Evolution of the human eye

Status
Not open for further replies.

VirOptimus

A nihilist who cares.
Aug 24, 2005
6,814
4,421
53
✟250,677.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Not really. I dont adhere to ID per-se but rather take a little of each position that I think is relevant and supported. As you know I support the Extended evolutionary synthesis which is in contradiction to ID in some ways. I also support thiestic evolution which has some similarities to ID.

I think all who support thiestic evolution will agree that there is some elements of ID within nature to their position. Afterall God as creator also is the ultimate intelligence behind creation and therefore this has to be part of how God created. But as I said I don't take any specific position but will support whatever appears to have evdience for.

I don't need to rely on ID or any other view to prove my belief. In that sense I am really in a better position than most as I don't have any fixed idea and in fact admit I don't really know what the truth is ultimately. Whereas you or someone who adheres to the Standard view of evolution only can be just as dogmatic as any creaionist.

I am sure you just sit back and observe threads not intending to participate in the actual topic but rather to just discredit people.
You dont need discrediting, your posts are available for all to read.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: NxNW
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,584
951
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,905.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I think that remark is self-serving and offensive. It is not only offensive to scientists, atheists and theists alike, but to Traditional Christians like myself who believe that God can do His work in a way that appears to science as a completely natural process, and have the theology to back up that belief.
Since when is the Bible offensive to Christians and thiestic evolutionists when the Bible tells us that we all know of Gods creation when we look at nature. I think you forget that there is a reason that thiestic evolution is different to athiestic evolution. Otherwise why even include God. Thiestic evolutionists look for Gods design in evolution in various ways. If its offensive to athiests then I cannot help that as its Gods truth.

Romans 1:20
“For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.”
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Since when is the Bible offensive to Christians and thiestic evolutionists when the Bible tells us that we all know of Gods creation when we look at nature. I think you forget that there is a reason that thiestic evolution is different to athiestic evolution. Otherwise why even include God. Thiestic evolutionists look for Gods design in evolution in various ways. If its offensive to athiests then I cannot help that as its Gods truth.

Romans 1:20
“For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.”
One would think that if a person could find evidence for God in evolution that they would be able to publish it. To date no such publications that I know of.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,584
951
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,905.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
One would think that if a person could find evidence for God in evolution that they would be able to publish it. To date no such publications that I know of.
Its more about evidence for design than evidence for God. Evidence for design points to some agent behind that design. I guess thats why the Bible verse Romans 1:20 focuses on Gods invisible qualities and divine nature are seen in nature rather than God Himself.

If we all know of God through nature then that is the evidence just like we would see the evidence for design by humans in the things they made. Its just that some will deny this. So some people can be shown that evidence but will deny it and therefore no amount of evidence is going to sway them.

Dawkins acknowledges there is design in nature but he puts it down to nature itself (natural selection) being the creator which really doesn't make much sense as nature is not capable of any creation.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Its more about evidence for design than evidence for God. Evidence for design points to some agent behind that design. I guess thats why the Bible verse Romans 1:20 focuses on Gods invisible qualities and divine nature are seen in nature rather than God Himself.

If we all know of God through nature then that is the evidence just like we would see the evidence for design by humans in the things they made. Its just that some will deny this. So some people can be shown that evidence but will deny it and therefore no amount of evidence is going to sway them.

Dawkins acknowledges there is design in nature but he puts it down to nature itself (natural selection) being the creator which really doesn't make much sense as nature is not capable of any creation.
I don't think that you understand what is and what is not evidence in the sciences.

What reasonable test could refute "design"? Heck what is design?
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Hans Blaster
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,584
951
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,905.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I don't think that you understand what is and what is not evidence in the sciences.
I do understand what the scientific method requires as noted in my post #227 IE I appreciate that the scientific method is about testing observations and verifying them which is different to supernatural processes.
What reasonable test could refute "design"? Heck what is design?
I also addressed this in post #237. I think Paley's explaination seems the best to explain design especially in biology which relates to evolution. Its not just about information as in Shannon form or the structure of something but also function especially in biology. Its a combination of specific information and function.

