Eye Mock Stupidity

I’m all in favor of mocking stupidity, and here’s something definitely worth mocking.

In arguing for evolution, author Alan R. Rogers appeals to the Nilsson and Pelger paper on how simple it is to evolve an eye. He writes:

If eyes evolve, they must do so often and easily. Could it really be so easy?

Dan-Eric Nilsson and Susanne Pelger have answered this question. They constructed an evolutionary story much like the one that I told above.

– The Evidence for Evolution. p. 42.

And what did he write about the story that he told above?

This story is of course a fabrication. p. 40

I’m serious! Can it get any more stupid than that?

Do evolutionists believe fabrications? When it comes to how to evolve and eye it would certainly seem so.

508 thoughts on “Eye Mock Stupidity

  1. Rumraket: If you toss heads 100 times in a row with a coin, twice, you should start to consider the option that the coin isn’t fair. In other words, that the assumption that the outcomes are equiprobable, is mistaken.

    I’m really beginning to think that you’re just praying for a miracle.

    See here.

  2. Mung: Is that how evolution works?

    It is the way design of the lottery works. The more possible winners the more probable the the improbable event.perhaps you should be arguing the fact it is more probable is evidence of design.

  3. newton: It is the way design of the lottery works.

    Yes, lotteries are designed. The way lotteries work is designed. The way casinos make money is designed. People who gamble think they can “beat the odds” just like Darwinists think that evolution can “beat the odds.”

    If Darwinists had to put up their hard earned money they would soon go broke and Darwinism would be long dead. I have a standing $10,000 challenge here at TSZ that no one has ever taken me up on.

  4. Rumraket: Hello everyone, my internet handle is phoodoo and I have a problem with analogies.

    Hello everyone, my internet handle is Mung and I have a problem with analogies.

  5. Mung: Yes, lotteries are designed. The way lotteries work is designed. The way casinos make money is designed. People who gamble think they can “beat the odds” just like Darwinists think that evolution can “beat the odds.”

    If Darwinists had to put up their hard earned money they would soon go broke and Darwinism would be long dead. I have a standing $10,000 challenge here at TSZ that no one has ever taken me up on.

    Oh yes. That challenge. The one for which no one can figure out what Mung wants us to bet on.

    It is in the “Richard Dawkins Software” thread of 14 months ago. It started with me offering a $100 bet. See that here. I made it extremely clear what I was betting on, which involved a Weasel program finding its target a lot faster than pure random sampling from the space.

    Mung, pressed on this, refused to bet, saying here

    “You want to wager over something that was never in dispute?”

    Mung then countered by offering a bet of $10,000. Mung was pressed to define what the terms of the bet were, what the issue was. But this never was made clear.

    It was pretty hilarious. The most impressive display of meaningless footwork I have seen.

    But Mung is convinced that we are all avoiding his bet. Bunch of cowards, we are.

    For the record, I can’t afford to bet $10,000 of my family’s money on anything, but would be willing to consider a $100 bet, if Mung could finally make it clear what Mung wanted us to bet on.

  6. Joe Felsenstein: But Mung is convinced that we are all avoiding his bet. Bunch of cowards, we are.

    Not avoiding it, just not trying very hard to win it.

    Chalk it up to a dearth of imaginative ways to demonstrate the fact, Fact, FACT of evolution.

  7. Joe Felsenstein: Oh yes. That challenge. The one for which no one can figure out what Mung wants us to bet on.

    To be honest, at this point I’ve forgotten myself what the original wager was supposed to be about, and I’ve changed computers a couple times. Don’t have tons of time on my hands for doing forensic analysis. Besides, that’s what keiths is for.

    But the 10 grand is still sitting there, awaiting an interesting proposal.

    Know of any evolutionists who have offered an opportunity for a 10k wager to any ID supporter? That could be interesting.

  8. Joe Felsenstein: It was pretty hilarious. The most impressive display of meaningless footwork I have seen.

    And I thought I had wasted my time reading all that evolutionist material!

Leave a Reply