Does the ToE rely on oversimplification?

In a word- Yes! Back in Darwin's day that was forgivable but not today. In Darwin's day scientists looked upon the cell as a blob of protoplasm, now we know better.Evolutionists love to tell stories on how organisms evolved and on how features, like eyes, also evolved.
The eye story goes something like this- "We see organisms (single-celled) that have a light sensitive spot with a little pigment behind it. Among multi-cellular organisms the pigment backed light sensitive cells are set in a little cup. That would give the organism a better direction finding capability. Take that cup, turn over the sides and you will have a lensless pinhole camera. With that in place almost any convex & transparent (at least to some extent) over this opening would constitute an improvement...."What they don't tell us is how did that original light sensitive spot form? Did that organism have to have 11-cis-retinal and rhodopsin to function? If no, why not? If yes, did random mutations culled by NS create those? Please provide the evidence.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?Then we have the lens. No one ever mentions how difficult it is to produce a 'simple' lens. I wonder why?The eye is but one 'feature' I could talk about. 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?------------------
John Paul

Oversimplification?Science in general, and the study of evolution in specific, is the sum of a vast amount of detailed work.The "Theory of Creation" (note the quotes) on the other hand, is based on the book of Genesis in the Bible. Does there not seem to be an oversimplification of the information there? The origin of the universe, and everything of the universe, in one easy paragraph.Moose------------------
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

moose:
Science in general, and the study of evolution in specific, is the sum of a vast amount of detailed work.John Paul:
Cool. So you should have no problem answering the questions in my thread opening post.moose:
The "Theory of Creation" (note the quotes) on the other hand, is based on the book of Genesis in the Bible.John Paul:
And according to Creationists, substantiated by the evidence. Or maybe you have some empirical evidence that the eye did evolve or that whales did evolve from land animals that in (alleged) fact came from the water in the first place.Ya see all I have heard until now is 'just-so' stories without substantiating evidence.------------------
John Paul

​

[This message has been edited by John Paul, 12-20-2001]

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:

---

moose:
The "Theory of Creation" (note the quotes) on the other hand, is based on the book of Genesis in the Bible.

​

John Paul:
And according to Creationists, substantiated by the evidence. Or maybe you have some empirical evidence that the eye did evolve or that whales did evolve from land animals that in (alleged) fact came from the water in the first place.

---

To the creationist, evidence is finding flaws in the evolutionist evidence. These found flaws may or may not be real. The creationists, however, have no evidence of their own.Perhaps God's creation process is something totally beyond science and scientific evidence. But the worldly scientific evidence is what we have, and it supports the concept of evolution.Moose------------------
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

On second thought I would not say that ToE is publically and even in the Ivy League but rather (outside particular name specialists) undersimplified. The reason it seems "over"simplified is because sitting chairs of evolution thinking remain sat on the graduate students satisfied that numerical and no a priori approaches are called for futhering the work ahead. Emprical math will always be an option and in this climate it is right for creationsits to resist statement based over evidence driven evolution taught taxa etc but the conflict between sets and integration is open for some more spirit that mathmaticians may not posses the origin of neither following Hume or Einstein. A result is that "progress" is cast to expensive technology rather than refining the mind and the number of sands of the sea that Newton knew the shore of that he could not pick up and only 'gravity' could move.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What they don't tell us is how did that original light sensitive spot form?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scraf:
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.John Paul:
That still doesn't answer how those organisms came to be 'light sensitive' to begin with.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did that organism have to have 11-cis-retinal and rhodopsin to function? If no, why not?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
scraf:
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.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?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?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
scraf:
Animals are not spheres. They are irregularly-shaped. Why WOULDN'T a cup form?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? 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.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then we have the lens. No one ever mentions how difficult it is to produce a 'simple' lens. I wonder why?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
scraf:
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.John Paul:
As you just learned 'simple lenses' are nothing of the kind. But if you think so, please tell us how they evolved.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The eye is but one 'feature' I could talk about.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
scraf:
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.John Paul:
LOL! Stop it already. Dawkins is not a very good resource IMHO. Especially when it comes to details. He does have a very good imagination but that is no substitute for (empirical) evidence.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]--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
scraf:
As per usual with creationists, you are conflating the occurrence of evolution with the mechanism of evolution.John Paul:
I just want to know if there is any evidence that the mechanism can lead to the alleged great transformations.scraf:
We can quibble about the mechanisms involved in evolution, but that doesn't change the fact that it has occurred.John Paul:
And evolution isn't the real debate. The differences between Creationists and evolutionists on the topic of biological evolution are (basically):
1- the starting point
2- the extent (limits or no limits)
3- the apparent directionscraf:
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?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.------------------
John Paul

​

[This message has been edited by John Paul, 12-29-2001]

​

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by minnemooseus:
To the creationist, evidence is finding flaws in the evolutionist evidence. These found flaws may or may not be real. The creationists, however, have no evidence of their own.

