Just look at how the eye works, for example.
why do some theists believe in Darwinian evolution?
- Thread starter Jan Ardena
- Start date
Just look at how the eye works, for example.
@Jan --
How could an organ that does nothing but randomly kill you be anything but a design flaw. It doesn't need to be there, it doesn't serve any purpose, the design would be much improved without it, and the "function" of the machine would be unchanged by it's removal. I speak, of course, of the appendix.
Or how about the fact that our windpipe and our esophagus share plumbing, leading to the possibility that we can choke to death. This is not something which is necessary for our "function". Altering our windpipe so that it doesn't flow into the mouth(or flows only one way) wouldn't be difficult(it's also found in a large number of mammals) and it wouldn't affect our "function" in the least.
And then there's the fact that our playgrounds have two sewers running through them, that's hardly good design.
If our design could be better then it is by definition flawed. however this hardly covers the depth of it. Our design carries with it "selections" which can be, and often are, fatal. These "selections" could have been different without affecting our "function". Hence, our design is flawed.
How could an organ that does nothing but randomly kill you be anything but a design flaw. It doesn't need to be there, it doesn't serve any purpose, the design would be much improved without it, and the "function" of the machine would be unchanged by it's removal. I speak, of course, of the appendix.
Or how about the fact that our windpipe and our esophagus share plumbing, leading to the possibility that we can choke to death. This is not something which is necessary for our "function". Altering our windpipe so that it doesn't flow into the mouth(or flows only one way) wouldn't be difficult(it's also found in a large number of mammals) and it wouldn't affect our "function" in the least.
And then there's the fact that our playgrounds have two sewers running through them, that's hardly good design.
If our design could be better then it is by definition flawed. however this hardly covers the depth of it. Our design carries with it "selections" which can be, and often are, fatal. These "selections" could have been different without affecting our "function". Hence, our design is flawed.
kx000
Valued Senior Member
Your talking about minimal aspects of the greater perfection, life.
The human eye, unintelligently designed, is built upside down and backwards, with photons of light having to travel through the cornea, lens, aqueous fluid, blood vessels, ganglion cells, armacrine cells, ontal cells, and bipolar cells, before reaching the sensitive rods and cones that convert the signal into the neural impulses, which are then sent to the visual cortex at the back of the brain for processing into meaningful patterns. Natural selection built eyes from available materials, and in the particular configuration of the ancestral’s organism’s pre-existing organic structures. The eye shows the pathways of evolutionary history, not intelligent design. Rolling one’s eyes at this is but a human pride feeling.
Earth is not a closed, isolated system, and so the 2nd Law of thermodynamics does not apply, for the Earth is an open-dissipative system receiving a constant energy of input from the sun. Life may such evolve without violating natural law.
The nail in the coffin of the eye as irreducibly complex:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=evolution-of-the-eye
The results indicate that our kind of eye—the type common across vertebrates—took shape in less than 100 million years, evolving from a simple light sensor for circadian (daily) and seasonal rhythms around 600 million years ago to an optically and neurologically sophisticated organ by 500 million years ago. More than 150 years after Darwin published his groundbreaking theory, these findings put the nail in the coffin of irreducible complexity and beautifully support Darwin’s idea. They also explain why the eye, far from being a perfectly engineered piece of machinery, exhibits a number of major flaws—these flaws are the scars of evolution. Natural selection does not, as some might think, result in perfection. It tinkers with the material available to it, sometimes to odd effect.
Earth is not a closed, isolated system, and so the 2nd Law of thermodynamics does not apply, for the Earth is an open-dissipative system receiving a constant energy of input from the sun. Life may such evolve without violating natural law.
