274 thoughts on “The true origin of eyes according to intelligent design”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
The Skeptical Zone
"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken."
You must be logged in to post a comment.
We’ve heard much about how eyes did not arise. This thread will stand as mute testimony to the lack of Intelligent Design based explanations for the origin of the eye.
OMagain had a thought!
Perhaps he will publish it so that all the rest of us can admire it.
The critics of ID have been reduced to arguing that evolution is like pulling fully formed eyeballs out of a bag. It’s official. It is no longer possible to distinguish between evolution and creationism.
The question is how did the bag come to be?
There was a cephalopod eye maker, and a vertebrate eye maker, and an arthropod eye maker… A bird eye designer then worked to make bird eyes superior to those of other vertebrate eyes, with a pecten and multiple foci, and neglected the non-avians with their eyes.
How? By superior, more intelligent methods. And magic, which intelligence is.
Glen Davidson
The Big Bag Theory?
Mung,
A) It’s hard to be critical of something that you refuse to delineate.
B) Citation please.
Does OMagain seriously want to argue that there is something unintelligent about the design of the eye?
Shape of eye’s ‘light pipes’ is key to colour sorting by BBC science reporter Jonathan Webb (7 March 2015)
Here’s Why Your Eyes Seem to Be Wired ‘Backward’ by Marissa Fessenden at Smithsonian.com (March 24, 2015).
OMagain,
Possibilities
1. The eye evolved from blind unguided processes.
2. The eye is a complex design that is part of the design of the skeletal structure, muscle structure, central nervous system, cardio vascular system and the brain.
3. ?
No ,I think he wants to know how the intelligent got in there.
There are various theories how to eye naturalistically came to be,
2.
How?
newton,
That is Mung’s point. We don’t know how in either case. We only have an opinion on which explanation is more credible. The first case is a probabilistic nightmare again as Mung has been pointing out on other threads.
Gee, what does the evidence show? Easy transfer by intellect of structures across unrelated machines and/or organisms that we have actually seen with intelligent designers, or the kinds of patterns expected of evolution?
Still waiting for any good evidence for design of the eye.
Glen Davidson
Quite so. Bonus points if you can explain it, vjtorley, without using the word “evolution”.
And it’s funny how vjtorley can go from a bare bones “How did ID explain eyes” to “arguing eyes are stupid”. It’s obviously the direction his automatic pilot wants to go in. Anything but the core issue of how does ID explain eyes.
colewd,
On those other threads, Mung is demonstrating his incompetence at evaluating probabilities. You’ve done the same.
Rhetorical question: Why do you give a greater weight to the opinions of incompetents than to those who are skilled in the subject?
The thing is we don’t know for different reasons in each case how exactly things came to be physically manifested.
In the case of evolution, all science is inexact , each new discovery can change the paradigm.
In the case of ID there not even an attempt. There is nothing to know.
One has a methodology which has proven useful in dealing with the physical world, the other no proposed methodology leading to an explanation of how the designer interacted with the physical world .
First step, what is the probability a capable designer exists ?
newton,
This is all true but some things may not be explainable in the physical world. The origin of matter is a case in point. The origins of different complex life forms like brains ,eyes, muscles etc may not be explainable in the physical world. We have two concepts and so far neither one explains the how. I think the current thinking is a dead end because of the probabilistic problems.
keiths,
Are you claiming to be skilled in the subject? What is your level of training?
I believe there’s a popular paper and mathematical model out there on the intelligent evolution of the eye.
What’s wrong with you? keiths is skilled in every subject. He’s far more skilled at defending God than I could possibly be.
colewd,
Yes, and I’m by no means the only one here. You, Mung and phoodoo are being continually tutored by us.
Do you recognize your own incompetence in this area?
And to my original question:
The answer is “Jebus”, and it’s a very poor one.
Mung,
No, and I haven’t claimed to be.
True enough. But no amount of skill can transform the Christian God into a viable concept.
