Life's Complexity Diminishes Darwinian Potency

Creation-Evolution Headlines ^ | 8/28/03 | Creation-Evolution Headlines

[bondserv]

To act as a true lens that can focus light, the lens of the eye must remain transparent for a lifetime. Yet the eye lens is not a piece of glass, but a growing, living tissue made up of cells. How can such a tissue stay clear, when the cells must be nourished, and when they contain organelles and chromosomes that would tend to obscure light?

[JesseShurun]

Evolution is a fake fur that gives warm fuzzies to people who think in glittering generalities.

Hugs

[bondserv]

Ping!!

[coloradan]

There is nothing in the article that "dimishes Darwin." If you wish to make a case that somehow, the fact of the eye's complexity refutes or negates Darwin, please make it.

To get you started, here's something to argue against: Those organisms that had slightly clearer eye tissues had a survival advantage over those with slightly cloudier eye tissues, because the former could see better. Hence, the genes that lead to clearer eye tissues have a survival advantage, and have been selected for; lather, rinse, and repeat for billions of years. Today, lens tissues are nearly completely clear, althogh the presence of failure mechanisms such as those that lead to cataracts, give glimpses into how eyes might have looked (or, rather, seen) many, many millions of years ago, before the final selection process of random mutations had eliminated most of them.

Tell me, in a Creationist paradigm, what Grand Truth is revealed when one discovers why cataracts are even possible?

[bondserv]

Those organisms that had slightly clearer eye tissues had a survival advantage over those with slightly cloudier eye tissues, because the former could see better.

The proper question is; How did an undirected natural force know how to clear an eye lens up, before knowing clarity is an issue? Did it call a temp enzyme service to check which did the trick?

[TheDon]

More "glittering generalities"? ;^)

[Rudder]

How can such a tissue stay clear, when the cells must be nourished, and when they contain organelles and chromosomes that would tend to obscure light?

If you, a mere human being, cannot fathom how this could be done then you must assume creationism to be true.

Or you could go to school and learn something about physiology and anatomy.

[Paleo Conservative]

Barbara Streisand

[Stars N Stripes]

One part water, one part rocks, stir a few billion years and presto!! Human Beings. Yeah, no problem.

[coloradan]

How did an undirected natural force know how to clear an eye lens up, before knowing clarity is an issue? Did it call a temp enzyme service to check which did the trick?

Nothing "knew" to clear lenses up, and no critter had to think, "Gee, you know, if I only had clearer lenses everything would be better." Those critters with clearer lenses (or, more sharply focussed images, or more light-sensitive retinas) could find food or evade predators better than those with cloudier (or blurrier, or dimmer) images, and they are the ones whose genes propagated to the next generation with greater probability. Lather, rinse, repeat ... for millions if not billions of years.

Flowing water doesn't "know" to make pebbles round, but a sharp corner sticking out is more likely to be rubbed off than a smooth surface. Repeat a million times, and you get wonderful, smooth spheres even without any design or designer. (This is admittedly a poor analogy to natural selection: no reproduction is present.)

[coloradan]

You forgot ammonia. Gotta have ammonia. And lightning.

[JesseShurun]

au pays des eveugles les borgnes sont rois

[boris]

I generally steer clear of these debates. I am not a creationist but there are clearly problems with 'pure' evolution.

Side note: the eye has evolved several times--indpendently, as in cephalopods.

Why do horses have long legs? To run from predators, says the evolution 'just-so' story. Why then do predators not develop long legs?...

What's more, a 'genetically superior' horse is not gonna pop out with half-a-meter of extra leg. He's likely to emerge with a centimeter or less extra leg. The probability is that a tree will fall on him, he'll contract an infection, or a predator will get him anyway. In other words it is difficult to see how a small delta in leg length can lead to sufficient survival advantage for the individual animal.

Other traits, such as different eye coloration in humans, are hard to "justify" as promoting survival. Who is fittest--the blue-eyes or the brown?

Finally, if intelligence is such a wonderful evolutionary destination, why isn't everything intelligent?...

--Boris

[Rudder]

Finally, if intelligence is such a wonderful evolutionary destination, why isn't everything intelligent?...

Because in mother nature you do not get to define the destinations.

[bondserv]

Because in mother nature you do not get to define the destinations.

Like a fully functioning eye! Throw reasonable probabilities to the wind.

[DallasMike]

Those organisms that had slightly clearer eye tissues had a survival advantage over those with slightly cloudier eye tissues

So how did clearer eye tissues happen to evolve at the same place as the some-several dozen proteins necessary for sight, any one of which if not present would prevent sight completely? And why not an eye in the back of my head? Wouldn't that be handy?

I'm not a disbeliever in evolution because it doesn't affect my religious beliefs one way or the other, and I'm absolutely convinced that evolution happens at certain scales. I have no quarrel with the concept -- even as a Christian -- that humans evolved from apes. However, as one who has degrees in chemistry and chemical engineering (and a whole lot of math since school), the odds for all these amazing things happening in the same place -- like the eyeball -- seem pretty slim, no matter how much time you give it.

Darwinism seems nice and neat and tidy from a macro standpoint, like when looking at the similarities between a shark and a tuna, but when you get down to the level of chemical compounds, evolution all of a sudden becomes immensely more complicated than was dreamed of even a few years ago. To come up with something as complicated as the eye, our bodies ought to be full of millions of different chemicals just hanging around for evolution to perhaps find them useful. However, our bodies just aren't that way and we seem to have exactly the chemicals we need -- no more, no less -- in exactly the right places. The old-school Darwinists need to come up with some better answers.

[altayann]

And in the land of the French speaking, 'eveugle' is usually spelt 'aveugle'.

[Rudder]

Like a fully functioning eye! Throw reasonable probabilities to the wind.

It seems you are awestruck by your own ignorance of science and evolution. And, since you are so overwhelmed you fail to understand.

"If ignorance isn't bliss then I don't know what is."

[DallasMike]

says the evolution 'just-so' story

I like that -- it's exactly what all the traditional Darwinist answers are!

The scary fact that never gets mentioned is that there are significant numbers of honest-to-goodness scientists who aren't religious fanatics who have big doubts about evolution as currently taught. I find that chemists are among the biggest doubters, but perhaps that's because I was trained as one and still run into quite a few.

"And that, boys and girls, is how the tiger got his stripes."

[Rudder]

To come up with something as complicated as the eye, our bodies ought to be full of millions of different chemicals just hanging around for evolution to perhaps find them useful. However, our bodies just aren't that way and we seem to have exactly the chemicals we need -- no more, no less -- in exactly the right places. The old-school Darwinists need to come up with some better answers.

What's the question?