Richard Dawkins' (sorry sage) flawed explanation of the evolution of the eye

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The eye is too complex to have evolved” is a favorite of the creationer ministries.

Of course. Surely you don't think the uneducated slob Seymour Flops came up with any of this on his own.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Of course. Surely you don't think the uneducated slob Seymour Flops came up with any of this on his own.

Ok, dude.

I gave you a chance to make a real argument. Several chances, in fact.

You can join Abu and that other one.

Buh-bye . . .

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Ok, dude.

I gave you a chance to make a real argument. Several chances, in fact.

You can join Abu and that other one.

Buh-bye . . .

But I am not your mommy, nor am I in the business of rehabilitating religion-addled brains out of their various diseases. Sorry.

 

[Hollie]

But I am not your mommy, nor am I in the business of rehabilitating religion-addled brains out of their various diseases. Sorry.

It's a pattern with the hyper-religious. Confront their biases, hit'em with the facts, require them to support their claims to magic and supernaturalism and before long they realize their attempts at argument are so feeble and baseless, they run away with hurt feelings and a bruised ego.

 

[ChemEngineer]

First of all, I give credit to the Fort Fun Indiana , the poster who brought the video below to my attention. I hope he won't take my dissection of it personally.

Watch first, and then read the rest.



Ok, the start of the problem comes right at the start of the video. He starts with "an ancestor who didn't really have an eye uh-tall, but a single simple sheet of light sensitive cells."

How did the sheet of light sensitive cells appear? How did the first light sensitive cell evolve? He makes a huge leap with no explanation. Then he shows the "sheet of cells" represented by a translucent covering of a hole in a board that he calls a "screen." Behind the screen? A television camera, hooked to a monitor! Yeah, that's so simple!

All that did not evolve in one step, but he represents that as the first step in evolving an eye.

I suppose the television camera and monitor represent the neural pathway that transmit the light signal and the part of the brain that interprets it as light. How did those evolve before the light sensitive sheet of cells? It didn't, they had to have evolved at the same time.

So then he explains that "this animal" (it is hypothetical, there is no animal that he can say evolved sight this way), can at least tell the difference between light and dark And? He fails to explain how that leads to increased survival and reproduction.

Then he says, "The next stage in eee-volution would be to have. a shallow. cup." (I don't know why he talks like that. Maybe he realizes how absurd it sounds) How is that "the next stage?" Literally one step between a flat "sheet" and a shallow cup? This is fantasy.

Ok, that is the first minute and fifteen seconds of more than fourteen minutes. I'm not going to go over all of it. Anyone with an open mind can watch the rest and judge for themselves.

As a way to explain to children the bare bones of Darwin, it could serve, I suppose. Probably better as a pre-naptime sleep aid, though. But as a way to convince adults with critical thinking skills of anything, it is pretty horrible.

Dickie Dawkins' statistical ignorance is shown in his fatuous pretense that if something happens very slowly, then the probability increases dramatically as a result. Mount Improbable, step by million year step.

No, one chance in 10 to the 40 is still one chance in 10 to the 40 whether the events occur back to back, as in rolling dice quickly, or only once every 10,000 years.


The same is true for original polypeptide synthesis, a subject avoided with great determination and fanfare by Darwin's apologists. Whether you assemble a titin molecule in a single step or one small step at a time 1/20 to the 33,450th power is the requirement. It is far beyond impossible and it is only one of 10,000 or more proteins inside humans.

 

[Seymour Flops]

But I am not your mommy, nor am I in the business of rehabilitating religion-addled brains out of their various diseases. Sorry.

Yet, you obsessively troll the religion/ethics section trying to do exactly that.

 

[james bond]

“The eye is too complex to have evolved” is a favorite of the creationer ministries.

Richard Dawkins? Didn't the old geezer die last year lol?

 

[Hollie]

Richard Dawkins? Didn't the old geezer die last year lol?

Didn't you?

 

[Hollie]

Dickie Dawkins' statistical ignorance is shown in his fatuous pretense that if something happens very slowly, then the probability increases dramatically as a result. Mount Improbable, step by million year step.

No, one chance in 10 to the 40 is still one chance in 10 to the 40 whether the events occur back to back, as in rolling dice quickly, or only once every 10,000 years.


The same is true for original polypeptide synthesis, a subject avoided with great determination and fanfare by Darwin's apologists. Whether you assemble a titin molecule in a single step or one small step at a time 1/20 to the 33,450th power is the requirement. It is far beyond impossible and it is only one of 10,000 or more proteins inside humans.

Ignorance is a defining characteristic of the hyper-religious.

So, lets look at an example. The odds of you winning the lottery are 1 in 100 million,. If you win, and are convinced that the incredible odds against your winning are evidence that there was some sort of 'intelligent design' acting on you behalf, that would be a rather nonsensical explanation, and irrational.

I have to note that your example of ''what are the odds'' is pretty meaningless because biological organisms interact in complex ways. The ''odds'' are incalculable because the numbers of biochemical interactions occurring simultaneously over the course of billions of years. All those interactions are taking place simultaneously so the ''odds'' are greatly in favor of natural, biological evolution as opposed to various gods you can't hope to demonstrate.

More importantly, any true calculation of ''odds'' carry some obvious limitations. The most obvious limitation is that for any calculation of chance, you must assume that all present functional life forms are the goal, and not the result of the process, and then calculate backwards.

 

[itfitzme]

First of all, I give credit to the Fort Fun Indiana , the poster who brought the video below to my attention. I hope he won't take my dissection of it personally.

Watch first, and then read the rest.



Ok, the start of the problem comes right at the start of the video. He starts with "an ancestor who didn't really have an eye uh-tall, but a single simple sheet of light sensitive cells."

