274 thoughts on “The true origin of eyes according to intelligent design”

  1. colewd: There is more behind the curtain then repeating codes, there are codes that translate into micro machines and codes that can build a living being from two fused cells.

    What is behind the curtain is the question.

  3. Mung: Nilsson-Pelger is a model of eye evolution by means of intelligent design. That’s the model I’m going with, since evolutionists seem to love it so much.

    So unguided blind mechanisms is the choice of the designer?

  5. colewd:
    OMagain,

    There is more behind the curtain then repeating codes, there are codes that translate into micro machines and codes that can build a living being from two fused cells.

    The waters of this design hypothesis run deep

    Too bad the thought is so shallow.

    Glen Davidson

  6. colewd,

    Are the first thoughts after you see this animation: Blind Unguided

    You are looking at the end result of millions of years of iterative sampling. Of course it’s not unguided. It’s guided by the entire evolutionary history of the path up to that point! But whatever. Your religious beliefs will never change whatever science discovers.

  8. colewd,

    There is more behind the curtain then repeating codes, there are codes that translate into micro machines and codes that can build a living being from two fused cells.

    No, the point was that you said:

    If we received a signal from space with repetitive sequences that would be evidence of intelligence. Tested just for you

    And then when I challenged that you said:

    Can you support this claim?

    And I demonstrated that was simply not true. I supported the claim. And then you never mentioned it again. Dishonest much?

    This is a perfect demonstration of your modus operandi. You are shown to be wrong, then act as if nothing happened and just repeat the claim.

    You are an inspiration to every fundy trying to find a way out who stumbles on this thread and sees their pastor in you, mindlessly repeating the same tropes even after they’ve shown to be wrong.

    Lurker, we’re doing this for you….

  9. So there we have it. The best explanation for the eye from an intelligent design perspective is that it evolved.

  10. OMagain,

    You are looking at the end result of millions of years of iterative sampling. Of course it’s not unguided. It’s guided by the entire evolutionary history of the path up to that point!

    Mung’s right. Evolution is supernatural. It can create a molecular factory with millions of years of iterative sampling. Are you guys cashing in the blind and unguided claim?

  11. OMagain,

    This is a perfect demonstration of your modus operandi. You are shown to be wrong, then act as if nothing happened and just repeat the claim.

    I was not aware of how the DNA repeat sequences correlated with the paper you cited but I will concede a gambit if you can.

  13. Mung,

    My thread on eye evolution seems to have struck a nerve. LoL.

    Yeah. LoL. It seems to strike a nerve with you when I ask for your explanation. You don’t have any but rather then say that you steal concepts from what you say is wrong anyway. Must be some desperation there to do that.

  14. colewd,

    I was not aware of how the DNA repeat sequences correlated with the paper you cited but I will concede a gambit if you can.

    No, the claim you made was this:

    . If we received a signal from space with repetitive sequences that would be evidence of intelligence.

    And I demonstrated that we have been receiving such sequences for a long time.

  15. colewd,

    It can create a molecular factory with millions of years of iterative sampling.

    Whereas, of course, your alternative is “design”. Or “plan”. Much more convincing.

    Tell me, what is the difference between a “molecular factory” and a chain of molecular reactions?

  16. Mung,

    My thread on eye evolution seems to have struck a nerve. LoL.

    Not with me. I’ve nothing to defend. Evolution as a general concept is immune to your level of criticism. Rather I want to highlight your inability to answer the questions you are criticising the evolutionary answers for. You are criticizing something you don’t have yourself! And you don’t seem to think this is a problem for your cause….

  17. newton: So unguided blind mechanisms is the choice of the designer?

    Is that what Nilsson-Pelger say? How did they know what their final eye design was going to look like?

    Did they choose it by random sampling while blindfolded, and then keep the blinders on while imagining the sequence to get from one blindly selected “eye” to another blindly selected “eye”?

    The theory of blind unguided eye evolution is a real hoot!

  19. colewd:
    newton,

    Are the first thoughts after you see this animation:Blind Unguided

    No they are of designer outside of time and space or something using inside time and space technology somehow because something.

  20. newton: No they are of designer outside of time and space or something using inside time and space technology somehow because something.

    Gee, I miss drugs.*

    Glen Davidson

    *Not really, and it was just a bit of experimentation even then.

