Evolution and the myth of "scientific consensus"

[justlookinla]

1654

Thank you, I missed that. Seems we both agree on 'nope'......and disagree with Loud.

 

[justlookinla]

"I would say that it is necessary. When you identify design, you are identifying a designer. It is the act of designing that leaves the evidence, such as the use of tools or methodologies."--post 1674

I'm going to assume that's a 'yes'. I've been through many discussions with you and sometimes my assumptions aren't accurate.

Now, please give us the identity of the designer for the following item...assuming it's designed.....

 

[crjmurray]

I'm going to assume that's a 'yes'. I've been through many discussions with you and sometimes my assumptions aren't accurate.

Now, please give us the identity of the designer for the following item...assuming it's designed.....

The Greeks

 

[Loudmouth]

I'm going to assume that's a 'yes'.

You asked if it was necessary, and I said that it was necessary.

Now, please give us the identity of the designer for the following item...assuming it's designed.....

Human, obviously. The tool marks, alloys, etc. are all consistent with human manufacture.

 

[The Cadet]

All Dawkins deals with is the eyeball.

0:35 No, the most simple form of vision has only a light-sensitive patch and a simple chemical array to interpret the light signals. It has no need of a retina or a complex visual code! This guy is an idiot.

 

[Smidlee]

0:35 No, the most simple form of vision has only a light-sensitive patch and a simple chemical array to interpret the light signals. It has no need of a retina or a complex visual code! This guy is an idiot.

A light sensitive patch has nothing to do with vision.

 

[Davian]

Oh Davian, aren't you so clever.
Patterns are not the equivalent to what we are discussing here <snip>

Until you can show how to measure 'design', it is the same thing. Enough with the excuses.

Provided evidence that it is an illusion.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Which is why Dawkins states that you are gullible for accepting the appearance of design.

Dawkins wants me to be gullible enough accept what he presents to explain that appearance without evidence like you seem to be .

 

[The Cadet]

A light sensitive patch has nothing to do with vision.

...You seem to have watched the videos on the subject. How is it that you don't understand this? A light sensitive patch of cells can discern light from dark and thus give a distinct advantage to a creature. You don't need any sort of complex brain structure to interpret that. From there... Look, just go watch Dawkins's video on the subject again. I shouldn't have to explain this to you. The evolution of the human eye is extremely well-documented and well-understood.

 

[Loudmouth]

0:35 No, the most simple form of vision has only a light-sensitive patch and a simple chemical array to interpret the light signals. It has no need of a retina or a complex visual code! This guy is an idiot.

Even Darwin figured this one out.

"In the Articulata we can commence a series with an optic nerve merely coated with pigment, and without any other mechanism; and from this low stage, numerous gradations of structure, branching off in two fundamentally different lines, can be shown to exist, until we reach a moderately high stage of perfection. In certain crustaceans, for instance, there is a double cornea, the inner one divided into facets, within each of which there is a lens shaped swelling. In other crustaceans the transparent cones which are coated by pigment, and which properly act only by excluding lateral pencils of light, are convex at their upper ends and must act by convergence; and at their lower ends there seems to be an imperfect vitreous substance. With these facts, here far too briefly and imperfectly given, which show that there is much graduated diversity in the eyes of living crustaceans, and bearing in mind how small the number of living animals is in proportion to those which have become extinct, I can see no very great difficulty (not more than in the case of many other structures) in believing that natural selection has converted the simple apparatus of an optic nerve merely coated with pigment and invested by transparent membrane, into an optical instrument as perfect as is possessed by any member of the great Articulate class."--Charles Darwin, "The Origin of Species"
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin/chapter6.html

 

[Smidlee]

...You seem to have watched the videos on the subject. How is it that you don't understand this? A light sensitive patch of cells can discern light from dark and thus give a distinct advantage to a creature. You don't need any sort of complex brain structure to interpret that. From there... Look, just go watch Dawkins's video on the subject again. I shouldn't have to explain this to you. The evolution of the human eye is extremely well-documented and well-understood.

You don't realize a light senor is not the same as a visual system. Even trees can detect light without a vision.

 

[Loudmouth]

A light sensitive patch has nothing to do with vision.

The Euglena would disagree.

 

[Loudmouth]

You don't realize a light senor is not the same as a visual system. Even trees can detect light without a vision.

You don't need the entire vertebrate visual system in order for the sensing of light to be advantageous, and therefore selectable.

 

[Smidlee]

You don't need the entire vertebrate visual system in order for the sensing of light to be advantageous, and therefore selectable.

And you don't need evolution fairy tale to explain why each creature is given the visual system it needs.

 

[justlookinla]

The Greeks

I'm looking for the guy who did it. If we have to know the designer before we can determine if something is designed or not.

And "the Greeks" is just a guess.

 

[bhsmte]

And you don't need evolution fairy tale to explain why each creature is given the visual system it needs.

No, you don't need it, if you simply want to make something up.

 

[Loudmouth]

And you don't need evolution fairy tale to explain why each creature is given the visual system it needs.

It isn't a fairy tale. Is that all you have, name calling?

The argument that creationists give us is that you need all of the parts in the human eye all at once in order to have function. This isn't true. Even something as simple as a light sensing organelle in a single celled protist can provide a selective advantage.

 

[justlookinla]

You asked if it was necessary, and I said that it was necessary.



Human, obviously. The tool marks, alloys, etc. are all consistent with human manufacture.

Nope, that does not identify the designer. Who was the designer?

 

[Loudmouth]

I'm looking for the guy who did it. If we have to know the designer before we can determine if something is designed or not.

The designer was a human. This is determined by finding tool marks and materials consistent with human manufacture, and it is the working of those tools that also result in the design. They are intrinsic to one another.

So what are the tools and methods that were used to design humans?

 

[Davian]

Dawkins wants me to be gullible enough accept what he presents to explain that appearance without evidence like you seem to be .

What would you provide as evidence for the face in that cliff being an illusion?