Paley uses the watch example being found. We would not say that if we found a watch lying on the ground with its complex workings that it was always there or was something like a rock that forms by random forces. He then compares the workings of the universe which act similar to a watch. We could also apply the cell or DNA and even the eye.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
I do understand what the scientific method requires as noted in my post #227 IE I appreciate that the scientific method is about testing observations and verifying them which is different to supernatural processes.
I also addressed this in post #237. I think Paley's explaination seems the best to explain design especially in biology which relates to evolution. Its not just about information as in Shannon form or the structure of something but also function especially in biology. Its a combination of specific information and function.

Paley uses the watch example being found. We would not say that if we found a watch lying on the ground with its complex workings that it was always there or was something like a rock that forms by random forces. He then compares the workings of the universe which act similar to a watch. We could also apply the cell or DNA and even the eye.
I do not think that you understand evidence, and you may not understand the scientific method (your quote left quite a bit out). There does not appear to be any scientific evidence for design. I asked you a question. It was there for a purpose. It shows that there is no scientific evidence for design. In the sciences one is required to put one's money where one's mouth is. So to speak.



What reasonable test could refute "design"?

EDIT: I just check post 237. You did not address these issues. Especially the question that I just asked.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: VirOptimus
Upvote 0

Ponderous Curmudgeon

Well-Known Member
Feb 20, 2021
1,477
944
65
Newfield
✟38,862.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Divorced
I do understand what the scientific method requires as noted in my post #227 IE I appreciate that the scientific method is about testing observations and verifying them which is different to supernatural processes.
I also addressed this in post #237. I think Paley's explaination seems the best to explain design especially in biology which relates to evolution. Its not just about information as in Shannon form or the structure of something but also function especially in biology. Its a combination of specific information and function.

Paley uses the watch example being found. We would not say that if we found a watch lying on the ground with its complex workings that it was always there or was something like a rock that forms by random forces. He then compares the workings of the universe which act similar to a watch. We could also apply the cell or DNA and even the eye.
Just FYI, Paley's watch was found on a heath, not a beach. The question then becomes for you in terms of evolution and life where you consider life to be complex, how do you differentiate the complexity of the heath plants from the watch?
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,584
951
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,905.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I do not think that you understand evidence, and you may not understand the scientific method (your quote left quite a bit out). There does not appear to be any scientific evidence for design. I asked you a question. It was there for a purpose. It shows that there is no scientific evidence for design. In the sciences one is required to put one's money where one's mouth is. So to speak.



What reasonable test could refute "design"?

EDIT: I just check post 237. You did not address these issues. Especially the question that I just asked.
I though the example from William Paley was relevant and explain things. I guess this needs some elaboration.

Just like Paley’s example of the watch having specified complexity and function and being designed for a purpose so there is evidence for living things like the cell. This is recognized by many in the chemical components in DNA that functions like letters in a written language or symbols in a computer code. Just like language can produce a message depending on how the letters are specifically arranged this is the same for the sequences in DNA which code for the specific instructions for proteins. These specific arrangements determine the function of proteins as a whole. So DNA code has the same properties of the specific sequence of language or computer codes.

But heres the important difference between the usual idea of design. DNA codes are not just information in the Shannon sense but also have the quality of making specific arrangements that cause effects and have functions just like Paley’s watch has a specific function with all its complex workings.

There is too much information in the cell to have happened by chance and just like a computer code is designed by humans the same logic should apply to DNA. Trying to explain how this information in the cell originated by natural selection acting on random changes presupposes exactly what needs to be explained which is that an intelligent code is required in the first place. This same logic applies to evolution in that the genetic information needs to be there in the first place for natural selection to act on.

We know from experience, logic and human design that systems that have large amounts of info are caused by an intelligent source so it follows that the same should apply to the large amount of information seen in living systems. This same logic is used across a number of areas like with past civilisations activities such as inscriptions in rock as opposed to erosion being the cause for example.

