Is evolution hanging on ?

[DWAAS]

An interesting podcast discussion with questions posed to Dr. Berlinski and Dr. Denton

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2016/01/michael_denton_1102560.html

"The human eye's threshold of detectablity is at the order of a single photon, that should send a shiver up your back. Here we are a product of a messy, intemperate, adventitious, inaccurate, unguided evolutionary process and sitting on top of our heads are two organs that are perfect! Now where did that come from?
Every evolutionary biologist with a propaganda microphone close to his vibrating throat will tell you bricolage bricolage bricolage, think of the appendix...."

 

[copacetic]

jesus...

 

[Monsta Graphics]

and sitting on top of our heads are two organs that are perfect!

Fail.

Perfect
adjective
1. having all the required or desirable elements, qualities, or characteristics; as good as it is possible to be.

Our eyes are not perfect. Some insects have compound eyes. Others can see ultra violet, like bees.
Birds can see more colours than us, and falcons can see up to 8 times more clearly than us.
Chameleons have eyes that can move independently and have a wider field of view.

Our eyes are far from perfect.... it's not even close. Just go and look at how many people need glasses.

 

[Xarog]

Fail.

Perfect
adjective
1. having all the required or desirable elements, qualities, or characteristics; as good as it is possible to be.

Our eyes are not perfect. Some insects have compound eyes. Others can see ultra violet, like bees.
Birds can see more colours than us, and falcons can see up to 8 times more clearly than us.
Chameleons have eyes that can move independently and have a wider field of view.

Our eyes are far from perfect.... it's not even close.

Not to mention that our retina is on the wrong side of the blood vessels. What happens when those cells absorb the photon before it reaches the retina, hmmmmm?

Now if we had octopus eyes...

 

[biometrics]

Eks entering his religious phase?

 

[falcon786]

Not to mention that our retina is on the wrong side of the blood vessels. What happens when those cells absorb the photon before it reaches the retina, hmmmmm?

Now if we had octopus eyes...

Mantis shrimp...

 

[Viva]

Given the content of the article, I find OP's nickname quite appropriate.

 

[Neoprod]

Fail.

Perfect
adjective
1. having all the required or desirable elements, qualities, or characteristics; as good as it is possible to be.

Our eyes are not perfect. Some insects have compound eyes. Others can see ultra violet, like bees.
Birds can see more colours than us, and falcons can see up to 8 times more clearly than us.
Chameleons have eyes that can move independently and have a wider field of view.

Our eyes are far from perfect.... it's not even close. Just go and look at how many people need glasses.

Solid post except for the last sentence.

 

[Swa]

Fail.

Perfect
adjective
1. having all the required or desirable elements, qualities, or characteristics; as good as it is possible to be.

Our eyes are not perfect. Some insects have compound eyes. Others can see ultra violet, like bees.
Birds can see more colours than us, and falcons can see up to 8 times more clearly than us.
Chameleons have eyes that can move independently and have a wider field of view.

Our eyes are far from perfect.... it's not even close. Just go and look at how many people need glasses.

Imperfect implies a known reference to work from. We have none. Something is perfect if it accomplishes the goal it was made for. Example, a piece of paper is perfect if it allows you to write on it. We get by more successfully than any other species with what it is we do. That defects crept in after the fact is besides the point.

 

[Ho3n3r]

 

[wayfarer]

Mantis shrimp...

The mantis shrimp is indeed one of the most extraordinary creatures ever evolved by God, the Evolver of things. God is also the One who bestows "colours" and the perception thereof via evolved eyes.

Consider the Quranic verse:

"He is God, the Creator, the Evolver, the Bestower of colours." (Quran 59:24)

 

[Ho3n3r]

The mantis shrimp is indeed one of the most extraordinary creatures ever evolved by God, the Evolver of things. God is also the One who bestows "colours" and the perception thereof via evolved eyes.

Consider the Quranic verse:

"He is God, the Creator, the Evolver, the Bestower of colours." (Quran 59:24)

:crylaugh:

Trust some moron to turn this into a religious discussion.

 

[wayfarer]

:crylaugh:

Trust some moron to turn this into a religious discussion.

You do know that for the major religions who accept a personal God, all sciences, including the natural sciences, originate with God, and return to Him, and any discussion of the extant world may very well include that reference? Or am I not allowed that freedom of speech? You also know that the subject of biological evolution is one of the science topics most affected by ideological bias? Some people are just less open to admit that.

Why, for example, am I to accept the idea of random mutation, instead of God-determined mutation? There is just as much evidence for either. And objective science is silent on the matter. Random mutation presents an atheistic "religious" view, whereas God-determined mutation would present a theistic religious view. If terms such as "random" mutation and "natural" selection can be used in scientific discussion (which carries the assumption of an absence of a creator/designer), why can a religious person not discuss the same science from his/her own world view, in terms of his/her own paradigm, as long as it is not anti-science?

