Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sy Borg]

Given that you seem to have given up providing content, perhaps too enthralled with the cut-and-thrust to focus, I might as well take over.

Evolution is a reliable theory, proved correct over and over again, like relativity. It makes predictions and the predictions work. Calling it incomplete is misguided because all theories will necessarily be incomplete until there is a ToE.

Whatever, evolution is simply logical. Nothing stays the same and changes can either lead to more or less organisation. Things that are less organised tend to break down, which leaves the more organised ones remaining. Survival of the persistent.

Self-organisation is a well known dynamic. Nothing mystical is needed for it to happen, just physics and time. Since you missed this comment so as to play jousting games, I reiterate that Paul Davies' thought experiment quoted by you is incoherent, ignoring the extremely long time spans over which evolution happens in large organisms. It's surprising because PD is normally a terrific thinker. The fact is that, in evolution, changes don't have to happen instantly or over short time spans. Rather, you have mutations and epigenetic changes that pass down - and they will either be more or less effective than the prior morphology at passing on their genes.

[3017Metaphysician]

Given that you seem to have given up providing content, perhaps too enthralled with the cut-and-thrust to focus, I might as well take over.

Evolution is a reliable theory, proved correct over and over again, like relativity. It makes predictions and the predictions work. Calling it incomplete is misguided because all theories will necessarily be incomplete until there is a ToE.

Whatever, evolution is simply logical. Nothing stays the same and changes can either lead to more or less organisation. Things that are less organised tend to break down, which leaves the more organised ones remaining. Survival of the persistent.

Self-organisation is a well known dynamic. Nothing mystical is needed for it to happen, just physics and time. Since you missed this comment so as to play jousting games, I reiterate that Paul Davies' thought experiment quoted by you is incoherent, ignoring the extremely long time spans over which evolution happens in large organisms. It's surprising because PD is normally a terrific thinker. The fact is that, in evolution, changes don't have to happen instantly or over short time spans. Rather, you have mutations and epigenetic changes that pass down - and they will either be more or less effective than the prior morphology at passing on their genes.

SB!

Not relevant to my question.

[EricPH]

Nilsson and Pelger's paper was 28 years ago. More has been found since then. Unlike theists, scientists are not satisfied with a dogma but keep on digging. Here is some updated information: https://www.nature.com/articles/eye2017226

Taken from your link to explain the evolution of the eye, it starts by saying -

Ocular evolution is an immense topic, and I do not expect to cover all the details of this process in this manuscript. I will present some concepts about some of the major steps in the evolutionary process to stimulate your thinking about this interesting and complex topic.

It can only stimulate our thinking, it does not have the courage to say, this is how the eye truthfully evolved. Your article concludes by saying -

Conclusions
The evolution of eyes has taken several major steps in development. Some of the eye steps have been discussed above. We know from computer models, and deductive reasoning, that eyes can evolve quickly.

They already knew what an eye lens looks like. Presumably the computer was programmed to show a gradual path to an eye lens. Are you saying that eyes evolved in the same way as a computer model that was intelligently designed.

We know from computer models and deductive reasoning that eyes can evolve quickly.

The computer will do what you tell it to do, you don't need deductive reasoning when you look at the results of the programme you have set. It ended up where you programmed it to.

Smacks of intelligent design!

[Sy Borg]

Not at all. It's self-organisation. Eyes evolved. God sis not create them with his giant simian hands.

Light is a useful resource. Seeing is useful. Of course organisms will evolve to to use that resource, just as they evolve to use other sources. The eye has evolved a number of times, not just once, making clear the efficacy of vision in terms of natural selection.

Consider the lack of vision of organisms like the golden mole, which lives underground and is completely blind. Eyes are simply a useful sense organ, like ears, noses and skin. There's no need to invoke a fantastical deity creator to explain them. Of course we don't know everything, but inserting God of the Gaps is not the answer, just the end of inquiry.

[EricPH]

Seeing is useful. Of course organisms will evolve to to use that resource, just as they evolve to use other sources.

Of course eyes are an advantage. Of course there are species with a wide variety of eyes; both now and in the past, we have no disagreement on this.
The problem for evolution is plotting a path from no eyes four billion years ago, to the eyes of five hundred million years ago.

Your link talked about eyes evolving along the path of a computer that had been programmed to show the evolution of an eye lens. Is this truthfully how the eye evolved?

Eyes evolved. God sis not create them with his giant simian hands.

You are giving evolution the power of God. Where ever there is a gap, you say, evolution did it. But you don't say how?

[3017Metaphysician]

Not at all. It's self-organisation. Eyes evolved. God sis not create them with his giant simian hands.

Light is a useful resource. Seeing is useful. Of course organisms will evolve to to use that resource, just as they evolve to use other sources. The eye has evolved a number of times, not just once, making clear the efficacy of vision in terms of natural selection.