Dembski uses this same logic to detect design in concluding that the specified information in DNA comes from an intelligent mind. He mentions that rational agents can naturally detect the activities of other intelligent minds. Humans can detect even the slightest change in forgeries as opposed to the original or random changes in encoded messages. This is a recognised as a rational way to infer an intelligent agent.

He also adds that the criteria in how rational beings recognise and detect the activities of other rational agents from natural causes through high complexity and specification which result from intelligent causes and not chance. For example complex sequences have an irregular and improbable arrangement that defies expression by a simple rule or algorithm, whereas specification involves a match or correspondence between a physical system or sequence and an independently recognizable pattern or set of functional requirements.

So it’s more than just complexity or pattern which may be seen in a snow flake but also specified complexity that meets independent function requirements just like Paley’s example of the watch. I guess that’s why Dawkins is so inclined to use the example of the Blind Watch Maker for his example of how blind natural selection can act on random mutations to produce the appearance of design. Except this is deceptive as he is allocating the power to design to nature and nature has no ability to design but rather it is the living agents that cause the design to happen.

These criteria of complexity and specification are equivalent to “functional” or “specified information.” Thus DNA coding, the living cell and the eye meets the criterion of “specified information” and therefore it can be inferred that this meets the criterion of intelligent designed. So ID is not just based on ignorance but science with cause and affects which infers and explains the differences in chance events and intelligently causes effects.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,584
951
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,905.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Just FYI, Paley's watch was found on a heath, not a beach. The question then becomes for you in terms of evolution and life where you consider life to be complex, how do you differentiate the complexity of the heath plants from the watch?
Yeah I know but being found on a beach or the ground has been used for more effect by some. As for applying the watch to the complexity of life I think I have done this with the above post.
 
Upvote 0

VirOptimus

A nihilist who cares.
Aug 24, 2005
6,814
4,421
53
✟250,677.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I though the example from William Paley was relevant and explain things. I guess this needs some elaboration.

Just like Paley’s example of the watch having specified complexity and function and being designed for a purpose so there is evidence for living things like the cell. This is recognized by many in the chemical components in DNA that functions like letters in a written language or symbols in a computer code. Just like language can produce a message depending on how the letters are specifically arranged this is the same for the sequences in DNA which code for the specific instructions for proteins. These specific arrangements determine the function of proteins as a whole. So DNA code has the same properties of the specific sequence of language or computer codes.

But heres the important difference between the usual idea of design. DNA codes are not just information in the Shannon sense but also have the quality of making specific arrangements that cause effects and have functions just like Paley’s watch has a specific function with all its complex workings.

There is too much information in the cell to have happened by chance and just like a computer code is designed by humans the same logic should apply to DNA. Trying to explain how this information in the cell originated by natural selection acting on random changes presupposes exactly what needs to be explained which is that an intelligent code is required in the first place. This same logic applies to evolution in that the genetic information needs to be there in the first place for natural selection to act on.

We know from experience, logic and human design that systems that have large amounts of info are caused by an intelligent source so it follows that the same should apply to the large amount of information seen in living systems. This same logic is used across a number of areas like with past civilisations activities such as inscriptions in rock as opposed to erosion being the cause for example.

Dembski uses this same logic to detect design in concluding that the specified information in DNA comes from an intelligent mind. He mentions that rational agents can naturally detect the activities of other intelligent minds. Humans can detect even the slightest change in forgeries as opposed to the original or random changes in encoded messages. This is a recognised as a rational way to infer an intelligent agent.

He also adds that the criteria in how rational beings recognise and detect the activities of other rational agents from natural causes through high complexity and specification which result from intelligent causes and not chance. For example complex sequences have an irregular and improbable arrangement that defies expression by a simple rule or algorithm, whereas specification involves a match or correspondence between a physical system or sequence and an independently recognizable pattern or set of functional requirements.