  21. Mung:
    Is that what Nilsson-Pelger say? How did they know what their final eye design was going to look like?

    Did I miss the reference to an intelligent designer in the paper ? Well unless it looks like something that exists it wouldn’t be a great model for design or evolution.

    Did they choose it by random sampling while blindfolded, and then keep the blinders on while imagining the sequence to get from one blindly selected “eye” to another blindly selected “eye”?

    Seems awkward, did the designer first build a model then? If he knew the goal the modern eye why the messing around with light sensitive patches?

    The theory of blind unguided eye evolution is a real hoot!

    Maybe, how did the designer guide it in the model?

  23. Why look to Darwin, who made so many mistakes, rather than to Mendel? There was a simple answer to that. Neo-Darwinism was part scientific and in part a religion, or anti-religion. Its most famous exponent alive, Richard Dawkins, said that Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually satisfied atheist. You could say that the apparently impersonal processes of genetics did the same. But the neo-Darwinians could hardly, without absurdity, make Mendel their hero since he was a Roman Catholic monk. So Darwin became the figurehead for a system of thought that (childishly) thought there was one catch-all explanation for How Things Are in nature.

    https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/it-s-time-charles-darwin-was-exposed-for-the-fraud-he-was-a3604166.html

  24. newton: How many replications of the experiment were necessary is the key

    I was thinking more on the lines of, how much drug intake would be required to think that these ID/creationists make sense?

    Seems like a considerable dose would be necessary. Unless you’re one of the “blessed.”

    Glen Davidson

  25. Looks like I didn’t just touch nerve, looks like I severed one. An optic nerve, at that.

    Help, my name is newton and I can’t see!

  26. colewd: Darwinism was vulnerable to this type of argument because its grand claim of universal common descent is as of yet untestable.

    and

    colewd: The design hypothesis is agnostic to the common descent claim.

    So Bill attacks “Darwinism” as an alternative to design because it claims universal common descent, and yet design is compatible with common descent. Does that make any sense?

    Anyway, Bill always conveniently forgets the existence of Theobald 2010, which actually does test common descent, and of the fact that all sorts of common descent, up to and including universal, are not starting assumptions but conclusions based on data.

    The reason ID is agnostic to common descent is that IDers don’t care what happened and don’t care about explanations. The sole relevant point is “god did it”. Nothing else matters.

  27. OMagain: colewd,

    I was not aware of how the DNA repeat sequences correlated with the paper you cited but I will concede a gambit if you can.

    No, the claim you made was this:

    If we received a signal from space with repetitive sequences that would be evidence of intelligence.

    And I demonstrated that we have been receiving such sequences for a long time.

    And then Bill changed the subject, ’cause repetitive sequences are only a tiny part of his argument. As if they were in some way a legitimate argument in the first place, but you’re a poopy-head for talking about them anyway. One thing he’s good at is ignoring or minimizing refutations of his points.

  28. John Harshman: The reason ID is agnostic to common descent is that IDers don’t care what happened and don’t care about explanations. The sole relevant point is “god did it”. Nothing else matters.

    PRATT!

  29. Mung: PRATT!

    I have to agree with Mung here. Most IDers really do care about common descent, and in all sorts of ways try to resist it when they can and only grudgingly accept it in order to avoid having to argue a case they know they’ll lose.

  30. John Harshman: The reason ID is agnostic to common descent is that IDers don’t care what happened and don’t care about explanations. The sole relevant point is “god did it”. Nothing else matters.

    Mung: PRATT!

    PRATT, my balls. ID is agnostic to anything and everything because it explains nothing. It’s even agnostic to “unguided” or “random” processes and all you have against all that is bold assertion of the contrary.

    It’s dead easy to prove because if ID is agnostic to the designer (lulz) as has been claimed ad nauseam, then an omnipotent being is compatible with ID.
    But an omnipotent being can do ANYTHING, even use “unguided” or “random” processes to produce everything in the universe, including eyes!!!!11!!!!1.

  31. John Harshman: One thing he’s good at is ignoring or minimizing refutations of his points.

    I wouldn’t really say there’s anything Bill is good at when it comes to argumentation and debates, other than pretending they never took place. He’s one of those rare people who really do have an actual reset-switch on his head.

  32. Mung: So Darwin became the figurehead for a system of thought that (childishly) thought there was one catch-all explanation for How Things Are in nature.

    I’m glad this person recognizes the childish essence of the God-did-it rationalization.

