OBSTACLES IN EVOLUTION
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Your questions are once again framed on the assumption that change is violent and purposeful when in reality it's random and subtle. An animal doesn't wake up one morning and go 'holy shit, where did that second eye come from? Bastard second eye I keep bumping into stuff'
Awesome, I guess the first line of my OP doesn't mean anything: "There are several obstacles that are encountered if the eye evolved gradually."
"Awesome, I guess the first line of my OP doesn't mean anything: "There are several obstacles that are encountered if the eye evolved gradually."
None of which pose any problems for the scientific theory of evolution, which remains a scientific fact. just turn on any news channel if you don't believe me. You're just showing your closed minded bias against any scientific facts that refute your superstitious faith in the hokum of creationist propaganda.
"Your questions are once again framed on the assumption that change is violent and purposeful when in reality it's random and subtle. An animal doesn't wake up one morning and go 'holy shit, where did that second eye come from? Bastard second eye I keep bumping into stuff'"
It's irrelevant to his question because he's not looking for answers or debate, he's trolling, but it amuses me to watch his squirm and evade when someone calls him on his creationist BS.
Light sensory wasn't a lens and a pinhole. The formation of an eye was far more sophisticated as you suggest. I don't think there has ever been a single-eyed animal in evolutionary history. I may be wrong, but I don't think so. The first senses were feeling sensors that sensed warmth and cold. Some of those nerves evolved to become eyes...plural, not singular.
As an FYI, copepods have one eye.
There is a solitary eye crustacean. I think's it's name is rather predictably Cyclops and there are some randoms in the fossil record but they're statistically insignificant
:-) yep, that's the copepod
Well if there is a one-eyed creature I doubt that through its evolutionary history it started out that way. I'd bet that even if it never had fully developed multiple eyes, that it actually had multiple light sensory organs at one time.
Probably yes, actually the reverse could be true. There's a lot of crustaceans that are blind (which suggests that sight isn't of massive benefit to them) perhaps one eye was enough.
I don't know anything about the creature to be honest but actually it's an interesting side note, the fact that there's blind, one eyed, two eyed etc crustaceans is surely perfect illustration of the chaotic nature of evolution. If a perfect and infallible god created them why would it need so many attempts to get it right?
Hmm what do you know. The problems posed on this thread may have been the cause of dyslexia all along, according to a recent study:
"In people with the reading disability, the cells were arranged in matching patterns in both eyes, which may be to blame for confusing the brain by producing "mirror" images, the co-authors wrote in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B."
This is a very valid point that John has raised and it is something similar to the famous 'irreducible complexity' argument. I recently happened to read Behe's 'Edge of Evolution' and I think it's a ground breaking book, only that as it speaks against evolution, it is not getting the respect it deserves.
In it he beautiful establishes his case through the example of Malaria's parasites and how they evolve their resistance to drugs. Even a resistance that warrants just two mutations for an effective advantage to the species is hard to evolve. And that sort of defines the limits of evolution. Any change that needs more evolutionary steps than just two become nearly impossible... however, it's obvious that the complex cellular machinery and other features in life are way outside the scope of a mere two-point evolutionary process.
He gives a wonderful example too. It's like looking at a car with two of its mirrors on the sides that get knocked off in an accident, and realizing that this accident has made the car more aerodynamic and given it more speed... and then to extrapolate that the entire car must have been arisen through a series of such knock-down accidents.
John's case for the eye is extremely valid!
For the new forum members, I like to do something I call blast from the past. Where I introduce to you returning forum members with a trip down memory lane, to give you an idea who are you talking too:
HI nyarl... kindly enlighten me if you would deign to do so.
Do you mean to say that a black woman and a white man will have brown offspring?
Black and white mixed makes gray
"John's case for the eye is extremely valid!"
If it were he could publish and get a Nobel prize, irreducible complexity is creationist propaganda, and the entire scientific world rejects it for the same reason it rejects the hokum superstition of creationism, because it has no scientific validity.
