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

[EricPH]

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

If the eye lens improves by 1% increments as Dawkins suggests, the optical nerves would also 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?

Your link for the evolution of the eye concluded it was only a computer simulation. So not very helpful. Your Dawkins link added nothing.

Conclusion
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,12 and deductive reasoning, that eyes can evolve quickly.
https://www.nature.com/articles/eye2017226

[EricPH]

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!

Snow flakes have the appearance of design. The human skeletal system is just a bunch of levers connected together to created movement. Our best robotic engineers cannot create a robotic version of ourselves, and with our range of movements. Robotic engineering can only happen by intelligent design.

[Sy Borg]

Nature looks like design because great complexity can emerge over deep time, but the error comes from using analogies based on recent phenomena.

As I said in another thread, referring the life as "biological machines" makes the mistake of presuming that machines came first. That is akin to saying that humans are non-biological AI. Likewise, referring to design before designing emerged is a perceptual error, another anthropomorphism.

I consider anthropomorphism possibly the greatest scourge afflicting humanity, blinding humans from actual reality and resulting in terrible actions in the name of deities.

The idea that a deity designed all the creatures of today and nothing has changed since flies in the face of logic and evidence.

[EricPH]

How many species have a single eye? Nilsson's theory shows how a one eyed species might evolve.

In order for Nilsson's theory for eye evolution to be plausible, it would need to start from two light sensitive patches, not one.

Then both light sensitive patches would need 1,829 incremental advantages over 364,000 years. Meaning each generation conferring a microscopic 0.005% advantage to two eyes

Clearly blind nature knew it needed to start from two light sensitive patches, unlike Nilsson who thought it only needed one.

How can Nilsson's calculations be taken seriously with such a basic omission?

[Sy Borg]

Nilsson is a long way behind the eight ball here. If he had bothered researching he would have known that eyes did indeed start out as singular, with the entire bodies of each bacterium of many species acting like a single eye. Eyes also come in great multiples, not just ones or twos. Some insects have many thousands of lenses in each compound eye. Two eyes worked out best for our ancestors.

This is dull. Such an old issue, settled long ago.

Perhaps we should debate whether Santa exists? If Santa doesn't exist, then how come millions of children receive presents every Christmas? Given how individualistic people are, it's most unlikely that billions of parents everywhere would buy presents for their children at the same time every year. I mean, who would believe such a far-fetched idea?

[EricPH]

Nilsson is a long way behind the eight ball here.

Then why did you give me two links that depended on Nilsson's calculations?

If he had bothered researching he would have known that eyes did indeed start out as singular, with the entire bodies of each bacterium of many species acting like a single eye.

If the eye evolved differently in various species, how did the second eye evolve to be virtually an exact copy of the first eye?

Eyes also come in great multiples, not just ones or twos. Some insects have many thousands of lenses in each compound eye. Two eyes worked out best for our ancestors.

The challenge for blind nature is copying the first eye; without any help from a computer programme.

[Sculptor1]

The purpose of this thread it to bring forward all the arguments and evidence that we humans and the world around us is designed/created rather than the result of a process.


DNA is likely designed

What is the likelihood and why do you think so?

You seem to dance about the topic.

If it was consciously (which I presume you mean) designed, then why has it taken billions of years?
If humans were conceived in some mind or minds then what were those minds doing for 14 billion years?
And what reason do they have for, say, Pluto?
WHy is 99.9999999999999999% of the universe apparently functionless and lifeless?

[EricPH]

DNA is likely designed

What is the likelihood and why do you think so?
[/quote]

If you stretched the DNA in one cell all the way out, it would be about 2m long and all the DNA in all your cells put together would be about twice the diameter of the Solar System.

DNA seems like it could be compared to a mega computer code. Would four billion years be long enough for a billion blindfolded monkeys to write such a code on intelligently designed computers?

[Sy Borg]

Nilsson is a long way behind the eight ball here.

Then why did you give me two links that depended on Nilsson's calculations?

If he had bothered researching he would have known that eyes did indeed start out as singular, with the entire bodies of each bacterium of many species acting like a single eye.

If the eye evolved differently in various species, how did the second eye evolve to be virtually an exact copy of the first eye?

