down, and then our brain has to flip them right side up. Or something like that. That's also a silly design.
Quote from: Ali on January 13, 2012, 11:33:48 PM
Quote from: Guardian85 on January 13, 2012, 11:26:08 PM
The blood vessels in the eye are in front of the optic nerve. That's like designing a camera with all the wiring in front of the lens. Very bad design!
Well, and I think I recall from my anatomy class that the optic nerve is crossed so that when the images come in to the brain, they are upside down, and then our brain has to flip them right side up. Or something like that. That's also a silly design.
Yet they work perfectly. I have yet to see anyone come up with even a schematic of a "better" design.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 13, 2012, 11:35:41 PM
Quote from: Ali on January 13, 2012, 11:33:48 PM
Quote from: Guardian85 on January 13, 2012, 11:26:08 PM
The blood vessels in the eye are in front of the optic nerve. That's like designing a camera with all the wiring in front of the lens. Very bad design!
Well, and I think I recall from my anatomy class that the optic nerve is crossed so that when the images come in to the brain, they are upside down, and then our brain has to flip them right side up. Or something like that. That's also a silly design.
Yet they work perfectly. I have yet to see anyone come up with even a schematic of a "better" design.
Really? Even just uncrossing the nerves would be a better design than that. Crossing the nerves and then having to flip the image again makes no sense and just leaves more places for things to go wrong.
Edited - sorry, the image is not backwards, it is flipped. So left is on the right, and right is on the left.
Some people think this is why many Siamese cats have crossed eyes - they are not "flipping" the images correctly, and they are compensating by looking at things cross eyed.
http://www.sccs.swarthmore.edu/users/08/ajb/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Optic_chiasm.html
Quote from: Ali on January 13, 2012, 11:37:30 PM
Really? Even just uncrossing the nerves would be a better design than that. Crossing the nerves and then having to flip the image again makes no sense and just leaves more places for things to go wrong.
So, have you tried or know of anyone that has made a schematic of how the uncrossing would be best...laying out a plan of sorts for all that makes the eye work?
Are you having a problem seeing?
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 13, 2012, 11:35:41 PM
Quote from: Ali on January 13, 2012, 11:33:48 PM
Quote from: Guardian85 on January 13, 2012, 11:26:08 PM
The blood vessels in the eye are in front of the optic nerve. That's like designing a camera with all the wiring in front of the lens. Very bad design!
Well, and I think I recall from my anatomy class that the optic nerve is crossed so that when the images come in to the brain, they are upside down, and then our brain has to flip them right side up. Or something like that. That's also a silly design.
Yet they work perfectly. I have yet to see anyone come up with even a schematic of a "better" design.
Eagle eyes are way better designed than ours. 8)
The good thing about using the eye as an example is that it arose independently many times in nature, in lineages that did not share a close common ancestor with eyes, so it just goes to show that it's a good solution given natural possibilities. Eyes can happen and once they do, they're excellent for survival in a huge majority of species that have them.
But the problem with evolution is that it works with what it's got. There's no revolutionary change in blueprints going on. If at some point blood vessels appeared in front of the optic nerve, they're there until some mutation happens that gives the animal an edge, thus permitting them to pass on that mutation to their offspring. Or a mutation that doesn't confer any advantage or disadvantage, but is randomly selected and passed on along because of other genes that animal has (piggy-backing with selected genes).
Another similar example is that of a nerve giraffes have that go from the chest to the head and back to the chest. Closely related antelopes have the same nerve, which goes from point A to point B actually quite close to eachother. In the case of the giraffe, the same nerve goes all the way to it's head just to go back down to it's chest again. It was there before they got longer necks, and it's part of the animal's evolutionary history. Thing is, it's totally pointless few meters extra nerves for its function.
If we were to redesign giraffes, or the eye for instance, we would be taking the blueprint and changing it in accordance to what
doesn't happen evolutionarily. Starting from scratch or totally ignoring parts of it's evolutionary history. Removing or lessening the blood vessels in front of the optic nerve, or not making the nerve in the giraffe's neck go all the way round just to go from point A to point B, bypassing point C altogether.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 13, 2012, 11:35:41 PM
Quote from: Ali on January 13, 2012, 11:33:48 PM
Quote from: Guardian85 on January 13, 2012, 11:26:08 PM
The blood vessels in the eye are in front of the optic nerve. That's like designing a camera with all the wiring in front of the lens. Very bad design!