​

Perhaps God's creation process is something totally beyond science and scientific evidence. But the worldly scientific evidence is what we have, and it supports the concept of evolution.

​

Moose

​

---

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...------------------
John Paul

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?

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?------------------
John Paul

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]

John Paul:
As I have already stated in another thread- I do not care what anyone accepts. I care what the evidence showsPerhaps then you can provide the EVIDENCE that non-random mutations act SOLELY upon genes that will allow an organism to adapt to its environment; that these mutations occur in multicellular eukaryotes (please remember that anecdotes about morphological variation are not evidence that NRMs occurred); that these mutations can account for in-kind variation (i.e., the diversity within the cat-kind) within a few thousand years post-ark, and the mechanism that stopped all of that diversitficatio; etc...

​

Can't wait.

schraf:
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.John Paul:
Yes I read the book and no I am not misrepresenting it. He most certainly has a problem with the 'just-so' stories offered up by the likes of Dawkins. He flat out accuses Dawkins of gross anatomy.schraf:
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."John Paul:
I guess you are entitled to your opinion but there are many scientists that say otherwise. This is the new angle 'looks like a duck (ie looks designed), acts like a duck (has form & function), must be a duck (yup, you got it)'. Mike Gene has an ID website. In one article he states how he used a prediction based upon ID. Take a look:[a href="http://www.idthink.net/arn/pred/index.htm"]Using ID to Understand the Living World[/a]schraf:
There is no reason that 11-cis-retinal and rhodopsin *had" to have evolved. SOMETHING would have evolved, but not neccessarily those specific chemicals.John Paul:
Well 11-cis-retinal & rhodopsin are observed now. So unless they were always present they had to have evolved. Now I know there wasn't a 'plan' in place to evolve either, but we should be able to figure out if in fact they could evolve because in the ToE framework, obviously they did.schraf:
Rhodopsin is quite obviously a slightly modified viatamin A molecule.John Paul:
Quite obviously all of life's diversity is just a modified something or other. That is what evolutionists want us to believe and therefore my claim is affirmed. Guilty of oversimplification.schraf:
Please explain to me how it is impossible that these things could have evolved, since that seems to be your point.John Paul:
We would have to look at it during each possible step to see if we still have minmal functionality. Would such mutations be selected for? Would the amino acid chain(s) that forms the necessary proteins break down unless precisely configured as it is? How many codons can be changed and still keep the protein?schraf:
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."John Paul:
Until there is evidence to the contrary it is safe to infer Mother Nature & Father Time are inadequate to explain life or its diversity.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?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
schraf:
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.John Paul:
The cup would be formed by the ball of cells. The shape of that cup would be determined by the proteins. I never said the cup had an eye. The point was a cup would give any light-sensitive spot more directionality. My point is what caused the cup to form?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.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
schraf:
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.John Paul:
Behe accuses him of gross anatomy.schraf:
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.John Paul:
I am just talking about how evolutionists use oversimplification in order to sell their theory. The eye is just one very good example.schraf:
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.John Paul:
The point is there is a lot of detailed explaining that needs to be done. You guys are saying something did happen, without knowing if it actually could. You run smack into many roadblocks involving irreducible complexity and minimal functionality.schraf:
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.John Paul:
I think you are doing just fine here Are you saying that since there are many different types of eyes that can be used as evidence that eyes evolved? Eyes evolved from what? What evidence? This is exactly what this thread is all about.schraf:
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.?John Paul:
You want us to believe that a mutation can give us a cup. Further mutations will give us a pin-hole and even more will give us a lense. Where did the molecular supports that 'ALREADY existed' come from? Is this like the Matrix where you can order up parts at will? Even given the molecular structures what tells us they can be shaped?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.John Paul:
You miss the point and are guilty of oversimplification. Are you telling me that further mutations put some clear lense right over that pin-holed cup? This is just more 'just-so' stories schraf.I have read Theobald's alleged 29 evidences. The problem is he equates macro-evolution with speciation. Seeing that Creationists since the time of Linneaus knew the species level was not the same as forms that were Created, why would we debate speciation? Ashby Camp posted a rebuttal to Theobald, Theobald has responded.
I did a kick out of one of Theobald's alleged falsifications: "It would make no sense, macroevolutionarily, if certain other mammals (e.g. dogs, cow, etc.), had this same retrogene in the same location."It would make no sense..., yup that's scientific alright.Common mechanism also explains the observed phenomenon of endogenus retroviruses.------------------
John Paul