You're in luck, I'm learning to publish papers this semester. Nothing that i wrote in the OP is controversial. So yes, it's valid. All i did was ask how these facts evolved. You've done everything but answer that. Then you wonder why I troll you and don't answer you.
That is the 2nd time you have discussed your breaking of the rules on this forum in the last week; I wouldn't make a habit of that.
Guilty as charged. I live life on the edge.
I know that what behavior can be called trolling is frequently different for folks, but that you are calling yourself a troll means I’ve got to ask if you want to be banned. As you know, trolling is against the forum rules.
I typically give folks quite a bit of leeway as I dislike having to ban folks. So, John, the edge you say you like living on may be reason for me to take action. Is that what you want?
Hilarious lol. Why don't you tell us your definition of trolling ma'am, and the type of behavior that qualifies it, or am I the moderator? I find my behavior justified.
After all, the majority of my posts lately have been imitations of the posts I receive from others. Think of my behavior as a mirror. I'm sure you can see yourself reflected in some of it.
If I'm banned it confirms my point: The type of comments I've received lately have been the linguistic equivalent of prostate cancer.
John, why didn’t you answer my simple questions? I did not, at any point, call you a troll. Did I? You called YOURSELF that. If you think of yourself as one and it is against the forum rules, I want to know if you want me to ban you.
This isn’t about anyone else so your attempt to light a fire elsewhere won’t work with me. I asked YOU the questions.
Why would I answer your obvious attempt to get me to self-incriminate. No officer, I don't know why you pulled me over.
"You're in luck, I'm learning to publish papers this semester. Nothing that i wrote in the OP is controversial. So yes, it's valid. All i did was ask how these facts evolved. You've done everything but answer that. Then you wonder why I troll you and don't answer you."
You'll forgive me if I believe those that already know how to publish scientific papers and have had them validated by peer review, and that have withstood over 150 years of the most intense scientific scrutiny, over armchair scientists who don't understand this or how to publish a paper and think their pseudo-scientific creationism trumps scientific facts because they are prepared to embarrass themselves in an internet forum. Your objections will be valid when science says they are, and not before, it's hilarious you think otherwise though.
"Then you wonder why I troll you and don't answer you."
Obviously you troll because you're minded to do so, but you post your vapid objections to scientific fact because it appears you genuinely don't grasp the fundamental methods of science. Your boastful claims to a university education, albeit incomplete, are also hilarious in light of this fact. When you get your Nobel prize and the world of science accepts your claims then and only then will your claims have any validity.
Oh that's right I forgot, it's world wide scientific conspiracy against the lunatic superstition of creationism. Well you can't dent that kind of "reasoning". I'll stick with science thanks, since they can demonstrate results.
Intense scientific scrutiny lol. Psychology recently underwent a huge replication crisis. With many longstanding facts overturned. There's no such thing as intense scientific scrutiny. Mistakes pass through all the time in all fields. Or did you forget the study correlating autism with vaccines, once published and peer reviewed.
Think for yourself and stop regarding journals as a holy book. Do you know why introductions, methods and procedures, discussions and conclusions, are required in a scientific paper? Not for you to only read the title and abstract and ignore the rest. They are there for you to see what the researcher did, and decide for yourself if you agree with their conclusion or don't.
"Intense scientific scrutiny lol. Psychology recently underwent a huge replication crisis. With many longstanding facts overturned."
Were they overturned by hearsay on an internet forum, based on superstitious flimflam?
As I said it is for science to decide based on the evidence, not some creationist who decides to become an armchair scientist on the internet. Now I just checked all the major news networks and there's nothing suggesting anything in the scientific fact of species evolution is in question, so are you suggesting we give the superstitious flimflam of creationist hearsay a 50/50 hearing over scientific fact because science (unlike religion) has the intellectual integrity to view all scientific facts as tentative?
What else are we to assume in your 'expert' opinion as suspect? Germ theory? The theory of gravity? We can agree on one thing, this is hilarious, though for very different reasons of course.
