How can all these assumptions be pasted off as more scientific than creation?

Question

Here is an article in responce to a question I had about the evolution of bioluminescence. They moved it to the evolution of the eye. Which is fine. My comments are in ( )

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html

Biologists use the range of less complex light sensitive structures that exist in living species today to hypothesize the various evolutionary stages eyes may have gone through.

Here's how SOME scientists THINK some eyes MAY HAVE evolved: The simple light-sensitive spot on the skin of some ancestral creature gave it some tiny survival advantage, perhaps allowing it to evade a predator.

(Are light sensitive spots known for this advantage. Could a light sensitive spot really save you from a pretator? If you move toward the light or away, is that going to help. After your primordial light spot detected a shadow of a predator how does your primordial brain "know" that it is a predator and not just another shadow, and how does it tell you what to do with that information?)

Random changes then created a depression in the light-sensitive patch, a deepening pit that made "vision" a little sharper.

(Is this a normal mutation that we see happening all time? Are the pits somehow corralated with the light patches or did they just occur randomly? If they are random, do we see little creatures with light sensitive patches forming pits all over their bodies hoping to get one on the patch area? Why did the pit mutations stop with the simple organism, why are not all creatures still experiencing this? Why were these pits not affecting every other part of the body, more detremental ones? circlitory,brain tissue,and all the others)

At the same time, the pit's opening gradually narrowed, so light entered through a small aperture, like a pinhole camera.

(Do we observe this happening today? Pits randomly forming then closing into a pinhole camera opening?)

Every change had to confer a survival advantage, no matter how slight. Eventually, the light-sensitive spot evolved into a retina, the layer of cells and pigment at the back of the human eye.

(that was a neat trick. Sorry for the sarcasm, I realize that this little article was not meant to be a huge book on all the details but I think that there are no observabe details to report on. If you find more information on this subject it will just be more conjecture and wishfull thinking.)

Over time a lens formed at the front of the eye. It could have arisen as a double-layered transparent tissue containing increasing amounts of liquid that gave it the convex curvature of the human eye.

(Do we see this mutation happening? Are double-layered transparent tissues containing increasing amounts of liquid spontaneously forming all over organisms bodies? You have to really remember the changes that make these supposed "advantagous mutations." You change one nucleotide of a system at a time. Sometimes rarely more 2 or 3 sets.

Is this producing the double layer transparent tissue in the right spot at the right "EVERYTHING" to make it not completely destructive?

In fact, eyes corresponding to every stage in this sequence have been found in existing living species.

(For one, this is not conclusive evidence that one gave rise to the other. Are all the forms of the eyes they present as evolutionary stages on animals that are in a phylogenetic sequence? No. Do they just see a little worm over here with a simple eye, a squid over there with a different eye, so on and so on, then try to make a corrolation? Yes.)

The existence of this range of less complex light-sensitive structures supports scientists' hypotheses about how complex eyes like ours could evolve. The first animals with anything resembling an eye lived about 550 million years ago. And, according to one scientist's calculations, only 364,000 years would have been needed for a camera-like eye to evolve from a light-sensitive patch.

(This is because even the earliest creatures still had amazingly complex eyes. It must of only took 364,000 years cuz we started from nothing and then we have a trilobite and other creatures with amazing eyes.)

(Please let me know where I've errored in my logic that I should not believe in this sort of information over other theories that say God made everything originaly, the original creation had variation programed into its genes. He created many different creatures with differnt structures to suit their intended needs for their intended purpose. All we have seen empericly are the original created kinds carrying out this little variation.?

Answer 1

Before you attempt to approach science, I would recommend a few English grammar and spelling courses.  

After that, you need to realize that scientific postulates are grounded with evidence.  The evolutionary development of the eye is something commonly cited by creationists, along with the development of the giraffe neck.  Often, the arguments are specious, with many ipse dixit fallacies.

No argument about evolution will ever be solved over a yahoo answers exchange.  These sorts of things become circular arguments, with demands for obscene proofs of scientific fact supported by observed phenomena.  

No, I won't engage you in an argument, but I urge you to study biology and biochemistry, among other things, as you will learn what some of the scientific terms and concepts you blindly parrot and malign actually are and how they function.

Answer 2

you are using the classic dragon in my garage ploy for posiing your asumptions that have no evidence in support of them. Saying God can change the laws of physics or chemistry or can arbitrarily do this or that is tantamount to I have an invisible dragon that leaves no footprints, has firey breath that does not register on thermometers, that is non-coporeal so he cannot be outlined by spray paint, etc etc .

These hackneyed excuses do not get to the real meat of evolution.You need to read a really good text on evolutionary theory so you can see the many many holes in your logic.  Besides  evolution of the eye from an eyespot to present day accounts even for the "blunder" that has the nerves oing through the eyeball leaving a blindspot....God woud surely not create such an obvious defect. Once you have made up your mind to "disbelieve "evolution ..your dragon in the garage will come to your aid. The National Academy of Sciences, The American Association for the Advancement of Science, Association of Biological Scioentists, etc etc have all endorsed evolution as have many religions not caught up ion the young earth cerationist drivel. Creationists loook for what they perceive as errors in the evolution thory and slip in their gap solutions without ONE TIME ONE TIME defining an experiment or experiements to provide evidence for their position.....believe as you will but until you provide documented , replicated , peer reviewed, and National science organization supported evidence for your total speculations ....welll good luck with that.

