Does the ToE rely on oversimplification?

quote:

---

What they don't tell us is how did that original light sensitive spot form?

---

It doesn't have to even be as specialized as a "spot" to be an advantage. There are plenty of sea creatures which are light- sensitive in a general way.

quote:

---

Did that organism have to have 11-cis-retinal and rhodopsin to function? If no, why not?

---

The answer is no. All you need to have an advantage is light-sensitivity AT ALL. Many, many other chemicals are light-sensitive by nature.

quote:

---

How did the cup form? Cells would tend to be rounded unless held in the correct shape by molecular supports. What mutation would cause a cup to form?

---

Animals are not spheres. They are irregularly-shaped. Why WOULDN'T a cup form?

quote:

---

Then we have the lens. No one ever mentions how difficult it is to produce a 'simple' lens. I wonder why?

---

Anything that is clear and slightly warped is a simple lens.A bag of water, for instance, can bring an image to a crude focus.Simple lenses are just that. Simple. They are curved and lacking pigment.

quote:

---

The eye is but one 'feature' I could talk about.

---

Yes, you can talk about the evolution of the eye, but you obviously haven't read what Biologists say about it. It seems that you have read what creationists say that Biologists say about it, and that is not at all the same as learning from the people who have done the actual research.If you really want to know what Biologists say about eye evolution without the heavy editing and misquoting usually rampant in creationist sources, read Richard Dawkins' "Climbing Mount Improbable", Chapter 5. [QUOTE]Obviously if we look at the diversity of organisms today in comparison to the alleged population(s) that started the evolution process, there are many 'features' that had to 'evolve' without any physical precursors. Which begs the question- is the ToE based upon conceptual precursors only?Evolutionists love to point to the fossil record as support for their theory. Can any evolutionists show that the changes in any alleged sequence was caused by RM & NS?
[/B][/QUOTE]As per usual with creationists, you are conflating the occurrence of evolution with the mechanism of evolution.We can quibble about the mechanisms involved in evolution, but that doesn't change the fact that it has occurred.If you DO want to quibble over the mechanism. does that mean that you accept that evolution has occurred?Also, have you answered anyone about the question of what prevents many small changes from accumulating into an eventual "large" change in a species?

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:
John Paul:
How to respond to such raw spewage? OK moose, Creationists use the same evidence- same DNA, same atoms, molecules, organisms, rocks, stars, planets etc. If you read Darwin's "Origins of Species..." he describes the Creation model very well but then comes to some far out baseless conclusion. Too bad that conclusion can't be substantiated via experimental evidence. Also you seem to forget that many of the founding fathers of modern science were themselves Creationists.

​

What you have so far are some scientists with good imaginations that want to tell life's story from a purely materialistic naturalism point of view.

​

What Creationists want to know is what good is this materialistic naturalism PoV if it isn't indicative of reality? But that can be for another thread. In this one I want to discuss the oversimplifying of life by evolutionists in order to 'sell' their theory. Behe has let the cat out of the bag...

​

---

Except that Behe accepts Evolution, an old Earth, no Flood, etc.Is this your stance also?

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:
schraf:
Except that Behe accepts Evolution, an old Earth, no Flood, etc.

​

Is this your stance also?

​

John Paul:
As I have already stated in another thread- I do not care what anyone accepts. I care what the evidence shows. Behe shows the evidence doesn't point to common descent from one population.
So perhaps there were more than one. Perhaps these original populations were in fact sex cells, all swimming around together. And just like we observe today not every sex cell can/ will unite with another. Perhaps this was the start of natural selection.

​

Where did those first sex cells come from? Who cares- evolution matters only after life appears.

​

So, back to the point- Behe has exposed the obstacles faced by the ToE by showing us the actual complexity involved. Do you know understand that 'eye evolution' isn't as simple as you have been told?

---

Behe doesn't count the eye in his list of "irreducably-complex" systems. He actually presents the eye as an EXAMPLE of something that can and did evolve through purely naturalistic means in "Darwin's Black Box.". He has no problem with the eye evolving naturally, so I don't know why you are trying to argue the eye evolution stuff. Behe's ONLY divergence from mainstream science is with a couple of issues in molecular biology.Have you actually read that book? You are certainly misrepresenting Behe if you have.Like I said in another thread, Behe's arguments are NOT scientific, because there is no theory, and he makes no predictions. His argument is merely philosophical, so it does not affect science. His is the old "God of the Gaps" argument given the new name of "Intelligent Design."

quote:

---

JP:What they don't tell us is how did that original light sensitive spot form?

---

Allison:It doesn't have to even be as specialized as a "spot" to be an advantage. There are plenty of sea creatures which are light-
sensitive in a general way.

quote:

---

John Paul:That still doesn't answer how those organisms came to be 'light sensitive' to begin with.

---

Many chemichals are sensetive to light. Others react in the presence of oxygen. Still others react when exposed to acids, bases, various temperatures, and many other various physical conditions. There is nothing magical about light-sensetivity in molecules. You can find many molecules inside the human body, for example, which are light-sensetive, but they never have the chance to "do" anything because they are not ever exposed to light.

quote:

---

JPid that organism have to have 11-cis-retinal and rhodopsin to function? If no, why not?

---

Allison: The answer is no. All you need to have an advantage is light-sensitivity AT ALL. Many, many other chemicals are
light-sensitive by nature.

quote:

---

John Paul:Then you would have to show how 11-cis-retinal and rhodopsin 'evolved'. Can science do that yet? Or do we just assume
they did?

