Evidence for macroevolution

[RufusAtticus]

I don't know if I can convince you that it is popular, but I have encountered it on multiple boards and from multiple sources. I believe that Paley popularized the concept of "perfect" eyes proving a creator.

Here is an ARN page arguing that eyes are not flawed.
http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od171/retina171.htm

A BaptistBoard discussion:
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=36;t=000147

From the ICR:
http://www.icr.org/bodybydesign/studyguide.html

From AiG:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v22n2p50.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1306.asp

Then there's always this thread that refers to everything being perfect:
http://www.christianforums.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15916

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by RufusAtticus
I don't know if I can convince you that it is popular, but I have encountered it on multiple boards and from multiple sources. I believe that Paley popularized the concept of "perfect" eyes proving a creator.

Here is an ARN page arguing that eyes are not flawed.
http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od171/retina171.htm

A BaptistBoard discussion:
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=36;t=000147

From the ICR:
http://www.icr.org/bodybydesign/studyguide.html

From AiG:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v22n2p50.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1306.asp

Then there's always this thread that refers to everything being perfect:
http://www.christianforums.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15916

Ha! ha! Nice effort Rufus, but TOO LATE!!! You were supposed to have that in within 10 minutes of Nick's request, regardless of whether you were on line or not. You evolutionists are all the same, making claims that you can't even back up quickly enough!!!

 

[npetreley]

Convince me that it's popular?!? You still haven't even convinced me that it's ever true!

Regarding your "sources":

http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od171/retina171.htm

This isn't arguing that the eye is perfect. It's refuting a claim by evolutionists about one aspect of the eye being suboptimal.

A BaptistBoard discussion:
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=36;t=000147

Perhaps you can identify what I'm missing, but I can't find any creationists saying the eye is perfect in this thread. In fact, the only reference to the eye being perfect seems to be contained in a lengthy quote from Darwin!

From the ICR:
http://www.icr.org/bodybydesign/studyguide.html

This discusses observations by Versalius (16th century). I was hoping you'd find something a bit more recent, and by a creationist. We don't even know if Versalius believed in creation.

From AiG:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v22n2p50.asp

This discusses Cicero (c. 44 BC), who makes the statement that nature is more perfect than art. Can you reach back any farther than that for quotes? Even if you could find something more recent, wouldn't you say the same?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1306.asp

There's no mention of perfect here that I can find. It points out some pretty amazing things about the eye. Do you not find them amazing? I do. But if I thought the eye was perfect I'd toss away my glasses.

Then there's always this thread that refers to everything being perfect:
http://www.christianforums.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15916

A Christian-Scientist came to my school a couple of years ago trying to explain that Science proves God exists because everything is so perfect that it had to be organised by a Divine being.

In other words, your entire body of evidence is a second-hand quote about a Christian-Scientist.

Well, I guess that proves you were right about creationists using it all the time.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith

You evolutionists are all the same, making claims that you can't even back up quickly enough!!!

Or at all. Ever. But if you had followed any of those links, you might have discovered that for yourself. Not that you would have admitted it.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by npetreley


Or at all. Ever. But if you had followed any of those links, you might have discovered that for yourself. Not that you would have admitted it.

from the ICR link:

1. Design can be recognized in several ways. First, design is evidenced by a structures perfect suitability for certain tasks. Second, design is revealed in the balanced interplay of several different systems or structures to reach a common goal.

Though the other links do not explicitly make an argument from absolute perfection, creationists in some of the ones I reviewd are obviously making arguments from the relative perfection they perceive in the eye. Furthermore, I/C is merely a fancy re-statement of the same argument.

 

[npetreley]

Give it up, Jerry. You can't salvage the false claim with your arguments and quotes out of context, so just admit that creationists aren't arguing perfection.

As for the ICR link, you simply pulled the quote out without its context. As I said in my response, the context infers that it is explaining what Versalius said in the 16th century. The text guesses that Versalius believed in creation, but the writer obviously doesn't know for sure.

