Bumping around for millions of years without sight is not a problems for Richard Dawkins…Why would it be for evolution?
Question: Do not ALL (systems involved in seeing and processing image) have to be working (fully functional) for the eye to receive and process vision? (or something like that)
Answer Richard Dawkins: It is a bit a fallacy because 1/4 of an eye or a100th of an eye is better than nothing…
Please watch the video as my keyboard can’t handle the rest of this Dawkins’ nonsense…
!8 mysteries to go…
I totally forgot that the video contains Dawkins’ explanation of the “flaws” of the “design” of the eye.
He claims that no intelligent designer would have designed the eye this way that must include himself… Still waiting to see his design…
What good is half an eye???
Are you getting paid or trying to win some weird bet by posting every old stinky Creationist PRATT on the internet?
If you’re really really hungry, I suppose that is true.
This YEC sees the eye thing in a different way.
first I don’t agree its more complicated then the immune system, heart, liver, hearing, or any function of the brain(memory to memory to me)
What evolutionists should argue to YEC is about creatures like tuatara.
I understand it has a type of eye on its head THAT WOULD NOT have been created pre fall. So it arose from other mechanisms without a creator.
therefore it must be that sight is innately within the genes plan.
Triggered as needed. so all stages of sight operations can be found in biology.
Dawkins and company have the eye CONSTANTLY under a selection, even a progressive selection for progressive complexity,
This is unlikely , nay unbelievable, . In fact having the eye linger , as Dawkin proposes, for so long in these stages is questioning basic evolutionist credibility. There is something about the eye!
Finally the sameness of eyes in creatures makes these stages of eye evolution impossible. The eyes of me, cows, etc are almost identical despite such long claim timeframes and evolution going gangbusters in changing body plans.
the eyes are only of a few kinds and that means a lack of evolution for most of the time. We are in statis right now. They must say it was this way mostly.
no evolving constantly but instead a PE thing, Sorry Dawkins (he opposed PE as Gould documents).
The eye thing, for many reasons, really does stick evolutionism in the eye.
In fact a recent nat geo article had to address the eye evolution thing with a , to me, obvious attempt to knock away creationist arguments.
I once dated a girl who was legally blind. She could distinguish light and dark, and in bright light, she could see vague shapes. Does anyone here think that she would see her very limited sight as having no benefit?
And cue Mung with a comment about only a blind girl being willing to date me, 5, 4, 3….
“In the country of the blind the one-eyed man is king.”
— attr. Desiderius Erasmus
It really boggles my mind when I listen to Dawkins talking casually about life systems, like an eye, as if they were blocks of LEGO…
When he talks about the supposed eye evolution, besides the fact that he is probably trying to make his point across to ordinary viewer, he talks about it as if he had no idea how perception operates…
Does he know about quantum processes involved in vision?
How about quantum nature of mental processes, such as self-awareness?
He talks about evolution of the eye as it it was as easy as putting two pieces of LEGO together…
The amusing part about it is that many so-called intellectuals believe it…
Why? Simply because they want to….
Your right about him and the others.
it is presented like lego .
He must address the public but I think he fails.
Having selection constantly going on and yet always eye/sight is useful and being selected seems impossible.
He should be say eyes suddenly had a selective advantage in a geographically separate area affecting a few couples.
Then this keep happening over timeframes.
PE/Gould.
Even thats impossible.
Complexity being created by mutations andv selection is unreassonable.
where is the diversity of eye types if selection was constantly arranging eyes?
Why all off the same rack after so much time has passed?
Once again we have to go back in time, to the place where creatures fumbled around practically helplessly, birds flying upside down into trees before they got ears to balance, animals with no noses hoping to crawl over food, animals with no teeth for chewing, hoping their food will melt, …and then the lucky accidents happen! The blind animal that can do practically nothing, imagine what a great advantage even just seeing a little is to such a helpless creature.
If only we could go back in time, to the days of feeble.
Keiths perhaps has some insight there.
Just out of sheer curiosity, what do you think the biosphere actually looked like back then? Do you think it looked drastically different from today (when we see a very wide range of sophistication of organs)? Do you think that then, as today, lineages were as likely to lose features as to gain them? Do you think organisms were well adapted to their lifestyles and environments then? Or what?
No!!! He doesn’t!!!
Leave him with the subject of the unloving god of his…he thinks that way of thinking falsifies evolution best… 😉
Why? You were there?
Robert Byers,
Thank you Robert! It is always a pleasure reading your comments…
I think that you could possibly use your expertise better and make some comments on this OP…http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/fmm-throws-jesus-under-the-bus/
Good day!
I suspect that it’s the familiarity (PRATTs, incomprehension) that you like.
Glen Davidson
I know a psychiatrists who is legally blind…
When have organisms not been adapted?
Mung,
When the environment changed faster than species could adapt. The aftermath of the Chicxulub impact is a good example.
Alan, unless you’ve retired from moderating, there are some posts in moderation issues awaiting your attention.
A species isn’t an organism. Every organism that lived is adapted.
shallit and Rumraket say no. And they ought to know!
That’s kind of nonsense.
I don’t know, sounds basically right to me.
OK, probably better to say “species” (some individuals have non-adaptations that harm them relatively, of course), but the organisms certainly exhibit much adaptation. On the other hand, not every species is well-adapted to the environment in which it finds itself, notably if it has changed dramatically.
Glen Davidson
Earthworms. Amoeba. Seem to manage fine.
Exactly!
I believe you know several.
You can’t speak of being adapted or not. It comes in degrees, not in absolutes.
ONLY A SITH DEALS IN… nevermind.
But seriously, this idea that there was once a biosphere full of unsuccessful organisms, rather than a situation like today, is just dumb.
When J-mac and phoodoo write, they leave the impression that there was once a biosphere just like ours, but where birds couldn’t fly (or where flying “upside down”?)*, bears didn’t have eyes, dogs had no noses, elephants had no ears, the two sexes had no reproductive organs, and so on.
You’d have to be INCREDIBLY dumb to seriously imagine such a scenario genuinely follows from evolutionary theory.
* This is so dumb it is astonishing. I have to try to convince myself that the person who thinks like this is just taking the piss, otherwise I hope he’s posting from a borrowed computer at the institution where he’s hopefully getting the help he clearly needs.