How did the sheet of light sensitive cells appear? How did the first light sensitive cell evolve? He makes a huge leap with no explanation. Then he shows the "sheet of cells" represented by a translucent covering of a hole in a board that he calls a "screen." Behind the screen? A television camera, hooked to a monitor! Yeah, that's so simple!

All that did not evolve in one step, but he represents that as the first step in evolving an eye.

I suppose the television camera and monitor represent the neural pathway that transmit the light signal and the part of the brain that interprets it as light. How did those evolve before the light sensitive sheet of cells? It didn't, they had to have evolved at the same time.

So then he explains that "this animal" (it is hypothetical, there is no animal that he can say evolved sight this way), can at least tell the difference between light and dark And? He fails to explain how that leads to increased survival and reproduction.

Then he says, "The next stage in eee-volution would be to have. a shallow. cup." (I don't know why he talks like that. Maybe he realizes how absurd it sounds) How is that "the next stage?" Literally one step between a flat "sheet" and a shallow cup? This is fantasy.

Ok, that is the first minute and fifteen seconds of more than fourteen minutes. I'm not going to go over all of it. Anyone with an open mind can watch the rest and judge for themselves.

As a way to explain to children the bare bones of Darwin, it could serve, I suppose. Probably better as a pre-naptime sleep aid, though. But as a way to convince adults with critical thinking skills of anything, it is pretty horrible.

Your alternative explanation is.. oh, right, you didn't provide one..

What exactly are you expecting? There are many biology courses you can take that will provide a more detailed, technical explanation.

You are mistaking a presentation for public interest with a college science course. The science is thousands of research pages over hundreds of years, working out the technical, including mathematical details of thousands of experiments and observations that build to semester after semester of biology courses to understand the intricacies of cell development leading to a best explanation of the evolution.

If you can't figure out how it leads to increased survival and reproduction, something reasonably obvious to most anyone that isn't blind, then that's on you.

Like they say, I can't understand it for you.

 

[alang1216]

Dickie Dawkins' statistical ignorance is shown in his fatuous pretense that if something happens very slowly, then the probability increases dramatically as a result. Mount Improbable, step by million year step.

No, one chance in 10 to the 40 is still one chance in 10 to the 40 whether the events occur back to back, as in rolling dice quickly, or only once every 10,000 years.


The same is true for original polypeptide synthesis, a subject avoided with great determination and fanfare by Darwin's apologists. Whether you assemble a titin molecule in a single step or one small step at a time 1/20 to the 33,450th power is the requirement. It is far beyond impossible and it is only one of 10,000 or more proteins inside humans.

Your math may be fine but your biology is flawed. Why do you assume there must be polypeptides BEFORE there can be life?

 

[ReinyDays]

The eye evolved twice ... which one are we discussing here? ...

 

[alang1216]

The eye evolved twice ... which one are we discussing here? ...

Squid's eyes are much better designed than ours, ironic that God gave us an inferior product.

 

[ReinyDays]

Squid's eyes are much better designed than ours, ironic that God gave us an inferior product.

Are squid and humans ideal examples of their respective phyla? ... and by what standard are we using to define "inferior" ... as a Christian myself, I believe ALL God's creation is perfect and without blemish ... it is only Man's creations that are corrupt and diseased, starting with Man's opinion about creation ...

Why do you think the systematics in the Bible is more useful than what biological science uses? ... I'm fine if you want to dispense with evolution, but what do you propose replacing it with? ...

 

[alang1216]

Are squid and humans ideal examples of their respective phyla? ... and by what standard are we using to define "inferior" ... as a Christian myself, I believe ALL God's creation is perfect and without blemish ... it is only Man's creations that are corrupt and diseased, starting with Man's opinion about creation ...

Why do you think the systematics in the Bible is more useful than what biological science uses? ... I'm fine if you want to dispense with evolution, but what do you propose replacing it with? ...

You missed my sarcasm, I believe in evolution, but the design of the squid eye is clearly better.

 

[ReinyDays]

You missed my sarcasm, I believe in evolution, but the design of the squid eye is clearly better.

Eyes and brains evolve together ... human eyes are good enough, it's the computation power of our brains that makes our eyesight better ... [giggle] ... do squids build telescopes? ...

My point is that the eye evolved twice ... and "twice" is paydirt for science ... this is the `Golden Ticket` into the scientific `Chocolate Factory` ... eye evolution is something we know A LOT about ... this is less about belief and more about obvious ...

I missed the irony ... I would expect humans to have inferior equipment in all respects ... we're nothing but the last gasp along and dying and diseased branch of the Tree of Life ... a filthy hairless semi-evolved rodent with a particularly rancid taste ... not what evolution strives for ...

 

[alang1216]

I missed the irony ... I would expect humans to have inferior equipment in all respects ... we're nothing but the last gasp along and dying and diseased branch of the Tree of Life ... a filthy hairless semi-evolved rodent with a particularly rancid taste ... not what evolution strives for ...

I don't want to know why you say we taste rancid but we're as evolved and vibrant as any other branch of life. We're the most successful large mammal on the planet.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The eye evolved twice ... which one are we discussing here? ...

It's not that specific. The video helps children understand how incremental changes can lead to apparent "irreducible complexity". I am sure the children had no problem understanding the explanation. Some adults, though....

 

[james bond]

I don't want to know why you say we taste rancid but we're as evolved and vibrant as any other branch of life. We're the most successful large mammal on the planet.

That's the point. We didn't evolve and vibrant as any other branch of life. We were created perfectly, but sin ruined us, e.g. our vision.

Jesus said, “If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell”

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

That's the point. We didn't evolve and vibrant as any other branch of life. We were created perfectly, but sin ruined us, e.g. our vision.

Jesus said, “If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell”

Oh look, a video by a nonsecientist liar that you never watched.