Well, and I think I recall from my anatomy class that the optic nerve is crossed so that when the images come in to the brain, they are upside down, and then our brain has to flip them right side up. Or something like that. That's also a silly design.
Yet they work perfectly. I have yet to see anyone come up with even a schematic of a "better" design.
Octopus eye. Very simple.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 13, 2012, 11:35:41 PM
Quote from: Ali on January 13, 2012, 11:33:48 PM
Quote from: Guardian85 on January 13, 2012, 11:26:08 PM
The blood vessels in the eye are in front of the optic nerve. That's like designing a camera with all the wiring in front of the lens. Very bad design!
Well, and I think I recall from my anatomy class that the optic nerve is crossed so that when the images come in to the brain, they are upside down, and then our brain has to flip them right side up. Or something like that. That's also a silly design.
Yet they work perfectly. I have yet to see anyone come up with even a schematic of a "better" design.
The only reason the human eye has a chance in hell of working is because we have evolved an entire section of the brain devoted to clarifying the image and correcting for the errors of the eye. With a better "designed" eye, we would have freed up a lot more brain capacity for other stuff.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 13, 2012, 11:35:41 PM
Quote from: Ali on January 13, 2012, 11:33:48 PM
Quote from: Guardian85 on January 13, 2012, 11:26:08 PM
The blood vessels in the eye are in front of the optic nerve. That's like designing a camera with all the wiring in front of the lens. Very bad design!
Well, and I think I recall from my anatomy class that the optic nerve is crossed so that when the images come in to the brain, they are upside down, and then our brain has to flip them right side up. Or something like that. That's also a silly design.
Yet they work perfectly. I have yet to see anyone come up with even a schematic of a "better" design.
They do not work perfectly. If you don't believe this please ignore all the opticians and sunglasses you ever see. Our eyes work adaquatly to suit our evolved lifestyle. Go and live with the eskimos and discover what snow blindness is. Evolution never produces perfection, it produces pragmatic solutions to facilitate reproduction nothing more and nothing less.
Quote from: Tank on January 14, 2012, 12:12:34 PM
They do not work perfectly. If you don't believe this please ignore all the opticians and sunglasses you ever see. Our eyes work adaquatly to suit our evolved lifestyle. Go and live with the eskimos and discover what snow blindness is. Evolution never produces perfection, it produces pragmatic solutions to facilitate reproduction nothing more and nothing less.
God created an eye beauteous in its flaws.
You can't know what the sightless see.
And god created science,
and from his beneficence we have the eye surgeon.
The worthy may see again.
Praise the lord.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 13, 2012, 11:35:41 PM
Quote from: Ali on January 13, 2012, 11:33:48 PM
Quote from: Guardian85 on January 13, 2012, 11:26:08 PM
The blood vessels in the eye are in front of the optic nerve. That's like designing a camera with all the wiring in front of the lens. Very bad design!
Well, and I think I recall from my anatomy class that the optic nerve is crossed so that when the images come in to the brain, they are upside down, and then our brain has to flip them right side up. Or something like that. That's also a silly design.
Yet they work perfectly. I have yet to see anyone come up with even a schematic of a "better" design.
You have now.
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg88.imageshack.us%2Fimg88%2F4636%2Fretina.jpg&hash=0912dd4ef27db8216b2b105893579da646db8ad3)
Please choose A or B and explain your reasoning for the choice you made.
You chose which is the more reasonable arrangements of elements.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on January 14, 2012, 03:23:15 AM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 13, 2012, 11:35:41 PM
Quote from: Ali on January 13, 2012, 11:33:48 PM
Quote from: Guardian85 on January 13, 2012, 11:26:08 PM
The blood vessels in the eye are in front of the optic nerve. That's like designing a camera with all the wiring in front of the lens. Very bad design!
Well, and I think I recall from my anatomy class that the optic nerve is crossed so that when the images come in to the brain, they are upside down, and then our brain has to flip them right side up. Or something like that. That's also a silly design.
Yet they work perfectly. I have yet to see anyone come up with even a schematic of a "better" design.
Eagle eyes are way better designed than ours. 8)
Our eyes work perfectly, eyes from other animals work even more perfectlier.
Quote from: Davin on January 16, 2012, 04:25:24 PM
Our eyes work perfectly, eyes from other animals work even more perfectlier.