Consider the lack of vision of organisms like the golden mole, which lives underground and is completely blind. Eyes are simply a useful sense organ, like ears, noses and skin. There's no need to invoke a fantastical deity creator to explain them. Of course we don't know everything, but inserting God of the Gaps is not the answer, just the end of inquiry.

Another unsupported claim, I'm afraid. For example, seeing objects confers feelings about many things, including colors. Human's make decisions based upon the aesthetics of things. That in itself has little if any biological survival advantages. But has causational powers. Further, knowledge about the laws of physics has no biological survival advantages, much less musical genius, one's own metaphysical Will to survive (when pure instinct is all that's needed to survive), and all the other quality (Qualia) of life stuff all humans hold dearly. You know, like love.

Keep trying SB!! Remember, 'God dunnit'!

[Sy Borg]

Seeing is useful. Of course organisms will evolve to to use that resource, just as they evolve to use other sources.

Of course eyes are an advantage. Of course there are species with a wide variety of eyes; both now and in the past, we have no disagreement on this.
The problem for evolution is plotting a path from no eyes four billion years ago, to the eyes of five hundred million years ago.

Your link talked about eyes evolving along the path of a computer that had been programmed to show the evolution of an eye lens. Is this truthfully how the eye evolved?

Eyes evolved. God sis not create them with his giant simian hands.

You are giving evolution the power of God. Where ever there is a gap, you say, evolution did it. But you don't say how?

As stated, eyes evolved multiple times and take different forms in various species.

It's all just blindingly obvious. Evolution of viruses and bacteria occur in human time scales. This has nothing to do with the absurd powers conferred to your favourite phantasm.

Who to believe? Scientists who have dedicated their lives to studying nature or a 2,000 year-old book of myths? If you are even slightly serious about this, you choose the former every times. Personally, I don't think you have any interest in biology, just in leveraging scientist words to support the Bible's account.

Here is a very young Richard Dawkins explaining aspects of eye evolution:

[Sy Borg]

Not at all. It's self-organisation. Eyes evolved. God sis not create them with his giant simian hands.

Light is a useful resource. Seeing is useful. Of course organisms will evolve to to use that resource, just as they evolve to use other sources. The eye has evolved a number of times, not just once, making clear the efficacy of vision in terms of natural selection.

Consider the lack of vision of organisms like the golden mole, which lives underground and is completely blind. Eyes are simply a useful sense organ, like ears, noses and skin. There's no need to invoke a fantastical deity creator to explain them. Of course we don't know everything, but inserting God of the Gaps is not the answer, just the end of inquiry.

Another unsupported claim, I'm afraid. For example, seeing objects confers feelings about many things, including colors. Human's make decisions based upon the aesthetics of things. That in itself has little if any biological survival advantages. But has causational powers. Further, knowledge about the laws of physics has no biological survival advantages, much less musical genius, one's own metaphysical Will to survive (when pure instinct is all that's needed to survive), and all the other quality (Qualia) of life stuff all humans hold dearly. You know, like love. :lol:

Keep trying SB!! Remember, 'God dunnit'!

What I said is all thoroughly supported, unlike your romanticised claims.

The evolution of eyes has nothing to do with human emotions. You see, reality is not all about humans. We are animals. Many other animals saw the world long before any human emerged.

Thanks for playing. Hopefully, in the future you will try discussing topics that you actually know something about because you sure do not understand biology.

[EricPH]

Here is a very young Richard Dawkins explaining aspects of eye evolution:

Richard Dawkins is biased, the video shows evidence for eye evolution that followed a computer programme; designed and programmed by intelligent beings. Yet another example you have given that depends on the Nilsson model you say is outdated. Another niggle, Dawkins uses intelligently designed optician grade lenses to demonstrate the evolution of the eye lens. He is probably not intelligent enough; and does not have the skill to make these lenses himself.

Dawkins seems flippant in his presentation. If the eye lens improves by 1%, the optical nerves would have to improve by 1% to pass the information onto the brain. The brain would have to improve by 1% to understand the increased vision. The brain would have to pass on the increased information to the limbs, so they could react 1% more efficiently. In order for natural selection to pick out all these one percent improvements amongst a population.

Where is your evidence that this happened 1829 times, in the way Nilsson's Intelligently programmed simulation demonstrated?

My money is on intelligent design.

[Sy Borg]

Sorry, if your money is on "Gud dunnit" then your money goes down the gurgler.

Of course, if you wished, you could look at studies that talk about the many times that eyes have evolved, but that would not suit your narrative. I could post dozens of links and quotes, but you would reflexively say no and come up with more loaded criticisms.