"Think for yourself and stop regarding journals as a holy book. "
HAhahahahhahahahaha, I don't consider them holy books, and nor does science, as I said you haven't a clue about the basic methods of science if you think this. The real hilarity though is you saying that when you are doing precisely this and doggedly championing ancient superstitious dogma that is beyond fatuous.
"decide for yourself if you agree with their conclusion or don't."
No, this is not remotely how science works, and again you are confirming your understanding of the basic scientific method is woeful, execrable in fact. Is that really how your university claims the scientific method arrives at an objective consensus, individuals making subjective decisions about evidence?
"Is that really how your university claims the scientific method arrives at an objective consensus, individuals making subjective decisions about evidence?"
There's no such thing is an objective consensus. That's an oxymoron. But to paraphrase my professor: "Nothing is above questioning. We can't argue with data, but we can argue how it is to be interpreted." That's how he began our assignment, which consisted of finding any current theory or idea in the field that we disagree with and challenging it. Have you heard of Thomas Kuhn? He argued that science doesn't progress through objectivity and evidence, but rather when the old generations with old ideas die off, and the new generation with new paradigms takes over.
I don't even know how to respond to your comments, to be honest. You actually lost me when you said "theory of gravity."
"But to paraphrase my professor: "Nothing is above questioning."
No indeed, try applying it to the unevidenced premise that a deity exists. In the meantime understand that questioning something that is evidenced to the point where it is an established scientific fact is meaningless unless your question is validated using the same methods and rigour that established that fact. So in the case of scientific facts like evolution, espousing superstitious hokum like creationism on in an internet forum for discussing atheism, in the pretence they represent genuine scientific objections, is pretty meaningless.
"There's no such thing is an objective consensus. That's an oxymoron."
Nonsense, which word don't you understand objective or consensus? A scientific consensus is based on common methods and examination of evidence, hence they are objectively reached. Of course scientific facts have to remain tentative, a method for gathering knowledge that could not admit and correct error would be pretty useless and have us clinging to erroneous nonsense in the same way religions still do, like the laughable nonsense of creationism that no amount of evidence will allow it's adeherents to accept is erroneous.
"That's how he began our assignment, which consisted of finding any current theory or idea in the field that we disagree with and challenging it. Have you heard of Thomas Kuhn? He argued that science doesn't progress through objectivity and evidence, but rather when the old generations with old ideas die off, and the new generation with new paradigms takes over."
That depends how it's challenged, you seem to think rehashing creationist propaganda on an atheist forum is a valid way to challenge scientific fact, if that is genuinely what your professor thinks then change courses or at least professors, but I suspect you have simply misunderstood him. Science and it's methods challenge scientific facts. As I have told you if your challenges have any scientific validity publish them and get them peer reviewed, you'd be the most famous scientist that ever lived. Instead you came to an atheist forum, what can this mean?
"I don't even know how to respond to your comments, to be honest. You actually lost me when you said "theory of gravity.""
How so? Scientific theories are broad explanations of natural phenomena, what's confusing about that? Ask one of your professors to explain it. Fairly obviously I was pointing out the dishonesty of religious apologetics like creationism that pretend to have valid scientific objections to established scientific facts like evolution, as if we haven't noticed they only object to scientific facts that contradict their religious dogma and doctrine, cherry picking which parts of science to object to and pretending their objections are scientific not faith based and religious.
Ironically, I wrote my paper on evolutionary psychology and why their methods and findings aren't scientific. I passed the assignment obviously.
A scientific consensus is a meaningless term. People only use it to try to sell you the latest toothbrush or something.
Ironically, I wrote my paper on evolutionary psychology and why their methods and findings aren't scientific. I passed the assignment obviously."
Obviously, in other news your assignment has had zero impact on the validity of the scientific fact of evolution.
"A scientific consensus is a meaningless term. "
On the contrary it is part of a the method of science that removes subjectivity.
"People only use it to try to sell you the latest toothbrush or something."
Yes that's the reason science seeks a broad consensus, to sell toothbrushes, you've nailed it. Is it any wonder people laugh at and deride creationists. Change professors, seriously.