No. >:(
Quote from: Asmodean on January 16, 2012, 04:27:48 PM
Quote from: Davin on January 16, 2012, 04:25:24 PM
Our eyes work perfectly, eyes from other animals work even more perfectlier.
No. >:(
More prefectesterer?
Quote from: Davin on January 16, 2012, 05:04:03 PM
Quote from: Asmodean on January 16, 2012, 04:27:48 PM
Quote from: Davin on January 16, 2012, 04:25:24 PM
Our eyes work perfectly, eyes from other animals work even more perfectlier.
No. >:(
More prefectesterer?
Nono, what I meant was, an Asmo's eyes are imperfect. Require external lenses for optimal performance. SOME perfect instrument, that.
Also men can't perceive as many colours as some women. Some women have a forth cone cell receptor so they can perceive more colours, they are known as tetrachromats. Men have 3 types of cone receptor cells and 3 iodopsins (green, red, blue) but women that are tetrachromats have four cone receptors and 5 iodopsins (green, shifted green, red, shifted red, and blue). However it is rare and even though they are called tetrachromats they are not the same type of tetrachromats when the term is used for birds, insects or reptiles as they see an ultraviolet colour in addition.
Quote from: Crow on January 16, 2012, 07:00:07 PM
Also men can't perceive as many colours as some women. Some women have a forth cone cell receptor so they can perceive more colours, they are known as tetrachromats. Men have 3 types of cone receptor cells and 3 iodopsins (green, red, blue) but women that are tetrachromats have four cone receptors and 5 iodopsins (green, shifted green, red, shifted red, and blue). However it is rare and even though they are called tetrachromats they are not the same type of tetrachromats when the term is used for birds, insects or reptiles as they see an ultraviolet colour in addition.
I want to see in ultraviolet too!
Man I need to text God real quick and see what he can do for me... he's still helping Tebow right?
Quote from: superfes on January 17, 2012, 12:04:10 AM
Quote from: Crow on January 16, 2012, 07:00:07 PM
Also men can't perceive as many colours as some women. Some women have a forth cone cell receptor so they can perceive more colours, they are known as tetrachromats. Men have 3 types of cone receptor cells and 3 iodopsins (green, red, blue) but women that are tetrachromats have four cone receptors and 5 iodopsins (green, shifted green, red, shifted red, and blue). However it is rare and even though they are called tetrachromats they are not the same type of tetrachromats when the term is used for birds, insects or reptiles as they see an ultraviolet colour in addition.
I want to see in ultraviolet too!
Man I need to text God real quick and see what he can do for me... he's still helping Tebow right?
Hardly. Did you see the game on Saturday? I'd say that God is a Patriots fan these days.
God's always been a Patriots fans. They have 3 Superbowls (possibly soon to be 4) and Tebow will never win one. The Jets had a run last year not unlike the Broncos streak of luck this year, but of course no one attributed it to god because they didnt have the blowhard at quarterback. Sorry for the off topic.
Quote from: Tank on January 14, 2012, 12:35:02 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 13, 2012, 11:35:41 PM
Yet they work perfectly. I have yet to see anyone come up with even a schematic of a "better" design.
You have now.
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg88.imageshack.us%2Fimg88%2F4636%2Fretina.jpg&hash=0912dd4ef27db8216b2b105893579da646db8ad3)
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.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 18, 2012, 05:56:57 PM
Quote from: Tank on January 14, 2012, 12:35:02 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 13, 2012, 11:35:41 PM
Yet they work perfectly. I have yet to see anyone come up with even a schematic of a "better" design.
You have now.
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg88.imageshack.us%2Fimg88%2F4636%2Fretina.jpg&hash=0912dd4ef27db8216b2b105893579da646db8ad3)
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.
That's...hardly fair. You feel that because someone doesn't grow their own organs for now that the whole argument against better design is invalid?
Out of curiousity, what do you see gene therapy as?
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on January 18, 2012, 07:04:17 PM
That's...hardly fair. You feel that because someone doesn't grow their own organs for now that the whole argument against better design is invalid?
Hardly fair? Have you seen the Religion forum and all that the typical Atheist asks the Christian to prove empirically? Really, it's unfair to ask for a REAL design using the REAL eye as a backdrop, reworking the nerves and all that goes into what makes an eye work? I mean, it doesn't have to work perfectly yet...it's a "working design" where there was actual thought put into redesigning that which "God designed". If cartoon pics are acceptable as proof, then let it be proof on the whole of the forum and not just here.
