Eye Evolution: Comments about the Great Debate

I am new to this forum, so please forgive me if I make any glaring errors in my posting.After reading many of the the threads that deal primarily with the global flood and those that question the validity of creationism as a science, I eventually found my way to "The Great Debate".In his latest response, Joralex makes the following statement: I fail to see why this falsifies the evolution of the eye. Actually, I think it supports what Zhimbo was trying to say...kinda. Let me see if I can adequately explain what I mean. In the first have of the above quote, Joralex informs us that we're trying to build a functional space shuttle and then gives us all the parts (what a nice guy). Then in the second half of the quote he seems to imply that we cannot possibly assemble an actual space shuttle because of its complexity. Ok, first off, we all know that evolution doesn't work that way. Evolution has no goal and cannot predict future novel contingencies, but hear me out. I'm saying that if you give me all the parts needed to assemble a space shuttle and enough time...I will give you back a functioning space shuttle.Can I do this because I am a brilliant aerospace engineer? No (but my brother is, so if I get stuck I'll just give him a call...lol). I can do this because Joralex has given me all the parts I need. I don't even have to worry about mutations, inversions, natural selection or any of that other science stuff...all I need is time.I think that Joralex is trying to not only argue on the grounds of IC, but also on probabilities. I could be way off here, but I think he is also implying that not only is the most simple of eyes extrememly complex, but also the probability of all the needed "parts" evolving independently is so remote as to be functionally impossible. The problem with this sort of logic is that it goes against the whole concept of evolutonary theory, a point I think Zhimba has been deperately trying to make....you can't work backwards.I predict that at some point during this debate, Joralex will agrue something along the lines that even a simple protein sequence is so complex that it (the protein) simply could not have evolved by chance. And if you can't get the protein (ie: one of the required "parts") then you certainly can't get even simple vision.I have some other problems with his rebuttal, but I'll wait a bit and see if anyone else brings them up...I've probably bored and confused you enough already with what I'm trying to say versus what I actually said.

You're right Loudmouth, I thought of that last night after I had sent the previous thread, and was going to write words to that effect this morning. However, remember that my original point was merely to demonstrate that given the parts and plenty of time, I ( or should I now say "we", cuz it appears that at least you and I are in this together ) could assemble a space shuttle. A more "realistic" scenario would be to first accept the parts so generously donated by Joralex and then, by following the basic rules of evolutionary theory and letting "nature" run its course, see what we () get.But back to the debate in question. Read that last sentence..."necessity"... Arrrrrg, he just doesn't undersatnd! Of course necessity is missing Joralex, evolutin has no goal. Do you actually think organisms were trying to evolve a visual system? That if they "wished" hard enough, they could get the mutations they wanted and vision would start to evolve? Not to mention that no evolutionist suggests that any pathway is as simple as A---> B---> C---> D---> etc.And then he gives us this: What process he is talking about? I don't see a process, I see a list of structurally similar transmembrane proteins. If anything, this supports the idea of co-option.And lastly, we get this: There have been quite e few threads giving perfectly valid, scientifically plausible evolutionary pathways explaining how a simple light detecting system could evolve. Joralex simply ignores them or dismisses them as fallacies. Rei, for example, explained rather eloquently how a sensor rhodopsin gene can mutate into a photorhodopsin. She ( I think I read somewhere that she is a she, not a he...if I'm mistaken, my apologies to Rei) also demonstarted that such a mutation has a very high probability of occurring...almost to the point of certainty. Of course, we all know that she cannot "prove" that this was indeed the pathway that opened our eyes , but neither can Joralex simply dismiss it as false because it gives him a wedgie. And to answer that last sentence/question, I'll ask this: Is it more rational to think that all those nice presents I received as a child were brought to me by my parents or by Santa Claus?