The nail in the coffin of the eye as irreducibly complex:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=evolution-of-the-eye
The results indicate that our kind of eye—the type common across vertebrates—took shape in less than 100 million years, evolving from a simple light sensor for circadian (daily) and seasonal rhythms around 600 million years ago to an optically and neurologically sophisticated organ by 500 million years ago. More than 150 years after Darwin published his groundbreaking theory, these findings put the nail in the coffin of irreducible complexity and beautifully support Darwin’s idea. They also explain why the eye, far from being a perfectly engineered piece of machinery, exhibits a number of major flaws—these flaws are the scars of evolution. Natural selection does not, as some might think, result in perfection. It tinkers with the material available to it, sometimes to odd effect.
The Eye is Upon Us
Evolution is a triple blessed fact due to the fossils, DNA, and embryology. Those in denial can hardly read about it and so they substitute an Intelligent Designer who Himself must have no design, their contradictory argument thus crashing down of its own weight anyway as they quickly exchange their horses underwater without even realizing it.
Those who can read saw that the eye evolved from a light-sensing but nonvisual organ into an image forming one by around 500 million years ago, these clues becoming in developing embryos. Early in development, the neural structure that gives rise to the eye bulges out on either side to form two sacs, or vesicles. Each of these vesicles then folds in on itself to form a C-shaped retina that lines the interior of the eye.
A proto-eye of this kind, with a C-shaped, two layered retina composed of ciliary photoreceptors on the interior—had developed in an ancestor of vertebrates between 550 million and 500 million years ago, serving to drive its internal clock and perhaps help it to detect shadows and orient its body properly.
In the next stage of embryological development, as the retina is folding inward against itself, the lens forms, originating as a thickening of the embryo’s outer surface, or ectoderm, that bulges into the curved empty space formed by the C-shaped retina.
This protrusion eventual separates from the rest of the ectoderm to become a free-floating element, again reflecting evolutionary changes.
The eye, far from being intelligently designed, has many defects that are the scars of evolution which degrade image quality, such as an inside-out retina that forces light to travel through cell bodies and nerve fibers before hitting the photoreceptors; blood vessels that sprawl across the retina's inner surface, casting undesirable shadows onto the retina; nerve fibers that gather together to push through a single opening in the retina to become the optic nerve, creating a blind spot.
If engineers were to build an eye with the flaws of our own, they would probably be fired, yet, in the light of evolution the eye makes perfect sense. Creationism falls.
Now all we need are some creationist ‘scientists’ sitting around in their chairs declaring and pronouncing all of evolution to be impossible, and further that the Earth is only a few thousand years old and that all forms are immutable. These people can be ignored; science happens even as and before they spoke their nonsense.
Evolution is a triple blessed fact due to the fossils, DNA, and embryology. Those in denial can hardly read about it and so they substitute an Intelligent Designer who Himself must have no design, their contradictory argument thus crashing down of its own weight anyway as they quickly exchange their horses underwater without even realizing it.
Those who can read saw that the eye evolved from a light-sensing but nonvisual organ into an image forming one by around 500 million years ago, these clues becoming in developing embryos. Early in development, the neural structure that gives rise to the eye bulges out on either side to form two sacs, or vesicles. Each of these vesicles then folds in on itself to form a C-shaped retina that lines the interior of the eye.
A proto-eye of this kind, with a C-shaped, two layered retina composed of ciliary photoreceptors on the interior—had developed in an ancestor of vertebrates between 550 million and 500 million years ago, serving to drive its internal clock and perhaps help it to detect shadows and orient its body properly.
In the next stage of embryological development, as the retina is folding inward against itself, the lens forms, originating as a thickening of the embryo’s outer surface, or ectoderm, that bulges into the curved empty space formed by the C-shaped retina.
This protrusion eventual separates from the rest of the ectoderm to become a free-floating element, again reflecting evolutionary changes.
The eye, far from being intelligently designed, has many defects that are the scars of evolution which degrade image quality, such as an inside-out retina that forces light to travel through cell bodies and nerve fibers before hitting the photoreceptors; blood vessels that sprawl across the retina's inner surface, casting undesirable shadows onto the retina; nerve fibers that gather together to push through a single opening in the retina to become the optic nerve, creating a blind spot.
