Originally posted by stupider...likeafoxYou claim in another post to know the theory "better than most", yet your understanding of scientific method and the theory of evolution is severely flawed.
I doubt you would pass a grade school test on the subject, based on the lies you are repeating in this thread.
Have you ever even read a book on the subject? If you had, rather than sourcing your arguments from crackpot religious fundamentalists, you would have realised that every single one of your arguments has been definitively refuted time and time again.
If you're truly interested in doing anything other than preaching to the choir, then you may want to do some reading:
edit: I want to draw attention to one piece in particular as a particularly lucid intro and overview of evolution and surrounding controversies--http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html
And as to your specific question about eyes (which is such an old saw, I'm sure you must be trolling--or badly misinformed about your own level of knowledge):
You aren't being serious are you? You must know that on a biochemical level that finding things that happen to show a sequence regarding possible eye formation and then somehow proclaiming them to all be connected is the height of stupidity.
Darwin then went on to describe how some simple animals have only "aggregates of pigment-cells...without any nerves ... [which] serve only to distinguish light from darkness." Then, in animals a bit more complex, like "star-fish," there exist "small depressions in the layer of [light-sensitive cells] -- depressions which are "filled ... with transparent gelatinous matter and have a clear outer covering, "like the cornea in the higher animals." These eyes lack a lens, but the fact that the light sensitive pigment lies in a "depression" in the skin makes it possible for the animal to tell more precisely from what direction the light is coming. And the more cup-shaped the depression, the better it helps "focus" the image like a simple "box-camera" may do, even without a lens. Likewise in the human embryo, the eye is formed from a "sack-like fold in the skin."
I suppose that I could say human females are likely to evolve pouches in their fronts like kangaroos. I mean they already keep the child there protectively during the previous 10 months. The child fits there and the mothers hips are designed to take the weight. Other mammals already have pouches, etc.
Yet if I suggested this in seriousness it would be laughable because there is much more to a woman having a pouch then just a hole in the front of her.
The leaps you make here, based off of the most basic external observations are astounding. You are willing to jump from different species in different classes and do so because why? Because it is convenient? It might help with your belief, but keep your religion to yourself. I was not asking for a fossil record because eyes are obviously soft tissue that don't survive.
I am saying that on a biochemical level it isn't just manipulation. It is profoundly more complex than the silly little explanation you posit there.
As for your "computer model" about eye generation.
In his recent book, River Out of Eden (Basic Books, 1995), Richard Dawkins points out how Nilsson and Pelger set up a computer model of evolving eyes to determine if a smooth gradient of change exists from a pigmented eye spot to the camera eye with a lens and cornea, and how long it would take such a transformation to occur. They employed pessimistic figures for the amounts of change possible per generation -- giving their model only 50% "heritability" (many human traits are over 50% inheritable), and chose pessimistic values for the coefficient of variation (how much variation there typically is in a population). And they determined that Darwinian evolution could produce a good camera eye in less than a half a million years! That's a mere "blink of the eye" in geologic time!
You don't understand the leap of logic here? The prejudiced pre-belief that brings about the intended results?
The computer program is "given" all the parts to make a good eye from the onset. You don't call that a little bit of a prejudice of belief? The computer model just had to adjust the parts and pass on the best adjustments to the next generation. This again is manipulation of existing traits with a computer and no external factors.
They also conveniently gloss over how those generaltions of animals with all the "imperfect" eyes manage to get by for half a million years when they can't see. Again a little leap in logic I do not care to make. The computer program pre-supposes that they would not be killed off completely by another organism.
Again when you take this to the biochemical level. When you think that the photo sensative spot is made of a cell that processes chemical reactions on dozens of different ways, the level of complexity sky rockets. When you consider how each one of these proteins had to "evolve" without chemical interference it becomes even more complex. When you consider that they need receptors and a means of evoking change at the other end of the chain of their reaction, it becomes even more complex. Evolution does not explain this level of complexity.
See it isn't that the lense just happens to have the wrong curvature for that generation. What happens to the complex cascade of chemical factors beyond that lense that have to work perfectly to process the chemical changes that occur in sensing that light.
Evolution works well on a large level, saying if you put to big dogs together you are likely to get a bigger dog. Yet if I asked if you if you put a big dog and a big human together what would you get, you would scoff. The reason? Well their DNA won't combine. Chemistry is a zero sum game. Evolution cannot explain things on the cellular level and even with a basic understanding of DNA we can see that the two would not combine. Even if we pounded them against each other 100 million times over 100 million years.
That is the point, chemical reactions do not have such logical leaps. We are all made up of millions of chemical reactions. Your eyes right now do not just have a lens and retina, etc. They have do not even just have rods and cones. They have millions of chemical reactions occuring just to read this text. They must be the right chemicals, have the right receptors, etc. This adds profound level of complexity to your hey the eye can manage to focus in half a million years if I give it a few basic, nonchemical parts argument.
Now I would also challange you and anyone else to find a single post in this thread where I have mentioned religion. You cannot get past setting up the strawman of religion. I am not advocating, nor even arguing a religious answer to any of these questions. Evolution breaks down badly on the cellular level. To say one animal survived better than another because its blood clots better is as elementary as saying the earth is flat. To understand the dozens of chemical reactions that must occur and explain them is much harder. It is also something evolution does not explain. I have said that this fact should be taught in school. I have not claimed a young earth, Noah's Ark or any other such nonsense, nor that they should be taught in school. Leave your prejudice at the door and address what I type, otherwise you are arguing with yourself as a form of mental masterbation.