Did eyes evolve by Darwinian mechanisms? (Yet another area where evolution is being falsified)

Journal of Creation ^ | Jerry Bergman, Ph,D.

[ElectricStrawberry]

What can be “seen” is the mechanisms by which evolution theoretically occurs.
One can “see” a specific mutation.
One can “see” mutation rates and track mutations through populations....I specifically tracked the migration of deer ticks across the country by looking at specific mutations.
One can “see” a mutation passed on to offspring.
One can “see” how a mutation affects specific genes and expressed proteins....things passed on to offspring.
One can “see” changes in the phylogeny of a species.
One can “see” how these changes affect the species’ “fitness” (fitness being defined as “the probability that one passes on genes to a viable offspring that reaches reproductive age”).

One can “see” lots of things if one bothers to actually look and has a few $million for some sweet equipment.

.....and “evoution” is not a “force” to be “seen” or not.....it’s a process....an explanation of what could have happened, explained using evidence available.

When I build a time machine, I’ll find out more.

[Tolsti2]

You’re kinda wasting your time when the other side just says ‘God did it’ when you use all those details.

[Rebel_Ace]

"If scientists work their tails off trying to prove a hypothesis and fail, then it was in vain and there is no reason to think they have advanced the cause of truth in any way."

You are not real clear on this whole "scientific method" thing, are you?

You see, if a scientist proposes THEORY A, and many scientist "work their tails off" and show it to be FALSE, then the cause of truth IS advanced. We know THEORY A is false, and we can devote efforts to other areas of study. Peer reviewed science does this ALL THE TIME, and in fact is one of the greatest strengths of the "scientific method". Your work goes on being "checked" for years and years after you make it generally known.

Often, an original theory might have "the big picture" right, but fail for certain data, and require refinements. An excellent example of this is Newtonian motion and gravity. For all but the most extreme cases, the laws of motion and gravity worked out by Newton fit precisely with experimental measurements. However, under certain conditions, measurements disagree with Newton. Is Newtonian physics "wrong"? No. Newtonian physics is "incomplete". Einstein was needed to bring addtional understanding to the bizzare extremes of relativity.

My point is that it is the SCIENTISTS that are the ones continually striving for the "truth". For the most part, people holding to dogmatic religious beliefs are the "static" players. They have read their ancient texts (take your pick), drawn their conclusions, and that is the end of that. There are notable exceptions, of course, such as Lemaitre, Mendel and others, but on the whole, religious institutions have a track record of RETARDING inquiry, if they feel it threatens their orthodoxy.

The theory of evolution makes some VERY SPECIFIC predictions about what should be observed, and those can be tested. By and large, those predictions are met with observational evidence. Is it "complete"? No, much in the same way that Newtonian physics is "incomplete".

What about all those people working their tails off in "Islamic Studies", or "Hindu Studies" or "Norse Mythological Studies"? Are they working in vain? If so, why, and what reasons can you give that they are working in vain that do not apply to whatever religion you happen to favor?

[dinoparty]

So if I hypothesize that 1+1=3, and yet cannot prove it, I have advanced the cause of truth by my failure to prove?

Wonderful.

[tacticalogic]

What does it advance the “cause of truth” to coflate the concepts of mathematical proof and scientific proof?

[Rebel_Ace]

"So if I hypothesize that 1+1=3, and yet cannot prove it, I have advanced the cause of truth by my failure to prove?"

Your reply is sophomoric. 1+1=3 can be DISPROVED, and the cause of truth is advanced. Once disproved, if you continue to work on the 1+1=3, then you are being an idiot.

If you intend to equate 1+1=3 with the theory of evolution, I am afraid the overwhelming weight of evidence is against you.

If you choose to ignore such evidence, then you are being willfully ignorant, and the problem is yours, not mine.

You can spend you life arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but that doesn't advance the cause of "truth" either.

[dinoparty]

LOL, you can spend your life studying the anus of the gnat and how it might have evolved, but it certainly is not a life worth living.

BTW, there are plenty of scientific theories that entail ideas as ludicrous as 1+1=3. Ever heard that light can is a particle and a wave (i.e. a particle and not a particle)?

[Rebel_Ace]

"...BTW, there are plenty of scientific theories that entail ideas as ludicrous as 1+1=3. Ever heard that light can is a particle and a wave (i.e. a particle and not a particle)?..."

Einstein won his Nobel Prize for his "discovery" of the photo-voltaic effect. This is how all those millions silicon solar cells turn light into electricity. They rely on the "particle" properties of light to function. If you have a solar powered calculator, or those little garden lights that turn on at dusk, you are benefiting from this understanding of the "particle" nature of light.

If you are using a computer on a wireless network, or have a wireless mouse or keyboard, or are using a cell phone, or simply listening to the radio, different "channels" of information are possible due to the "wave" properties of light. Information is broadcast and received by modulating either the frequency or amplitude (or both) of the transmitted waves.

So, this "ludicrous" idea has resulted in tangible, physical devices that can make our lives better, and that you probably make use of every day.

You might be grateful that folks like Pastuer spent his life studying "spoiled milk" so that food service today could be cleaner, healthier and more hygenic.