  33. Rumraket: I have to agree with Mung here.

    Woot!

    Rumraket: Most IDers really do care about common descent, and in all sorts of ways try to resist it when they can and only grudgingly accept it in order to avoid having to argue a case they know they’ll lose.

    My arguments are subtle, like the Lord. 🙂

    Do you see me as arguing against common descent? Just asking.

  34. phoodoo: Erik of course claims that you can have a plan, and the fruition of that plan, without a designer of that plan, but he can give zero arguments as to why or how.

    You mean me? Where did I claim that?

    I am quite okay with the designer and any plan the designer might have. We could argue the details of the plan, such as more or less gradual evolution or creation by direct intervention. However, I see no place for ID concepts like “intelligent design”, “design inference”, “design detection”, “specified complexity”, “complex specified/active information” and the like. Those ID concepts are meaningless. Design is a quality, not a quantity.

  36. Erik,

    Did you really forget that you said there can be a plan with a planner? I asked you how several times, and you never answered.

  38. Erik: Quote me.

    I am supposed to look through 1000 posts, on a site without a useable search function, to find where you discussed a snowflake being designed, and where I asked you at least FIVE times to give one example of a plan, and that plan coming to fruition, without someone planning it (because you said there can be a design without a designer), and you refused to answer every time, and now you have completely forgot?

    If I went through all that, what evidence do I have at this point that I am talking to someone who still has there marbles if they can’t even remember that?

  39. phoodoo:
    Erik,

    Then why is “design detection” a problem?That has to do with quantity or quality?

    You won’t even say why “design detection” is a problem, when you believe in design as a quality and not a quantity.

    If its a quality, why can’t it be detected?

  40. phoodoo: You won’t even say why “design detection” is a problem, when you believe in design as a quality and not a quantity.

    If its a quality, why can’t it be detected?

    Is delicious a quality?

  41. phoodoo,

    Thanks for making it clear that even the little that you remember you misrepresent. I mistakenly assumed you were onto something. Carry on.

  42. Erik,

    You said there can be design without a designer. Are you now denying that?

    I asked you five times to defend that statement, and every time you responded, you declined to.

  43. Erik:
    phoodoo,

    Thanks for making it clear that even the little that you remember you misrepresent. I mistakenly assumed you were onto something. Carry on.

    Oh, its even worse for you than I thought:

    Erik July 26, 2017 at 3:13 pm
    A direction, plan, or design implies no necessary intelligent cause.

    I then followed up that statement of yours with:

    What things in our experience have a plan, without an intelligence behind that plan? I know of none. So you saying that there theoretically could be a plan, and that plan is materialized, but no intelligence was behind the plan, nor the implementation of the plan, makes zero sense to me.

    For which you replied:

    I gave an example. Snowflake. You didn’t deny it has a plan or design or regular structure.

    A snowflake has a design, and and plan, and it is implemented? Ok, then I guess you do believe God designs everything on Earth.

    Because if there is no God, no intelligence, then how in the heck can you justify saying it was designed? Because it looks cool?

  44. phoodoo: Erik July 26, 2017 at 3:13 pm
    A direction, plan, or design implies no necessary intelligent cause.

    Thanks, so finally you were able to find the statement that bothers you.

    I say it bothers you because you don’t know what “necessary” means. I’m not saying that a direction, plan, or design implies no intelligent cause. I’m saying it implies no necessary intelligent cause. That’s a different claim.

  45. OMagain,

    Tell me, what is the difference between a “molecular factory” and a chain of molecular reactions?

    Start with the transcription translation mechanism.

  46. John Harshman,

    Anyway, Bill always conveniently forgets the existence of Theobald 2010, which actually does test common descent, and of the fact that all sorts of common descent, up to and including universal, are not starting assumptions but conclusions based on data.

    What is Theobald testing against in this paper?

  47. Erik,

    The designer designed it, but they didn’t have to if they didn’t want to?

    Haha.

    Did you forget the part where you claimed a snowflake was an example of a design that was implemented without a designer?

    Erik, are you one of these guys that has a fear of admitting you were wrong?

  48. colewd,

    What is Theobald testing against in this paper?

    How many times has this already been explained to you?

    Christ, Bill. You’re unteachable.

  50. Erik,

    It still doesn’t explain why you are calling a snowflake designed, I am afraid.

    Necessarily and sufficiently.

Leave a Reply