Does complexity require intelligent design?

Let's wrap up a couple of chains of discussion then shall we? Do you now understand that:
1) No eye is perfect.
2) A simple eye may be a distinct survival advantage over no eye.
3) There are a large range of imperfect eyes in living creatures. They are all "good enough" for the environment they are in.And you last sentence makes no sense to me whatsoever. Could you explain? Have you now had a chance to actually think this through. The thought experiment stated that all the harmful mutations are removed through selection. The experiment stated that there were some beneficial mutations (however few).Now what is the long term result of such a scenario? That was what you were asked. Your answer of "nothing" doesn't seem to logically follow. Could you explain it?

Several of us are trying different wordings in repsonses to help you understand. Here is my go.First, this is a thought experiment we will get to "reality" in a bit.Now, why would (as someone else said) one harmful mutation wipe out the better mutations in a whole population? You seem to be thinking in terms of individuals.Let's give some more detail to our little thought experiment. There is a population of 100,000 critters. Each of them has some mutations (as we humans all do). They live 5 years.In 5 years there will be a different set of 100,000 individuals. They will have a few more of the few benificial mutations of the first 100,000. Some of those will get a harmful mutation and not reproduce. But 5 years later there will still be more of the beneficial mutations. (that is how we are defining beneficial).Any time an individual gets a harmful mutation it is removed from the population and all the beneficial mutations it carries may be gone too. (If the harmful is really harmful enough). But if it had siblings then the beneficial mutations may still be there.As long as there is a removal of the bad mutations then many of the good ones will become more common. Sometimes all 100,000 of the individuals of a generation may have a beneficial mutation that happened to just one individual some 100's or 1,000's of generations before. It is possible to do the math. Any specific series of beneficial mutations is improbable. But one such series HAS to happen. If the harmful mutations are fatal then if there are any critters left they had to have a long series of neutral and beneficial mutations.Your only arguement against this seems to be the idea that everything was "perfect" only 6 thousand years ago. Yet we are begining to get the DNA of individuals born 1,000's of years ago. Do you predict we will see it being very different from ours AND "better" in some way?I believe you prediction will be shown to be wrong.You are making claims about what living things were like not so long ago. You have exactly zero evidence that these claims are at all reasonable.

Of course, but how would it spead throughout a population if it is too harmful?It is possible that a mutation that isn't very harmful or is neutral or even beneficial spreads though a lot of a population in the absense of the disease. Then if the disease arises (perhaps a mutation itself or imported from somewhere else) it may well decimate a population.Rememember the mutation arises in one or a few individuals. If it is particularly harmful under the current conditions then it will not become spead in a population.

Good for you!It is necessary to understand that you don't know before you can learn.However, it isn't a matter of "current evolutionary theories". It appears you are not familiar with the most basic concepts.You don't show any signs of not being at least a moderately sharp pencil but you do show signs of being aware of almost nothing about the subject matter.

Within a small number of years of the publication of "The origin.." a reptile bird transitional was found. About the only major thing Darwin got wrong (and maybe it shoudn't be called "major" ) is the idea that the rate of change would be constant.Care to supply a list of predictions that he made that didn't pan out? Your information about the Cambrian "explosion" is, at best, out of date. Please explain how this exploded evolutionary theory. It is interesting that you suggest that it is a such a problem. Perhaps you could detail the facts as you understand them? Things like the currently understood duration of the Cambrian time frame, what is now known about pre-Cambrian life and just how you see all this as a problem for evolutionary theory.It seems that you are again, demonstrating that you don't actually have all your facts straight. How small a gap do you need? Certainly not every individual. Has "kind" moved up to order now? Last I looked on creationist sites it was family. Define "large gap" please. Two issues here:
1) How do you know that the number of any kind of mutations are? It is pretty clear that significantly harmful ones are also fairly rare. Something less than half of all human fertilizations perhaps? And certainly are only a small percentage of all humans born. Yet we all carry a number of mutations. Perhaps mostly neutral but I don't think we have a good measure of that.
2) As noted elsewhere if the harmful ones are weeded out (and that maybe why a large number of fertilizations spontaneously abort but I don't think that is known) then even a small number of beneficial ones can add up.Perhaps you need to show your calculations for this assertion since it is the kind of thing done for genetics.

I'm not so sure that the telescope etc. comparison is something I like so much. What I might point out is compared to the eye of an eagle:

quote:

---

All eagles are renowned for their excellent eyesight, and the bald eagle is no exception. They have two foveae, or centers of focus, that allow the birds to see both forward and to the side at the same time. Bald eagles are capable of seeing fish in the water from several hundred feet above, while soaring, gliding, or in flapping flight. This is quite an extraordinary feat, since most fish are counter-shaded, meaning they are darker on top and thus harder to see from above. Fishermen can confirm how difficult it is to see a fish just beneath the surface of the water from only a short distance away.

​

...
Eagles, like all birds, have color vision. An eagle's eye is almost as large as a human's, but its sharpness is at least four times that of a person with perfect vision. The eagle can probably identify a rabbit moving almost a mile away. That means that an eagle flying at an altitude of 1000 feet over open country could spot prey over an area of almost 3 square miles from a fixed position.

---

from: http://www.baldeagleinfo.com/eagle/eagle2.htmlThat is a hint of how imperfect our eye is. But only by comparing ourselves to something occupying a different niche does this show up. We are indeed "good enough" as long as we don't try to compete with eagles.from:http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/agarman/bco/fact4.htm

quote:

---

In darkness, cats eyes are able to function in approximately one-sixth of the light needed for human vision. However they must also be able to function well in daylight...

---

In one niche we are 1/4 as good as eagles, in another 1/6 as good as the cat that is nudging my shoulder for attention as I type.

Absolutely true. Advantageous (or not) is mostly relative to the environment.However, this does show that mutations can produce changes which may well be advantageous in a resonable environment.