Eyes also come in great multiples, not just ones or twos. Some insects have many thousands of lenses in each compound eye. Two eyes worked out best for our ancestors.

The challenge for blind nature is copying the first eye; without any help from a computer programme.

They were not dependencies, but considerations.

I note that you don't want to speak about singular eyes, as I described. I guess that's inconvenient for your giant ape-like spirit that you believe constructed life like a child with a Lego set. There's no need for copying. The challenge would not have been to build one eye, but to reduce the number from thousands to two.

[EricPH]

I note that you don't want to speak about singular eyes, as I described.

I have quoted your brief description below.

Nilsson is a long way behind the eight ball here. If he had bothered researching he would have known that eyes did indeed start out as singular, with the entire bodies of each bacterium of many species acting like a single eye.

Nilsson wrote a detailed paper as to how a single eye lens could evolve. what more do you want to say? But there was no mention how an almost perfect copy could evolve from the first eye. Was the starting point two light sensitive patches?

Eyes also come in great multiples, not just ones or twos. Some insects have many thousands of lenses in each compound eye. Two eyes worked out best for our ancestors.


I guess that's inconvenient for your giant ape-like spirit that you believe constructed life like a child with a Lego set. There's no need for copying. The challenge would not have been to build one eye, but to reduce the number from thousands to two.

[EricPH]

Eyes also come in great multiples, not just ones or twos. Some insects have many thousands of lenses in each compound eye. Two eyes worked out best for our ancestors.


I guess that's inconvenient for your giant ape-like spirit that you believe constructed life like a child with a Lego set. There's no need for copying. The challenge would not have been to build one eye, but to reduce the number from thousands to two.

Apologies, I hit submit instead of delete for the above.

But if you want to say how thousands of lenses were whittled down to two

[Belindi]

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!

Snow flakes have the appearance of design. The human skeletal system is just a bunch of levers connected together to created movement. Our best robotic engineers cannot create a robotic version of ourselves, and with our range of movements. Robotic engineering can only happen by intelligent design.

Men intentionally design artefacts such as robots. Snowflakes and skeletons are designed but nobody designed them.

[Sy Borg]

I note that you don't want to speak about singular eyes, as I described.

I have quoted your brief description below.

Nilsson is a long way behind the eight ball here. If he had bothered researching he would have known that eyes did indeed start out as singular, with the entire bodies of each bacterium of many species acting like a single eye.

Nilsson wrote a detailed paper as to how a single eye lens could evolve. what more do you want to say?

However, you presented it as though two eyes were a dependency.

But there was no mention how an almost perfect copy could evolve from the first eye. Was the starting point two light sensitive patches?

No, it was thousands of them. If each bacterium acts like a single eye then, as colony integration increased over deep time, the line between colony and organism blurs. When that happens, individual cells start losing some of their generalised functions, which are now handled by the collective, and so they specialised.

Evolution is extremely interesting. It's a shame such a beautiful and fascinating aspect of life is so often treated as a political football.

[Sculptor1]

DNA is likely designed

What is the likelihood and why do you think so?

If you stretched the DNA in one cell all the way out, it would be about 2m long and all the DNA in all your cells put together would be about twice the diameter of the Solar System.

DNA seems like it could be compared to a mega computer code. Would four billion years be long enough for a billion blindfolded monkeys to write such a code on intelligently designed computers?
[/quote]

So are you saying that long things have to be designed?
Or is it necessary for any designer to unravel things to see how far they go?

[Charlemagne]

The purpose of this thread it to bring forward all the arguments and evidence that we humans and the world around us is designed/created rather than the result of a process.


DNA is likely designed

What is the likelihood and why do you think so?

You seem to dance about the topic.

If it was consciously (which I presume you mean) designed, then why has it taken billions of years?
If humans were conceived in some mind or minds then what were those minds doing for 14 billion years?
And what reason do they have for, say, Pluto?
WHy is 99.9999999999999999% of the universe apparently functionless and lifeless?

Interesting question. Perhaps the billions of years strike you as unnecessary. On the other hand, since God exists outside time and created time, the reason for taking so long to create us was to give us a reason to ask questions about the creation, to seek to know, for example, when the moment of creation began (with the Big Bang) and all the other questions that keep scientists digging to know the mind of God. So perhaps that vast universe is full of function and life after all?