What is the greatest evidence against the theory of evolution...?

[ClothedInGrace]

I will keep repeating the facts. Perhaps you won't ignore them this time?

Light passing through a cell causes the light to diffract. This reduces resolution.

Some of the light passing through a cell will be absorbed by the chemicals in the cell. This reduces the amount of light reaching the light sensing cells. This reduces sensitivity.

Can you show how either of these are not facts?

Can you prove that these facts somehow diminish the idea that the eye was created? An eye is still an eye, no matter how sensitive or nonsensitive, and the ability to see the world around us is something that cannot be achieved by millions of years of mutations. You believe that is the case, but you cannot prove it.

 

[ClothedInGrace]

It IS a fact. The human eye factually has a blind spot. The human brain factually spends energy to rectify the image so that we don't "see" the blind spot.

This is not "some view" or "belief".

This is factual anatomy.



It is.

View attachment 173069

We have a blind spot in our eye. Fact.
This blind spot exists because the nerves need to go through it. Fact.
This blind spot would not exist if the nerves were on the other side. Fact.
The brain needs to spend extra energy to accomodate for this blind spot. Fact.
The brian would not need to do this, if it didn't have a blind spot. Fact.

Fact, fact, fact.



I'm not ignoring anything.
That would be you.

No, I believe the blind spot. I don't believe the idea that the blind spot somehow leads us to believe that we have no creator. Even with a blind spot our eyes are incredibly well crafted.

 

[Loudmouth]

Can you prove that these facts somehow diminish the idea that the eye was created?

You are the one who stated that the eye was created perfect. These facts demonstrate that you are wrong.

An eye is still an eye, no matter how sensitive or nonsensitive, and the ability to see the world around us is something that cannot be achieved by millions of years of mutations.

Please present evidence that millions of mutations can not produce an eye.

 

[Loudmouth]

No, I believe the blind spot. I don't believe the idea that the blind spot somehow leads us to believe that we have no creator. Even with a blind spot our eyes are incredibly well crafted.

You stated that the eye was created perfect, did you not?

 

[ClothedInGrace]

You stated that the eye was created perfect, did you not?

Perfect for it's function, yes. Maybe not perfect in the way you'd imagine. It was made so we can see, and guess what? We can see!

 

[ClothedInGrace]

Please present evidence that millions of mutations can not produce an eye.

Present the evidence it can.

 

[DogmaHunter]

It's made to function in a medium that requires greater clarity.
Just as that eye on land would soon cease to function because it would lack the protection a blind spot in the human eye provides to prevent radiation damage.

Its not better, it is simply better suited to its environment. On land the octopuses eye would soon become useless as it went blind because it had no blind spot. So which is actually better? neither. Both work in the environment it was designed for. Besides - according to evolution your reasoning is flawed, since humans are the pinnacle of evolution - the most advanced. The octopus eye is less advanced, and therefore inferior - but I guess we'll disregard simple to complex in this discussion of superiority and evolution from water to land.

Ow, you mean like fish? Ow... oeps....fish have the same blind spot. And they live in the same habitat as an octopus. It seems your "logic" doesn't add up.

 

[Loudmouth]

Perfect for it's function, yes.

But it isn't perfect for it's function. It has flaws that reduce both resolution and sensitivity.

 

[Loudmouth]

Present the evidence it can.

You made the claim. Your burden of proof to support it.

 

[DogmaHunter]

No, I believe the blind spot. I don't believe the idea that the blind spot somehow leads us to believe that we have no creator. Even with a blind spot our eyes are incredibly well crafted.

I'ld call it an enormous design flaw. It's simply bad engineering.

Again, would you buy a camera that has the wires in front of the light sensitive sensors, with additional battery consuming software to "fix the image"?

Would Sony bosses be pleased with such a design?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Perfect for it's function, yes. Maybe not perfect in the way you'd imagine. It was made so we can see, and guess what? We can see!

In other words.... we could have any kind of eye and you would call it "designed" no matter what?

At this point, I'ld ask you to describe what properties an eye would have to have in order for you to not claim it was designed.

 

[ClothedInGrace]

In other words.... we could have any kind of eye and you would call it "designed" no matter what?

At this point, I'ld ask you to describe what properties an eye would have to have in order for you to not claim it was designed.

I simply don't believe any eye of any sort can arise from evolutionary processes.

 

[ClothedInGrace]

You made the claim. Your burden of proof to support it.

Yes, it is always my burden, isn't it? Me who says that we were intelligently created. The burden isn't somehow on the person who says that we have no designer, and that we are just complex mutations of a primordial lifeform which cannot be explained.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Evidence has no opinion.

Then let me put it another way. The evidence tells us that you are wrong. Evidence can either support or refute a model and all creationist models have been thoroughly refuted by evidence. By definition there is no scientific evidence for creationism and that is the fault of creationists.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I simply don't believe any eye of any sort can arise from evolutionary processes.

And that is an argument from incredulity, probably mixed with an argument from ignorance since it is not all that difficult to understand the evolution of the eye.

 

[ClothedInGrace]

And that is an argument from incredulity, probably mixed with an argument from ignorance since it is not all that difficult to understand the evolution of the eye.

Care to explain how our eyes came to be without a designer? How design arises from chaos?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes they are, but they're not proof.
(But it could still be personal proof though).

They are very poor evidence, and they are not scientific evidence. When discussing matters of science it is best to use scientific evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Care to explain how our eyes came to be without a designer? How design arises from chaos?

Perhaps if you asked properly. You are assuming that there is "design". Would you care to ask again without using leading questions?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, it is always my burden, isn't it? Me who says that we were intelligently created. The burden isn't somehow on the person who says that we have no designer, and that we are just complex mutations of a primordial lifeform which cannot be explained.

When we make a claim we have a burden of proof too. When it comes to a "designer" all we can say is that there is no evidence of one. This is a negative claim, an observation of a lack of evidence, from that all we can say is that there is no logical reason to believe in a designer. We don't claim that there is evidence against a designer. You need to quit making incorrect claims of what others believe. You should be asking questions and not making claims at this point in time.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So you think a better designed human would have the eye of an octopus? Assuming we can guide evolution, how do we go about obtaining an octopus eye?

We can't with the current state of technology. By the time we can there will be even better alternatives.