Quote from: xSilverPhinxOut of curiousity, what do you see gene therapy as?
A manner in which our scientists and drs are studying that can prevent disease and/or cure.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 18, 2012, 07:16:32 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on January 18, 2012, 07:04:17 PM
That's...hardly fair. You feel that because someone doesn't grow their own organs for now that the whole argument against better design is invalid?
Hardly fair? Have you seen the Religion forum and all that the typical Atheist asks the Christian to prove empirically? Really, it's unfair to ask for a REAL design using the REAL eye as a backdrop, reworking the nerves and all that goes into what makes an eye work? I mean, it doesn't have to work perfectly yet...it's a "working design" where there was actual thought put into redesigning that which "God designed". If cartoon pics are acceptable as proof, then let it be proof on the whole of the forum and not just here.
Quote from: xSilverPhinxOut of curiousity, what do you see gene therapy as?
A manner in which our scientists and drs are studying that can prevent disease and/or cure.
What are you arguing here? Are you actually arguing that the eye is designed as well as it possibly could be?
Clearly it's not perfect. If it was, we could zoom in and see atoms, or be able to focus on galaxies on the other side of the universe, or be able to see other wavelengths of light (gamma rays, microwaves, etc).
So what are you saying, that an omnipotent being with unlimited time and resources wouldn't be able to design an eye that could do any of these things? The fact that no one on the forum (and this is an assumption) has the knowledge to design a blueprint for an eyeball that is superior to ours proves nothing. In fact, it's nothing but a strawman. This god of yours isn't bound by the same limitations as we are, so whats his excuse?
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 18, 2012, 07:16:32 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on January 18, 2012, 07:04:17 PM
That's...hardly fair. You feel that because someone doesn't grow their own organs for now that the whole argument against better design is invalid?
Hardly fair? Have you seen the Religion forum and all that the typical Atheist asks the Christian to prove empirically? Really, it's unfair to ask for a REAL design using the REAL eye as a backdrop, reworking the nerves and all that goes into what makes an eye work? I mean, it doesn't have to work perfectly yet...it's a "working design" where there was actual thought put into redesigning that which "God designed". If cartoon pics are acceptable as proof, then let it be proof on the whole of the forum and not just here.
Quote from: xSilverPhinxOut of curiousity, what do you see gene therapy as?
A manner in which our scientists and drs are studying that can prevent disease and/or cure.
Ok, I don't know how you feel you can expect a god who is omnipotent can't do better than a "working design" such as ours or if that god can, then why they didn't. That's basically the question here, but fair enough if you want someone to make a better working human eye from scratch, that's your prerogative.
Quote from: Heisenberg on January 18, 2012, 07:25:17 PM
What are you arguing here? Are you actually arguing that the eye is designed as well as it possibly could be?
Yeah, I don't get it either what is the argument? And why is there always so much attention given to eyes when discussing irreducible complexity. All of our senses are equally fascinating and limited. It's even more interesting to me to imagine how the brain of an ant senesces chemicals and how the snout of a shark can sense electrical fields in the water. What is the argument here and how is it not but to bed by accumulated complexity and the red queen?
Quote from: Heisenberg on January 18, 2012, 07:25:17 PM
What are you arguing here? Are you actually arguing that the eye is designed as well as it possibly could be?
I have yet to see a better design for a human that functions or even possibly could function in a working drawing.
Quote from: HeisenbergClearly it's not perfect. If it was, we could zoom in and see atoms, or be able to focus on galaxies on the other side of the universe, or be able to see other wavelengths of light (gamma rays, microwaves, etc).
By this logic, the nose is imperfect too. One should be able to smell what's cooking on the opposite side of the earth while smelling what is right in front of my nose...silly isn't it.
Quote from: HeisenbergSo what are you saying, that an omnipotent being with unlimited time and resources wouldn't be able to design an eye that could do any of these things?
Certainly an omnipotent god could IF THAT WERE THE DESIGN. A design can be perfect for its purpose and not perfect in that it does EVERYTHING perfectly.
Quote from: HeisenbergThe fact that no one on the forum (and this is an assumption) has the knowledge to design a blueprint for an eyeball that is superior to ours proves nothing. In fact, it's nothing but a strawman. This god of yours isn't bound by the same limitations as we are, so whats his excuse?