So it’s more than just complexity or pattern which may be seen in a snow flake but also specified complexity that meets independent function requirements just like Paley’s example of the watch. I guess that’s why Dawkins is so inclined to use the example of the Blind Watch Maker for his example of how blind natural selection can act on random mutations to produce the appearance of design. Except this is deceptive as he is allocating the power to design to nature and nature has no ability to design but rather it is the living agents that cause the design to happen.

These criteria of complexity and specification are equivalent to “functional” or “specified information.” Thus DNA coding, the living cell and the eye meets the criterion of “specified information” and therefore it can be inferred that this meets the criterion of intelligent designed. So ID is not just based on ignorance but science with cause and affects which infers and explains the differences in chance events and intelligently causes effects.

ID is creatonism in disguise, this is even proven in court. It is not science in any form or function.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,584
951
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,905.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
ID is creatonism in disguise, this is even proven in court. It is not science in any form or function.
That maybe so but that court case was many years ago and we have discovered much more. For example the results of ENCODE were not released until 2010 five years after the Kitzmiller v. Dover court case. Many scientists have come to recognise the specified complex info in the genome since then.

We use a certain criteria for determining ID in human made things and don't seem to have any issue with that. So what is the difference with the natural and living world. Its about a criteria for determining design that is recognized by rational minds and logic tells us there is something going on beyond chance occurrences.

Like I said Dawkins and even Darwin recognised this. They just put it down to be the result of nature itself. But the point is amy recognise its there. There is something destinct about the living cell that many scientists have recognised is beyond a chance occurrance. No one can even begin to explain how it came about by a blind and random process.

Other great scientists have recognised the apparent ID in what we see in nature and no one seems to want to call them creationists. For example

Life cannot have had a random beginning ... The trouble is that there are about 2000 enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in 10^40,000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup. —Fred Hoyle

“People take it for granted that the physical world is both ordered and intelligible. The underlying order in nature-the laws of physics-are simply accepted as given, as brute facts. Nobody asks where they came from; at least they do not do so in polite company. However, even the most atheistic scientist accepts as an act of faith that the universe is not absurd, that there is a rational basis to physical existence manifested as law-like order in nature that is at least partly comprehensible to us. So science can proceed only if the scientist adopts an essentially theological worldview.” Physicist Paul Davies,

“God created everything by number, weight and measure.”
“In the absence of any other proof, the thumb alone would convince me of God’s existence.”
“I have a fundamental belief in the Bible as the Word of God, written by those who were inspired. I study the Bible daily.”
—Sir Isaac Newton

“I’m not an atheist, and I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the books but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God.” Albert Einstein,

“Another source of conviction in the existence of God, connected with the reason and not with the feelings, impresses me as having much more weight. This follows from the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist.” Charles Darwin
 
Upvote 0

VirOptimus

A nihilist who cares.
Aug 24, 2005
6,814
4,421
53
✟250,677.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
That maybe so but that court case was many years ago and we have discovered much more. For example the results of ENCODE were not released until 2010 five years after the Kitzmiller v. Dover court case. Many scientists have come to recognise the specified complex info in the genome since then.

We use a certain criteria for determining ID in human made things and don't seem to have any issue with that. So what is the difference with the natural and living world. Its about a criteria for determining design that is recognized by rational minds and logic tells us there is something going on beyond chance occurrences.

Like I said Dawkins and even Darwin recognised this. They just put it down to be the result of nature itself. But the point is amy recognise its there. There is something destinct about the living cell that many scientists have recognised is beyond a chance occurrance. No one can even begin to explain how it came about by a blind and random process.