In addition, the ICR link is to a study guide that refers to a book, but the complete book to which it refers is not there. So it's impossible to know exactly what case the book makes without actually seeing the book and not just the study guide. From the context, it looks like it's an overview of what others have said in the past, hence this section on Versalius.

Originally posted by Jerry Smith

Though the other links do not explicitly make an argument from absolute perfection, creationists in some of the ones I reviewd are obviously making arguments from the relative perfection they perceive in the eye. Furthermore, I/C is merely a fancy re-statement of the same argument.

This is just plain false. Just because someone says a mouse trap is IC doesn't mean they're saying a mouse trap is a perfect design. If you think so, then it's obvious why you believe in evolution.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Nick,

I found some excerpts from Paley here. He appears to be the one who originated the perfect design argument using the eye as an example by comparing it to a telescope. If you doubt that it is still used, keep hanging around, I'm sure it'll pop up. If you don't believe me, I challeng you to prove that it is has never been used and/or is not now being used by any creationist.

Enjoy.

 

[Jerry Smith]

More from the ICR page. For those who haven't clicked on THE LINK ( http://www.icr.org/bodybydesign/studyguide.html ), the context is the outline/study guide for "Body by Design" by Alan L. Gillen.

As each system works together to form a whole, it uncovers a wise plan. Every part is perfectly designed for its role and place. The systems do not interfere with each other, but perfectly complement each other. Through its interwoven, interdependent design the body reveals Divine wisdom in its inward parts.

and

Every part of the incredible human eye is clear evidence for a wise Creator.

A transducer converts the input energy of one type to output energy of a different type. Tranduction in the ear is the conversion of sound waves vibrating the eardrum to nervous impulses being sent to the brain.
(H.S.) It is not a flaw in the original design of the eye that causes nearsightedness or farsightedness. Instead, these conditions are the result of deviations from that design resulting in an eyeball that is not the correct shape or a lens with the wrong shape or thickness.

And since you don't like Cicero, here's something I'll throw in myself - from the age of the internet:
http://evolutionoftruth.com/evo/evoeye.htm

Chance adaptations or Intelligent design?
Organs of Extreme
Design and Perfection

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ever think about how different the world would look


if your eyes weren't so perfect?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How would the world look if your eye couldn't respond to changes in light, motion, or distance, or if you couldn't see color or in such fine detail?

If you've ever used a camera, you know how any error in lighting, focus or motion can ruin a photo. Turning light into even the worst of the above images requires incredible technology. Eyes are pretty useless unless they are complete and perfected.

So how could eyes "evolve?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by npetreley
Give it up, Jerry. You can't salvage the false claim with your arguments and quotes out of context, so just admit that creationists aren't arguing perfection.

What false claim? I have yet to see you prove that no creationist ever argues perfection.

Just because someone says a mouse trap is IC doesn't mean they're saying a mouse trap is a perfect design. If you think so, then it's obvious why you believe in evolution.

If you think you can build a better mouse trap, the world will wear a path to your door.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith
And since you don't like Cicero, here's something I'll throw in myself - from the age of the internet:

http://evolutionoftruth.com/evo/evoeye.htm

Interesting page. Did you happen to notice this on that same page?

"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." Charles Darwin, 1859

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by npetreley


Interesting page. Did you happen to notice this on that same page?

Yes, I read that. On several of the pages that were linked to... I wonder if Darwin wrote that because of his familiarity with Paley's writings.

 

[Morat]

I love that Darwin quote. The absurdity of it's use by Creationists is clear to anyone who proceeds to read that chapter.

Of course Darwin, not knowing about people fond of quoting out of context, had no problems starting off a section by listing the objection, then methodologically addressing it.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Morat
I love that Darwin quote. The absurdity of it's use by Creationists is clear to anyone who proceeds to read that chapter.

The absurdity of it is that he basically says, "Well, it's blatantly obvious that the eye was designed, but I'm going to use my imagination to concoct a bizarre theory with no evidence that says it developed by accident, and generations of people are going to fall for it."

 

[Morat]

The absurdity of it is that he basically says, "Well, it's blatantly obvious that the eye was designed, but I'm going to use my imagination to concoct a bizarre theory with no evidence that says it developed by accident, and generations of people are going to fall for it."