That's exactly the point. To say something is flawed and there is a better design is to know the Designer and the Designer's purpose...the Atheist doesn't even believe there is a Designer, so how is the eye even considered flawed without knowing the purpose?
The purpose of the eye is to see... We can not see everything so it is has not perfectly designed. Pretty axiomatic if you ask me.
And even if seeing as much as possible wasn't the goal, why are there the inefficiencies mentioned above? It's simply poor design no matter how you slice it. And what do you make of the video posted elsewhere on the board (sorry I forget where it was) about the giraffe and it's circuitous laryngeal nerve?
Ill give you this much: if the purpose of the eye was to make people believe that god does NOT exist, then maybe it is perfectly designed. But would a god who attempts to hide his existence want to be worshiped anyway?
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 18, 2012, 05:56:57 PM
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: Guardian85 on January 18, 2012, 08:33:40 PM
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.
Quote from: Guardian85It 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.
Not everybody's mind works perfectly, such as people with neurological disorders and mental illness. Luckily science has come up with many fixes in the form of medicine.
For that matter, my eyes are quite bad. Luckily science has a fix for that too.
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?
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 18, 2012, 09:53:59 PM
Quote from: Guardian85 on January 18, 2012, 08:33:40 PM
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.
Quote from: Guardian85It 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.
Quote from: Guardian85 on January 18, 2012, 11:12:20 PM
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.
Quote from: Guardian85The 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.
Quote from: Guardian85And 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.
Quote from: Guardian85And 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.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 18, 2012, 11:28:27 PM
Quote from: Guardian85And 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.
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.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 18, 2012, 05:56:57 PM
Quote from: Tank on January 14, 2012, 12:35:02 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 13, 2012, 11:35:41 PM
Yet they work perfectly. I have yet to see anyone come up with even a schematic of a "better" design.
You have now.
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg88.imageshack.us%2Fimg88%2F4636%2Fretina.jpg&hash=0912dd4ef27db8216b2b105893579da646db8ad3)
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.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 18, 2012, 09:53:59 PM
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.)
Quote from: Tank on January 19, 2012, 02:12:17 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 18, 2012, 05:56:57 PM
Quote from: Tank on January 14, 2012, 12:35:02 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 13, 2012, 11:35:41 PM
Yet they work perfectly. I have yet to see anyone come up with even a schematic of a "better" design.
You have now.
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg88.imageshack.us%2Fimg88%2F4636%2Fretina.jpg&hash=0912dd4ef27db8216b2b105893579da646db8ad3)
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.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 19, 2012, 04:50:00 PM
Quote from: Tank on January 19, 2012, 02:12:17 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 18, 2012, 05:56:57 PM
Quote from: Tank on January 14, 2012, 12:35:02 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 13, 2012, 11:35:41 PM
Yet they work perfectly. I have yet to see anyone come up with even a schematic of a "better" design.
You have now.
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg88.imageshack.us%2Fimg88%2F4636%2Fretina.jpg&hash=0912dd4ef27db8216b2b105893579da646db8ad3)
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.
I'm over 50% blind in my right eye. I can technically wear a patch. Yaaargh xD
Quote from: Sweetdeath on January 21, 2012, 01:04:22 AM
I'm over 50% blind in my right eye. I can technically wear a patch. Yaaargh xD
Anyone can wear a patch, no..? ???
One of my favorites >_>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W96AJ0ChboU
Quote from: superfes on January 23, 2012, 05:08:22 PM
One of my favorites >_>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W96AJ0ChboU
That's a good one.
Quote from: Tank on January 23, 2012, 08:34:37 PM
Quote from: superfes on January 23, 2012, 05:08:22 PM
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.
QualiaSoups videos are all very good. The ones he made on morality also helped me explain a non theistic perspective on one occasion.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 18, 2012, 09:53:59 PMBasically 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.
Tell you what, how about you draw us a schematic of the human eye as it is, just so that we can see a) what sort of schematic you'd like to see and b) whether you can live up to your own expectations of others.
This sounds an awful lot like argument from incredulity to me. In reality, the whole irreducible complexity charade is precisely that. Irreducible complexity isn't, as some think, a problem for evolutionary theory, it's a natural corollary of evolutionary theory, demonstrated by Hermann Joseph Müller some 30 years or so before Behe was even born, in a process that has since come to be known as the Müllerian two-step. It works like this:
Step 1: Add a part
Step 2: Make it necessary
Further, irreducible complexity can arise in other ways. The classic analogy to employ here is the arch, which is an irreducibly complex structure. The methodology for building an arch is well-understood, and has been for well over 1,000 years. It involves using a 'centring', upon which the arch is constructed until the keystone goes in so that it can support its own weight, after which the centring is removed. This can actually be observed to occur in a more direct way during many stages of embryology now. Nothing mysterious or magical about it.