Other great scientists have recognised the apparent ID in what we see in nature and no one seems to want to call them creationists. For example

Life cannot have had a random beginning ... The trouble is that there are about 2000 enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in 10^40,000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup. —Fred Hoyle

“People take it for granted that the physical world is both ordered and intelligible. The underlying order in nature-the laws of physics-are simply accepted as given, as brute facts. Nobody asks where they came from; at least they do not do so in polite company. However, even the most atheistic scientist accepts as an act of faith that the universe is not absurd, that there is a rational basis to physical existence manifested as law-like order in nature that is at least partly comprehensible to us. So science can proceed only if the scientist adopts an essentially theological worldview.” Physicist Paul Davies,

“God created everything by number, weight and measure.”
“In the absence of any other proof, the thumb alone would convince me of God’s existence.”
“I have a fundamental belief in the Bible as the Word of God, written by those who were inspired. I study the Bible daily.”
—Sir Isaac Newton

“I’m not an atheist, and I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the books but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God.” Albert Einstein,

“Another source of conviction in the existence of God, connected with the reason and not with the feelings, impresses me as having much more weight. This follows from the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist.” Charles Darwin

No, that does not support ID.

You really really dont understand science, at all.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
I though the example from William Paley was relevant and explain things. I guess this needs some elaboration.

Just like Paley’s example of the watch having specified complexity and function and being designed for a purpose so there is evidence for living things like the cell. This is recognized by many in the chemical components in DNA that functions like letters in a written language or symbols in a computer code. Just like language can produce a message depending on how the letters are specifically arranged this is the same for the sequences in DNA which code for the specific instructions for proteins. These specific arrangements determine the function of proteins as a whole. So DNA code has the same properties of the specific sequence of language or computer codes.

But heres the important difference between the usual idea of design. DNA codes are not just information in the Shannon sense but also have the quality of making specific arrangements that cause effects and have functions just like Paley’s watch has a specific function with all its complex workings.

There is too much information in the cell to have happened by chance and just like a computer code is designed by humans the same logic should apply to DNA. Trying to explain how this information in the cell originated by natural selection acting on random changes presupposes exactly what needs to be explained which is that an intelligent code is required in the first place. This same logic applies to evolution in that the genetic information needs to be there in the first place for natural selection to act on.

We know from experience, logic and human design that systems that have large amounts of info are caused by an intelligent source so it follows that the same should apply to the large amount of information seen in living systems. This same logic is used across a number of areas like with past civilisations activities such as inscriptions in rock as opposed to erosion being the cause for example.

Dembski uses this same logic to detect design in concluding that the specified information in DNA comes from an intelligent mind. He mentions that rational agents can naturally detect the activities of other intelligent minds. Humans can detect even the slightest change in forgeries as opposed to the original or random changes in encoded messages. This is a recognised as a rational way to infer an intelligent agent.

He also adds that the criteria in how rational beings recognise and detect the activities of other rational agents from natural causes through high complexity and specification which result from intelligent causes and not chance. For example complex sequences have an irregular and improbable arrangement that defies expression by a simple rule or algorithm, whereas specification involves a match or correspondence between a physical system or sequence and an independently recognizable pattern or set of functional requirements.

So it’s more than just complexity or pattern which may be seen in a snow flake but also specified complexity that meets independent function requirements just like Paley’s example of the watch. I guess that’s why Dawkins is so inclined to use the example of the Blind Watch Maker for his example of how blind natural selection can act on random mutations to produce the appearance of design. Except this is deceptive as he is allocating the power to design to nature and nature has no ability to design but rather it is the living agents that cause the design to happen.

These criteria of complexity and specification are equivalent to “functional” or “specified information.” Thus DNA coding, the living cell and the eye meets the criterion of “specified information” and therefore it can be inferred that this meets the criterion of intelligent designed. So ID is not just based on ignorance but science with cause and affects which infers and explains the differences in chance events and intelligently causes effects.
The problem is that this is all just hand waving. It is not evidence. You do not even have proper definitions. The "watch" argument is just on of many failed creationists arguments that I am not going to go into right now. All I care about is the fact that there is no scientific evidence for your claims. An argument from ignorance, which is what you posted, is a logical fallacy.

Twice I have asked a question, your inability to answer this question confirms the claim that you have no scientific evidence for your beliefs. Would you care for three strikes and you are out? If you cannot answer this question you cannot claim to have scientific evidence:

What reasonable test could refute "design"?
 
  • Like
Reactions: VirOptimus
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.