If engineers were to build an eye with the flaws of our own, they would probably be fired, yet, in the light of evolution the eye makes perfect sense. Creationism falls.
Now all we need are some creationist ‘scientists’ sitting around in their chairs declaring and pronouncing all of evolution to be impossible, and further that the Earth is only a few thousand years old and that all forms are immutable. These people can be ignored; science happens even as and before they spoke their nonsense.
kx000
Valued Senior Member
Because life was created. Life is self sustainable.
Actually he did.
Try reading.
Darwin’s discovery caused him great, personal grief and anguish, as he went to Divinity school and wanted to believe in God and may have. Yet, as an exemplar of a scientist Darwin followed the evidence of wherever it led and whatever the consequences.
Evolution was predictive and falsifiable:
— It (Darwin) predicted the human ancestors to be found in Africa.
— His theory predicted the emergence of resistant strains of from the use of antiviral or antibacterial agents.
— Paleontologists correctly predicted that species showing evolution from fish to amphibian would be found in the strata.
— Transitional forms do indeed exist, refuting Creationist claims. A simple google search will reveal hundreds of examples.
— Nor do we find any organisms out of place in the fossil record.
— The fossil record agrees with DNA and embryo development.
The failure of these predictions would have falsified evolution. They did not fail.
Was the time too short for evolution to occur? No, Kelvin withdrew this objection when it was realized that the nuclear energy of the sun could go on for billions of years, 5 so far and I guess 5 yet to go.
DNA falsified the hypothesis of a God who created humans as a distinct life form and also a God who created ‘kinds’ or species of immutable life-forms one time in history and left them unchanged since.
Indeed, evolution implies that humanity was an ‘accident’ and not the special creature of traditional doctrine. Darwin soon began losing faith in the scriptures as absolute dogma. He was still scared, though, and resisted publishing for 20 years until he had to (Wallace was going to publish the same idea, but of much less content.)
Evolution was predictive and falsifiable:
— It (Darwin) predicted the human ancestors to be found in Africa.
— His theory predicted the emergence of resistant strains of from the use of antiviral or antibacterial agents.
— Paleontologists correctly predicted that species showing evolution from fish to amphibian would be found in the strata.
— Transitional forms do indeed exist, refuting Creationist claims. A simple google search will reveal hundreds of examples.
— Nor do we find any organisms out of place in the fossil record.
— The fossil record agrees with DNA and embryo development.
The failure of these predictions would have falsified evolution. They did not fail.
Was the time too short for evolution to occur? No, Kelvin withdrew this objection when it was realized that the nuclear energy of the sun could go on for billions of years, 5 so far and I guess 5 yet to go.
DNA falsified the hypothesis of a God who created humans as a distinct life form and also a God who created ‘kinds’ or species of immutable life-forms one time in history and left them unchanged since.
Indeed, evolution implies that humanity was an ‘accident’ and not the special creature of traditional doctrine. Darwin soon began losing faith in the scriptures as absolute dogma. He was still scared, though, and resisted publishing for 20 years until he had to (Wallace was going to publish the same idea, but of much less content.)
Arioch,
Do you agree that if a design carries out the purpose of the designer, the design isn't flawed? For example, a car is designed to be driven be a person.
jan.
Do you agree that if a design carries out the purpose of the designer, the design isn't flawed? For example, a car is designed to be driven be a person.
jan.
That speech works brilliantly to this
Seriously though.
What is the point of this speech, if not to preach?
jan.
Seriously though.
What is the point of this speech, if not to preach?
jan.
Stating that you are "looking at what is on the screen" is NOT taking at look at how the eye works.
In other words, you're attempting to slide past the question.
1) The question is irrelevant, regarding my point.
2) My questions, which came before SciWriter's, have yet to
be answered.
jan.
Wrong.
And you missed the point. It wasn't a QUESTION from Sciwriter.
The engineering student would be "expelled" for such a crap design.