Another way that irreducible complexity can arise is through the co-opting of existing structures that previously had other functions. This is, of course, the example that nails Behe's guff to the wall, especially with regard to the bacterial flagellum, about which I'll say more in a moment. The flagellar motor has co-opted a previously existing system, known as the Type III secretory system (T3SS), which is employed by pathogenic bacteria as a kind of syringe for injecting infection-aiding proteins into eukaryotic cells.
As it happens, though, the bacterial flagellum has been categorically demonstrated not to be irreducibly complex. In recent experiments, the flagellum was subjected to deconstruction, including the axle, and it still worked![1] Further, there has been work done on the actual genes that code for the requisite proteins in flagellar synthesis, namely FliL and FliH. It appears that knocking out the FliL gene buggers up the flagellar synthesis. But, and you'll love this, because it shoots the irreducible complexity bollocks in the foot, if you knock out the FliL and the FliH at the same time, the flagellum works again! [2]
Refs:
[1]
Axle-Less F1-ATPase Rotates In The Correct Direction by Shou Furuike, Mohammad Delawar Hossain, Yasushi Maki, Kengo Adachi, Toshiharu Suzuki, Ayako Kohori, Hiroyasu Itoh, Masasuke Yoshida and Kazuhiko Kinosita, Jr.,
Science, 319: 955-958 (No. 5865, 15 February 2008)
[2]
Distinct roles of the FliI ATPase and proton motive force in bacterial flagellar protein export by Minamino & Namba
Nature 451, 485-488 (24 January 2008)
Science 1,000,000 - cretinism 0
Edits: Minor corrections.
Quote from: hackenslash on January 28, 2012, 11:18:30 AM
Science 1,000,000 - cretinism 0
Slash is back indeed!
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcommunity.secondlife.com%2Ft5%2Fimage%2Fserverpage%2Fimage-id%2F9015i249D78080E92AC90%2Fimage-size%2Flarge%3Fv%3Dmpbl-1%26amp%3Bpx%3D600&hash=55dea82def1cb7a61edfd7de62bcd2c3cc294706)
Who's the really ugly christian in a Dawkins doco who lectures him about being arrogant?
The guy seems to have a jaw locked in anger that makes it hard for him to speak.
RD seems to quail a bit in the face of the freaky psycho.
That guys picture needs clever things written on it to dispel the scary.
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on January 28, 2012, 11:42:03 AM
Who's the really ugly christian in a Dawkins doco who lectures him about being arrogant?
The guy seems to have a jaw locked in anger that makes it hard for him to speak.
RD seems to quail a bit in the face of the freaky psycho.
That guys picture needs clever things written on it to dispel the scary.
You mean Ted Haggard? He of the 'homosexuality is a sin' trope, subsequently caught snorting methamphetamine off the belly of a male prostitute?
Quote from: hackenslash on January 28, 2012, 11:46:44 AM
You mean Ted Haggard? He of the 'homosexuality is a sin' trope, subsequently caught snorting methamphetamine off the belly of a male prostitute?
Yes I think so.
I wonder if he had to pay extra.
I'd have charged him extra.
You'd need to charge such a one more so you could pay a large person to watch and ensure you didn't end up in his car boot/trunk.
These guys are such colourful characters.
The whole irreducible complexity argument seems a lot like just another "god of the gaps" attempt at grasping at whatever theists presume to be inexplecible as proof of their deity of choice. However, in this case it's also a variation of the argument from ignorance. "I don't understand how the eye could have evolved; so it's proof that god exists."
The eye is designed to interpret electromagnetic waves to produce images. The human eye sees only a very limited range of the electromagnetic spectrum. Half of the time we spend on earth is spent in the dark and our vision is significantly impaired during the hours of darkness. Our pre-human ancestors and early humans were most vulnerable to predators in the dark primarily because of this handicap. That doesn't seem like intelligent design at all. Many nocturnal animals see at least as well as humans in the daytime and a lot better at night. There are better systems that already exist, aside from octopi.
EDIT: To correct a typo.