Mung,
Keiths like = God like 🙂 I guess thats why the logical fallacies ad hominem and question begging do not apply to him
keiths,
Absolutely. Do you recognize your own incompetence? If so where are your weakness?
keiths:
colewd:
Hence my rhetorical question:
The answer, as we both know, is “Jebus”.
It’s time to let go of the security blanket, Bill.
Loyalty to his peers, I’m betting.
Glen Davidson
The Man Who Knows Everything
keiths,
I give weight to Tom English and Joe Felsenstein regarding challenge to DEM. I give weight to Mung because his arguments are logical and are not dependent on logical fallacy like yours. If you take away question begging and ad hominem out of your tool kit you really have nothing.
I do not think that the evidence for God depends on how much of orthodox common descent is true. So I find Tom and Joe’s arguments interesting and having value.
If OMagain, keiths or Glen actually make an argument do let me know. I have all three on Ignore and so find this entire thread a source of amusement.
Even Tom put keiths on Ignore. That should tell you something.
colewd,
The laughability of that statement should give you pause. Mung’s incompetence in this area is comparable to yours.
We’ve long since established that you don’t understand the ad hominem fallacy. Bizarrely, you seem to think that if someone merely says something uncomplimentary about you, then they are committing the fallacy! That’s ludicrous.
Also, your accusations regarding question-begging are amusing. Did you miss newton’s question?
Right. And some of the theories even employ computer graphics!
And yet physicists study matter in the effort to unravel the mysteries that surround us. On the ID side the origin of matter and of a flagellum are equally inexplicable.
It is pretty early in the game to give up.
That is incorrect,one explains how to the best of our scientific knowledge, limited and incomplete, the other attempts no explanation beyond it may be inexplicable but cannot determine that either.
Then outline the way around this impasse, ID has no way to calculate probabilities of an unproposed mechanism, is that thinking a dead end as well?
And the ID theory is?
Nilsson-Pelger. A Model of Intelligent Eye Evolution.
http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100234897
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/256/1345/53
http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/a-z/Evolution_of_the_eye.asp
Please quote the appropriate parts.Thanks
Where did these ID critics argue this? Please quote them.
There’s an almost infinite number of possibilities between your number 1 and 2 there. Regardless, we’re not merely interested in possibilities, we’re interested in observationally testable evidence predicted byd models. Got any?
Bad link, that is not the name of the article. Out of interest at what spot is the intelligence injected into the model?
It’s a mangling of a conversation on another thread. I look forwards to Mung providing links to specific comments also.
Also would the authors agree with Mung’s characterisation? If not, does he think he knows better the them their intent?
The sheer arrogance is breathtaking.
Heh, you can’t even understand what people whom you generally agree with are actually saying. Mung generally avoids making statements about probabilities, electing instead to question other’s usage of them. So Mung hasn’t anywhere argued that there is a “probabilistic nightmare” involved. He knows that if he did that, he’d have stuck his neck out and would be called to defend it. Instead Mung just sits back and attempts to nitpicks on other people’s statements hoping to catch someone making a mistake so he can gloat and try to excoriate all of the “other side” for that person’s mistake.
The man knows his strength
Lens, retina, etc …
A man’s gotta know his limitations. 🙂
No need for me to. All I have to do is consult the writings of the evolutionists themselves. I let them do all the heavy lifting for me. Evolutionary theory is intensely incoherent. So are most evolutionists.
If you want me to “believe in evolution” I need at least some set of arguments to which I can rationally give my assent. “It’s easy to evolve an eye” isn’t one of them.
When something has been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt with geometric certainty, the probability = 1.
And we could show him to you if he hadn’t decided to be invisible.
Yes, Pedant is on Ignore too. 🙂
It’s like a reunion of the worst that TSZ has to offer. Where’s Adapa?
From “Mung has difficulty understanding evolutionary theory”, it does not follow that “evolutionary theory is incoherent”.
You will need to find that set of arguments yourself. According to my view of education, the student has to do most of the work himself (or herself). The teacher attempts to provide motivation and guidance. But the student has to do the heavy lifting.
Neil is, of course, in a unique position to evaluate confusion about evolutionary theory.
How was the lens designed?