Answer 3

All of these ideas originated with Darwin.  It is clear that vision has evolved multiple times.

What is certainly clear is that the argument here shows that there is a false duality in the creationist/intelligent design argument.  That is, if the biologists cannot answer all of the questions, their lack of answers provide support for creationism.  This is a very poor argument because it assumes that there are only two possible answers: the scientific one and a specific religious one.  The correct way to deal with the problem is for every point of view (not just 2 points of view) to be supported by physical evidence.  There is no physical evidence supporting creationism/intelligent design.  If there were unequivocal physical evidence for an intelligent designer, then we could discuss whether or not it made a specific biological change.  However, without any conclusive evidence for a designer, intelligent design is just another anti-scientific argument for lack of hard data about a few issues in evolution.

Answer 4

As such a vigorous naysayer when it comes to the logic of evolutionary Theory, I hope that you eschew all use of antibiotics other than penicillin, since, if evolution doesn't happen, penicillin must surely be as effective today as it was in 1928.

You are such a silly goose!  You reject things because no-one directly saw them happen, yet you posit an Imaginary Sky Daddy as the replacement explanation!

  

Answer 5

Arguing that there are incomplete parts to evolution (even though the points you're talking about have been well addressed, there ARE incompletes) or arguing against evolution outright IS NOT an argument FOR intelligent design.

If you want your religion to be accepted as science, propose a way to test it, a falsifiable hypothesis (which evolution has in spades.)

Obviously you agree that evolution is good science, since falsifiability is what makes good science, and your entire post is a (failed) attempt to falsify evolution, so you're clearly arguing for the fact that evolution is good science.  Now, show us how creationism is good science, where is its null hypothesis?

Answer 6

You are making several really basic errors in logic.

First, you are missing the entire logical thread of the argument.  When creationists claim that the eye (or bioluminescence) *CANNOT* have evolved incrementally, it is enough for scientists to show how it *CAN*.   It is not necessary to actually prove that it *DID* evolve this way, just that there is at least one plausible way that it *MAY* have evolved.   In fact, there may be *many* different paths by which the feature may have evolved ... and scientists are of course interested in finding evidence that favors one pathway over another.  But to answer the Creationist challenge, just giving a plausible (and most likely) scenario is enough.

>"Could a light sensitive spot really save you from a pretator?"

Yes.   In a world where predators are also working with primitive eye spots, or are completely blind, then yes, of course.

But you miss the bigger point that regardless of whether it is about evading predators, eyespots *clearly* have advantages as evidenced by the number of *modern* species that have them.  E.g. jellyfish have eyespots and these aren't just decoration ... they allow the jellies to rise and descend in sync with daily cycles, and to know which way is towards the surface (where the food is coming from).  So if you're trying to make the case that eyespots have no advantages at all, then you are completely off base.

So again, you are are losing sight of the *logical* thread of the discussion, and trying to derail it into irrelevant details.  The important point *for the sake of this argument* is that eyespots clearly have advantages regardless of what those advantages are.

>"If they are random, do we see little creatures with light sensitive patches forming pits all over their bodies hoping to get one on the patch area?"  (And similar comments.)

Again, you are completely missing the point.   Your use of the word "hoping" shows that you attribute *goal* or *intent* to this entire process.   Organisms all have variations in shape and eyespot patterns.   But if those individuals where the pattern of eyespots and indentations coincide, and this provides some advantage in detecting the direction of light, then those individuals will survive longer, make more offspring, and over time the lining up becomes more and more pronounced.  Random patterns become less random.   Normal variation becomes inheritable structure.

There's no "hoping" about it.  This is just a straw man argument.

>"It must of only took 364,000 years cuz we started from nothing and then we have a trilobite and other creatures with amazing eyes."

I don't think you have the timeline in perspective.   364,00 years is NOTHING in the geological record.  A period of even *10 million years* is still practically "instantaneous" w.r.t. the geologic record that goes back 550 million years.  The point of that 364,000 year figure is not to say that this is how long it took, but that the evolution of the eye could have happened in as short a span as that ... so in a geological record where 10 million years is barely a thin layer in the geological record, a process that could have occurred in less than half-a-million years would appear like a "sudden" occurrence.

>"For one, this is not conclusive evidence that one gave rise to the other."

Again, "conclusive evidence" is not necessary in this particular case.  Conjecture is enough *in this case*.  As long as the conjecture is plausible, and there are sufficient examples in nature to demonstrate that the proposed steps have advantage.  What qualifies it as "scientific" is that these hypotheses, no matter how "conjectural" they may seem, are TESTABLE.  They are testable by examining existing organisms, by further research into mutational patterns, by further research into genetic pathways, etc.  

The most speculative conjecture with a program for verification or rejection (what is called a hypothesis) is ALWAYS more "scientific" than the most confident declaration of absolute "Truth" that has no possible method for verification or rejection.

And THAT is why these ideas are all more "scientific" than creationism ... which offers NOTHING by way of future research that can confirm or reject its claims.