Tsk, tsk. What part of the evolution of the eye do you have a problem with?

Do you even know what Darwin had to say?

Come on, Sir! Be specific. I can't wait to hear you say "What use is half an eye." because you've shown such a penchant for originality.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by npetreley


The absurdity of it is that he basically says, "Well, it's blatantly obvious that the eye was designed, but I'm going to use my imagination to concoct a bizarre theory with no evidence that says it developed by accident, and generations of people are going to fall for it."

You have a gift for paraphrase. I read in Darwin's little-known and rare autobiography that this is exactly what he meant. He would have been so disappointed to find out that his half-baked bizarre theory about how the eye could have evolved turned out to be true. He did his best to hide the evidence himself, but after he was dead, the conspiracy couldn't hold up.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith

You have a gift for paraphrase. I read in Darwin's little-known and rare autobiography

Well, the fact that it is little known explains why it is rare. And you can check your theory that it rare by predicting that it is little known. What you don't mention outright is that it was made-up.

Sounds like evolution and evolutionist reasoning to me.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by npetreley


Well, the fact that it is little known explains why it is rare. And you can check your theory that it rare by predicting that it is little known. What you don't mention outright is that it was made-up.

Sounds like evolution and evolutionist reasoning to me.

Sounds like more hand-waving. You ever going to come up with a substantive argument, or are you just going to keep making bald assertions about something you know next to nothing about, in the attempt to convince others to adopt your unsupported and unsupportable position?

 

[randman]

"What false claim? I have yet to see you prove that no creationist ever argues perfection."

Rufus, this is the kind of BS statement/question that has made me ever more and more convinced that evolutionism as you and others practice is a near-cult, and it is why I have nearly quit posting here.

It is obvious that something is wrong with the proponents of evolutionists one meets on the web. It isn't even a matter of the validity of evolution. It is that there is a basic and severe dishonesty and falseness to evolutionists. They, and you, are deliberately trying not to educate people, but decieve them with sophistry.

Take this statement of your's. Did Nick say he would try to prove no creationist ever says this. You know full well noone on earth can prove that, and you also are just avoiding admitting that in typical fashion you overstated your case and misrepresented your critics in order to avoid admitting you were wrong.

The thing is it doesn't matter too much if one beleives in e volution, but it does matter if people are convinced the bulk of evolutionists are dishonest propagandists, and that is what you are helping to convince people of, make no mistake about it.

I guess what I am saying is that it doesn't matter if you convince some in the public one way or another as long as you convince them e volutionists a re genuine, but you and many others are doing the opposite.
In other words, the public is funding all of this unnecessary research. I want them to fund research on cancer, and defund what you guys do, and I think this is the next line in the battle. Take the money away from the religionist/evolutionists and get it to real scientists.You guys are convincing me, a taxpayer whose family and relatives have contributed greatly to higher education, that evolutionists are not the kind of people, for the most part, worth supporting.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Randman,

Rufus made his comment in answer to this statement by Nick

Give it up, Jerry. You can't salvage the false claim with your arguments and quotes out of context, so just admit that creationists aren't arguing perfection.

So yes, Nick stated outright that Rufus' original claim was false. Rufus has already demonstrated on this thread that his claim that the "perfection of the eye" argument is and was used by creationists. I threw in a link myself to support Rufus' claim. I have answered Nick's objections to the examples Rufus presented. Nick stated outright that Rufus' original claim -that the "perfection of the eye" argument is used by creationists- was a false one. That means that yes he did very much say that no creationists use(d) that argument.

You are wrong here. Rufus A is the last person on this board you need to accuse of dishonesty. I will leave it to you to figure out who the first should be.

 

[randman]

Creationists don't thing anything is perfect in the way you describe since they beleive in the Fall. What tey argue is that there is a level of perfection or beauty in design, and evolutionists I believe are smart enough to know what the creationists are saying, yet like political spin machines, they spew out nonsensical arguments like if God is so perfect, why do people get diseased, and why are things not designed better, etc,..as if there is no theology of the Fall of man.

Basically, it is just sophistry.