Eric, you might as well admit it, you know very well that evolution is a true phenomenon; it's been tried and tested endlessly because every theist and his dog has tried to disprove evolution over centuries, and Darwin's insights have always stood up against any challenge. All theories are incomplete because we cannot know everything, but evolution is as solid as they come.

You also know very well that magic beings do not exist. You know that this real world is lit up by a real star, and real geology has developed into real biology. No deity is needed. In fact, the Sun and the Earth are so impressive that, if you wish to worship and thank anything, you should be thanking and worshipping these extraordinary celestial entities, not some magic dude postulated by simple ancient people.

[Tegularius]

My money is on intelligent design.

There's a huge and fundamental difference between apparent design and intelligent design though admittedly it does require a certain amount of intelligence to realize the difference!

[3017Metaphysician]

Not at all. It's self-organisation. Eyes evolved. God sis not create them with his giant simian hands.

Light is a useful resource. Seeing is useful. Of course organisms will evolve to to use that resource, just as they evolve to use other sources. The eye has evolved a number of times, not just once, making clear the efficacy of vision in terms of natural selection.

Consider the lack of vision of organisms like the golden mole, which lives underground and is completely blind. Eyes are simply a useful sense organ, like ears, noses and skin. There's no need to invoke a fantastical deity creator to explain them. Of course we don't know everything, but inserting God of the Gaps is not the answer, just the end of inquiry.

Another unsupported claim, I'm afraid. For example, seeing objects confers feelings about many things, including colors. Human's make decisions based upon the aesthetics of things. That in itself has little if any biological survival advantages. But has causational powers. Further, knowledge about the laws of physics has no biological survival advantages, much less musical genius, one's own metaphysical Will to survive (when pure instinct is all that's needed to survive), and all the other quality (Qualia) of life stuff all humans hold dearly. You know, like love.

Keep trying SB!! Remember, 'God dunnit'!

What I said is all thoroughly supported, unlike your romanticised claims.

The evolution of eyes has nothing to do with human emotions. You see, reality is not all about humans. We are animals. Many other animals saw the world long before any human emerged.

Thanks for playing. Hopefully, in the future you will try discussing topics that you actually know something about because you sure do not understand biology.

SB!

There you go again, making assertions based upon pure emotion rather than logic (not that that's necessarily a bad thing)! For some reason, and only you would know, you seem to struggle incessantly with basic cause and effect. For instance, the specific ability to see things, like the colors of things (qualities of a thing), and make emotional decisions based upon those qualities/colors, confers little if any Darwinian biological survival advantages. Specifically, those things that enhance one's own quality of life but are unnecessary for survival in the jungle.

But hey, not all is lost, emotions are actually a good thing! You know, people make all sort of decisions, even life and death decisions, based upon how a thing looks and the resulting feelings about them. Even music, people make decisions based upon how a musician may present herself and the feelings associated with that experience. Hence these random things, relating to quality-of-life stuff, have no survival advantages:

1. SB purchased shoes and a dress because it makes her feel and look good (and has causal effects on her self-esteem)
2. SB fell in love because her partner looks good (causally, certainly the partner can't look bad to her)
3. SB purchased a house because it looks good, and she feels good about it
4. SB wears makeup because it makes her look and feel good, and enhances her self-esteem
5. SB purchased a vehicle because it looks good, and consequently she feels good about it
7. SB purchased a CD, or otherwise likes or dislikes certain kinds of music because it feels good to listen to it

Isn't that a miracle!!

Keep trying SB, you're doing just fine!!!

[Sy Borg]

Nice trick. I reject emotions and you accuse me of posting emotionally. A career in politics beckons for you.

Aesthetics mean nothing. They most certainly do stem from survival instincts and reproductive drives, some directly and some indirectly. (Amusingly, only #7 was even slightly relatable).

I wish I could say you are doing fine, but that would not be honest.

[3017Metaphysician]

Nice trick. I reject emotions and you accuse me of posting emotionally. A career in politics beckons for you.

Aesthetics mean nothing. They most certainly do stem from survival instincts and reproductive drives, some directly and some indirectly. (Amusingly, only #7 was even slightly relatable).

I wish I could say you are doing fine, but that would not be honest.

Does your lack of response mean that you can't support your position? Please feel free to make your case if you are even able to...

[Sy Borg]

Nice trick. I reject emotions and you accuse me of posting emotionally. A career in politics beckons for you.

Aesthetics mean nothing. They most certainly do stem from survival instincts and reproductive drives, some directly and some indirectly. (Amusingly, only #7 was even slightly relatable).

I wish I could say you are doing fine, but that would not be honest.

Does your lack of response mean that you can't support your position? Please feel free to make your case if you are even able to... :lol:

It means that I don't think you have the chops, and I seek more sophisticated ideas.