---

There is no reason that 11-cis-retinal and rhodopsin *had" to have evolved. SOMETHING would have evolved, but not neccessarily those specific chemicals.Rhodopsin is quite obviously a slightly modified viatamin A molecule.Please explain to me how it is impossible that these things could have evolved, since that seems to be your point.If this isn't your claim, then the only thing you have left is an Argument from Ignorance; i.e. because we do not understand something today, we therefore never will, AND "Godidit."

quote:

---

JP: How did the cup form? Cells would tend to be rounded unless held in the correct shape by molecular supports. What mutation
would cause a cup to form?

---

Allison;Animals are not spheres. They are irregularly-shaped. Why WOULDN'T a cup form?

quote:

---

John Paul:"A ball of cells- from which the cup must be made- will tend to be rounded unless held in the corrct shape by molecular
supports. In fact, there are dozens of complex proteins involved in maintaining cell shape, and dozens more that control extracellular structure; in their absence, cells take on the shape of so many soap bubbles. Do these structures represent single-step mutations?

---

We are not talking about an eye being produced in a ball of cells. There is no evidence to suggest that a "ball of cells" ever had an eye, so this is a strawman. All of the "molecular supposts" you talk about were in place *already*, so are irrelevant to this discussion of the origins of the eye. All of the conditions you mention do not have to be produced all at once. They could have gradually developed due to other selective pressures upon the population.

quote:

---

Dawkins did not tell us how the apparent simple 'cup' shape came to be. And although he reassures us that any 'translucent material' would be an improvment (recall that Haeckle mistakenly thought it would be easy to produce cells since they were certainly just 'simple lumps'), we are not told how difficult it is to produce a 'simple lens'. In short, Dawkins' explanation is only addressed to the level of what is called gross anatomy" M. Behe pg. 38 of Darwin's Black Box.

​

In other words Dawkins is guilty of over simplification.

---

Dawkins goes on a GREAT length about the biochemisry of the eye in "The Blind Watchmaker", so I don't think he could ever be considered guilty of oversimplification.Talking about the molecular supports for the eye is a separate problem than discussing how an eye evolved, and is simply shifting the argument further away from "How did the eye evolve". Animals which never evolved eyes have those molecular supports that would form an eye cup. Since no animal without these supports seems to have evolved an eye, it's not a problem.If, AFTER we finish discussing whether an eye can evolve, you want to CHANGE TOPICS to how the molecules of molecular support could have evolved (in single cell organisms, which are themselves irregularly shaped), fine. But that's a different discussion. Creationists, when confronted with simple obvious answers to their "how could it evolve?" questions always want to expand the topic to larger and larger problems.Not gonna happen here. Here's the problem: how did eyes evolve in the already complex multicellular creatures in which we have evidence that eyes evolved? If you want to go outside that topic,start a new topic.So, given that the molecular supports ALREADY existed, do you see that an eye cup is a trivial problem? And a pinhole after that...etc.?

quote:

---

Then we have the lens. No one ever mentions how difficult it is to produce a 'simple' lens. I wonder why?

---

Allison:Anything that is clear and slightly warped is a simple lens.A bag of water, for instance, can bring an image to a crude focus.Simple lenses are just that. Simple. They are curved and lacking pigment.

quote:

---

John Paul:As you just learned 'simple lenses' are nothing of the kind. But if you think so, please tell us how they evolved.

---

Where did I learn this? I can hold a bag of water and SEE that it acts as a simple lens. I can hold a piece of paper with a hole in it and see that it acts as an even simpler "lens". All your quote said was "we are not told how difficult it is to produce a 'simple lens'". Actually, Dawkins gives explicit examples of REAL simple lenses, both biological and otherwise, and pictures of the images they produce.Have you read any Dawkins, BTW? (and I don't mean quotes from Creationist sites. I mean the whole book or the whole essay.)

quote:

---

JP:The eye is but one 'feature' I could talk about.

---

Allison:Yes, you can talk about the evolution of the eye, but you obviously haven't read what Biologists say about it. It seems that
you have read what creationists say that Biologists say about it, and that is not at all the same as learning from the people who have done the actual research.If you really want to know what Biologists say about eye evolution without the heavy editing and misquoting usually rampant in creationist sources, read Richard Dawkins' "Climbing Mount Improbable", Chapter 5.

quote:

---

John Paul:LOL! Stop it already. Dawkins is not a very good resource IMHO. Especially when it comes to details. He does have a verygood imagination but that is no substitute for (empirical) evidence.

---

So, how many of his (entire) books have you read? To be blunt, I very strongly doubt that anyone who characterizes Dawkins' work as lacking detail has actually read his books. His sections on the eye and bat sonar in "The Blind Watchmaker" are many, many times more detailed than anything I have ever read by any Creationist.Dawkins sometimes does use hypothetical examples, but that is all that is required to answer the oft-stated Creationist line "X could not have come about through natural means.". Creationists often confuse the issues of "if something could occur", with "how a specific thing did occur." The twist on the argument, due to this sloppy, loose thinking, results in; "Because we do not know how this specific thing came about, it is impssible through natural means, therefore Godidit."Allison:As per usual with creationists, you are conflating the occurrence of evolution with the mechanism of evolution. [QUOTE]John Paul:I just want to know if there is any evidence that the mechanism can lead to the alleged great transformations.Yes, there is. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/Allison:We can quibble about the mechanisms involved in evolution, but that doesn't change the fact that it has occurred. If you DO want to quibble over the mechanism. does that mean that you accept that evolution has occurred?Also, have you answered anyone about the question of what prevents many small changes from accumulating into an eventual "large" change in a species?

quote:

---

John Paul:I have not yet seen any evidence that mutations can accumulate in such a way that would lead me to believe the ToE is
indicative of reality.

---

OK, then I would like to see a fully-referenced, point by point refutation of the 29 evidences for macroevolution site I included above.One at a time is fine.

​

[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 12-30-2001]