Originally posted by Fellowship
I quite frankly believe there is no evidence for either ID or Evolution.
What you believe has no bearing on what the facts or observations are. Whether you believe in the facts or not has no bearing on the truth of the facts either, they will still be true, the facts.
What do I mean by world outlook?
The people on each side of the War in Iraq issue frame the war based on how they see the world. Some see the world as filled with terrorists who only want to kill americans because they hate us whether we are nice to them or not so we might as well just round up all the terrorists and kill them before they kill us.
Others see the world as a place running out of energy and the policy of the west is to go race to grab and secure as much energy as we can before someone else does. All the while selling this aggression as "fighting the war on terror" "spreading freedom around the world" you know,, putting a nice and pretty spin on a lie. Fooling some of the fools back home into thinking this about "being a great american" and "being patriotic" "support the troops" etc.
There are beliefs and there are facts.
Here is an example of facts. The USA and it's coalition invaded Iraq. It replaced its government. Prior to the invasion, statements were made to the effect about nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons were in Iraq and posed a danger to the world; Iraq was a cruel dictatorship that broke many UN resolutions; the effort would cost XXX billion dollars; etc. After the invasion, no nuclear, biological or chemical weapons were found. Iraq had an election. There is on-going violence and strife. The USA has spent 200+ billion dollars. Do you deny any of these are facts?
Now there is one thing in that list of facts that should alter people's beliefs rather convincingly. A statement of belief, that there are nuclear, bioligical and chemical weapons in post-Gulf War, pre-invasion Iraq, is found to have no merit. 2 years after the invasion, and many search groups later, no nuclear, biological and chemical weapons have been found in Iraq.
What's the rational thing to do here? Continue to believe that there were nuclear, biological and chemical weapons in Iraq, or change one's belief to what the facts say.
It is based on how you see the universe:
Do you believe it is designed by an entity that created creation. or Do you believe it is random chance. Pick your belief.
Go with the facts.
Darwin proposed a model of biological diversity in the mid-19th century. To this day, every single fact, observation, and study supports Darwin's model. There are some details that are wrong, but that is normal in any theoretical model that stands the test of time.
The collection of fossils are morphologically consistent and time consistent. Fossil finds to this day continue to support an evolutionary model. Ages of fossils based on geological dating techniques in the 19th century have not been turned over by 20th century radiological techniques. Early 20th century radiological techniques have not been overturned by late 20th century DNA dating techniques. Morphology-based - the shapes of lifeforms (bones in fossils) - evolutionary trees developed since Darwin's day to the present have not been overturned by late 20th century DNA, genetic studies. All the modern techniques have only corrected details and filled in details while greatly supporting Darwin's model.
Contrast this with the Creation model, started ~4000 years ago, and today's version of it, ID. Every single fact, observation, and study does not support it. Every single fact, observation, and study goes to support the evolutionary model. The fossils, ages, and geological does not support a world-wide flood. Studies of the ages of cultures do not indicate dates and lineage back to Noah, but much older across large swaths of geography. Linguistic studies do not a indicate a direct lineage to Noah. Studies of fabrics, construction techniques, religious models, you name it, do not indicate a lineage to Noah. There is zero evidence for a Creation biological model.
Lastly, Independent Design is largely a proposal of negative consequence on evolution's lack of detail on the minutia of biology, and doesn't present an actual model of anything. In other words, it doesn't explain anything except for an inference of a designer, and is rather, nitpicking. And you know what happens when people nitpick a theory? Other people will work to solve the nitpick.
The evolution of the eye is a classic example. It is nitpicked to be something that couldn't have evolved, that no logical model could be proposed. The mantra of the Creationists and IDers. Darwin himself proposed a model of eye evolution after saying it was such a complex thing. (I actually don't think it is that complex.) And amazingly enough his model still stands the test of time: light-sensitive cells slowly evolved to become the multitude of eye designs we see today.
Using Russel Fernald
as my guide. Why do we only see EM radiation in the "light" wavelengths (400 to 800 nm)? We speculate that life originated in the water on a very young planet with an inhospital atmosphere. Water allows for the proteins to come together easily, for vesicle to form. Lastly there were two energy sources, radiation from the Sun and heat generating by the Earth's gravity. Let's look at this chart:
Look, it so happens that EM radiation of 400 to 800 nm can penetrate water really well. A unique characteristic of water. So organisms, evolved from either hot vents or the surface, could have developed light sensitive cells on their skins. I don't think that's a very extraordinary thing itself. Many organisms called plants or algea were already light sensitive. A cell being co-opted for another use, converting light energy into electrical impulses, isn't all that extraordinary to me either. In fact, the original light-sensitive cells were in all likelihood for an entirely different use, likely a rudimentary nerve cell that had a mutation allowing for the usage of opsin proteins that are sensitive to light. That development of that one light sensitive cell is the key.
Once that cell is developed, it is then the typical evolutionary story:
- Pit eye, common throughout the lower phyla.
- Pinhole of Haliotis (abalone) or Nautilus.
- Eye with a lens.
- Eye with homogeneous lens, showing failure to focus.
- Eye with lens having a gradient of refractive index.
- Multiple lens eye of male Pontella.
- Two-lens eye of the copepod crustacean Copilia. Solid arrow shows image position and open arrow the movement of the second lens.
- Terrestrial eye of Homo sapiens with cornea and lens; Ic = image formed by cornea alone; Ir = final image on the retina.
- Mirror eye of the scallop Pecten.
And a pictoral landscape of eyes found in the world. This is Darwin's model. He proposed the simple eye to the complex one based on the fact that eyes of varying complexity exist today in many lifeforms.
You wanted a step-by-step explanation of the development of the eye. It exists today. The chief complaint was that the eye is irreducibly complex and couldn't evolve. Well, an evolutionary model has been proposed. An actual physical mechanism of development exists today based on physical mechanisms found in genetics and the myriad of eyes in existence today. Many said there can't be one.
One can choose to believe in what is physical, the facts, and one can choose believe in the fiction, something that has no facts. But point of rationalism is to have methodical and factual basis for our beliefs. It's obvious to me which way a person chooses to believe. It's also obvious to me which way is the right way, the fair way.