 

[Ho3n3r]

You do know that for the major religions who accept a personal God, all sciences, including the natural sciences, originate with God, and return to Him, and any discussion of the extant world may very well include that reference? Or am I not allowed that freedom of speech? You also know that the subject of biological evolution is one of the science topics most affected by ideological bias? Some people are just less open to admit that.

Why, for example, am I to accept the idea of random mutation, instead of God-determined mutation? There is just as much evidence for either. And objective science is silent on the matter. Random mutation presents an atheistic "religious" view, whereas God-determined mutation would present a theistic religious view. If terms such as "random" mutation and "natural" selection can be used in scientific discussion (which carries the assumption of an absence of a creator/designer), why can a religious person not discuss the same science from his/her own world view, in terms of his/her own paradigm, as long as it is not anti-science?

My point was actually that this thread was not about religion, but that you, as a religious nut, is turning it into one.

 

[Xarog]

:crylaugh:

Trust some moron to turn this into a religious discussion.

It was implicit in the OP. Grats on insulting someone merely because their opinion runs contrary to yours.

 

[Xarog]

Why, for example, am I to accept the idea of random mutation, instead of God-determined mutation? There is just as much evidence for either. And objective science is silent on the matter. Random mutation presents an atheistic "religious" view, whereas God-determined mutation would present a theistic religious view. If terms such as "random" mutation and "natural" selection can be used in scientific discussion (which carries the assumption of an absence of a creator/designer), why can a religious person not discuss the same science from his/her own world view, in terms of his/her own paradigm, as long as it is not anti-science?

Nitpick: There is evidence for directed, non-random mutation.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v485/n7396/full/nature10995.html
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Nonrandom_directed_mutations_confirmed.php

We are not talking about natural selection anymore. It is better to speak of natural self-selection. DNA designs itself, using stress cues to orient the direction of evolution.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

:crylaugh:

Trust some moron to turn this into a religious discussion.

It was 'religious' from the OP, hence the 'intelligent design' nonsense on the website linked. Intelligent design being "creationism in a cheap tuxedo", after all.

You do know that for the major religions who accept a personal God, all sciences, including the natural sciences, originate with God, and return to Him, and any discussion of the extant world may very well include that reference? Or am I not allowed that freedom of speech? You also know that the subject of biological evolution is one of the science topics most affected by ideological bias? Some people are just less open to admit that.

Why, for example, am I to accept the idea of random mutation, instead of God-determined mutation? There is just as much evidence for either. And objective science is silent on the matter. Random mutation presents an atheistic "religious" view, whereas God-determined mutation would present a theistic religious view. If terms such as "random" mutation and "natural" selection can be used in scientific discussion (which carries the assumption of an absence of a creator/designer), why can a religious person not discuss the same science from his/her own world view, in terms of his/her own paradigm, as long as it is not anti-science?

Err, what? If objective science is silent on the matter, you can't then claim there's as much evidence for a creator as for a model that works without one. Where's the evidence that objectively points to God(s)-determined mutations?

And it only presents an 'atheistic' view if you consider everything sans deities as 'atheistic'. Is an internal combustion engine's manual an 'atheistic view' on heat engines? Is a Boeing 747's aerodynamics an 'atheistic view' on flight?

 

[Swa]

My point was actually that this thread was not about religion, but that you, as a religious nut, is turning it into one.

It is always about religion when we have the usual "random mutation" mantra.

 

[Xarog]

Err, what? If objective science is silent on the matter, you can't then claim there's as much evidence for a creator as for a model that works without one. Where's the evidence that objectively points to God(s)-determined mutations?

No evidence means no inferences can reasonably be drawn, which means all possibilities must be considered equally likely until more information is acquired.

And it only presents an 'atheistic' view if you consider everything sans deities as 'atheistic'. Is an internal combustion engine's manual an 'atheistic view' on heat engines? Is a Boeing 747's aerodynamics an 'atheistic view' on flight?

That depends on what the description is of the combustion with respect to the nature of causation as determined by the properties of the Big Bang.

 

[Swa]

Err, what? If objective science is silent on the matter, you can't then claim there's as much evidence for a creator as for a model that works without one. Where's the evidence that objectively points to God(s)-determined mutations?

And it only presents an 'atheistic' view if you consider everything sans deities as 'atheistic'. Is an internal combustion engine's manual an 'atheistic view' on heat engines? Is a Boeing 747's aerodynamics an 'atheistic view' on flight?

Where's the evidence that points to random non-directed evolution? If some can claim that which is a religious view the opposite can also be claimed. Neither belongs in the science books.