On the flip side, can you, for example, show me Noah's Ark? (The original is not necessary. Even a re-creation would be suitable, as long as it could hold 2 of every unclean animal, and 7 of every clean one, along with foodstores to feed the same for a few months.)

[Rebel_Ace]

After I posted a reply, your phrase of:

"...but it certainly is not a life worth living..."

kind of struck a nerve with me in the following sense; On this very forum, most people rail against a Government Health care system, because life and death judgements will be taken away from the principle actors involved, namely the patient and doctor. I agree that this should be opposed as well.

And yet, you have no problem declaring that someone pursuing an intellectual path of no interest to you to be, and I quote, "...is not a life worth living..."

Is that not the very same "I know what's better for you" attitude that we decry in liberal politicians?

[dinoparty]

You say: “On the flip side, can you, for example, show me Noah’s Ark? (The original is not necessary. Even a re-creation would be suitable, as long as it could hold 2 of every unclean animal, and 7 of every clean one, along with foodstores to feed the same for a few months.)”

Classic straw man argument. Not all who argue against the tyranny of modern natural science believe that all Bible stories are meant to be taken literal historical fact. The ancients understood this much better than we do.

[dinoparty]

Absolutely no argument from me that science often works in acheiving its (sometimes) worthy objectives. However, this is not relevant to a discussion of whether it is the best measure of truth.

[Rebel_Ace]

"...Not all who argue against the tyranny of modern natural science believe that all Bible stories are meant to be taken literal historical fact..."

and

"...However, this is not relevant to a discussion of whether it is the best measure of truth..."

Here you have stated in two sentences the fundamental problem of "religious truth". You claim to hold a truth "superior" that that gleaned by scientific study. Yet, at the same time, you contend that just some of the Bible stories are "literal".

So, who gets to pick and choose the "truthfulness" of various Biblical parables? Is Noah's Ark just a story, but Sodom and Gomorrah factual? Was Sampson really that strong, or just a re-working of an older, "Hercules type" fable? I would be willing to bet that 20 Biblical scholars will render 20 different opinions, because that's what they are: Opinions, not "Truth".

The truth of science is objective, and the same for all. Gravity works for me just like it works for you just like it works for Mars. If I run an experiment to demonstrate the wave properties of light, you can do the same, and the results will be the same.

From an objective standpoint, it is far closer to "truth".

[dinoparty]

Here is a truth that is in fact superior to the truths “gleaned by scientific study” of the kind you are espousing:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights...” etc.

Do you deny that this is in fact truth?

Your use of the word “objective” simply begs the question ... what makes a truth objective? Does it have to be proven through the scientific method in order to be considered “objective”?

As for your view of scripture — be advised that a biblical story can be symbolic or esoteric (i.e. not meant literally) yet convey more truth than any explicit story ever could.

[Rebel_Ace]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights..."

That was written by a man. Thomas Jefferson, to be precise. Mr. Jefferson made no claim to be a deity. The statement was written by a man, about the affairs of man, and the self governance thereof. I happen to agree with it. However, read it. It starts out:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident..."

Jefferson is stating his AXIOMS for his argument. He is saying WE (meaning he and the men in agreement) agree on this, and will fight for this, even if you don't. (I am rather sure that King George did not hold such truths to be "self evident", as that would erode his natural claim on governance).

"Objective" is the opposite of "Subjective". If a field of study is rife with mutually exclusive, yet unverifiable opinions, it is an area of SUBJECTIVE study.

Two mutually exclusive postions cannot both be correct. An easy test of objectivity is that of the reciprocity of beliefs both held to be true. If they cannot both be true, and yet neither can they be verified, then they are SUBJECTIVE.

Example: The original poster of this thread, GodGunGuts is a believer in the literal story of Noah's Ark. You may converse with him about that, if you wish to verify that. Apparently, you are not so taken with the literal story of the Ark. Yet, presumably, you both study the same text, and hold it as sacred. You cannot BOTH be correct. Either the story is the infallible word of God, or it is a fairy tale. One of you is holding to a belief that is CLOSER to truth. If it is as you say, not to be taken literally, do you understand the "can of worms" this opens? What else is allegorical? What can safely be ignored, and what is essential to pay attention to?

On the side of consistancy of postion, GGG has taken the literal position. As such GGG bumps into problems in the real world with examinations of stories like Noah's Ark.

On the side of convenience, you take the position that, well, you don't have to take EVERYTHING literally. However, that unavoidably opens up the countless fractures among scholars saying THIS is literal and THAT is not. And THAT is not a roadmap to any OBJECTIVE "truth".

[dinoparty]

Re: your claim that natural science, using the scientific method, is more revealing of objective truth ... is this claim itself objective or subjective, in your view?

We disagree on the truth of your claim. Does this mean that the subject of our dispute is merely subjective?

I do not understand your argument about Jefferson. Are you claiming that he did not believe that “ALL men are created equal” is an objective fact?

Do you believe that it is an objective fact, or not?

[Rebel_Ace]

"Re: your claim that natural science, using the scientific method, is more revealing of objective truth ... is this claim itself objective or subjective, in your view?"

You seem to miss the point entirely. It does not matter one bit what I believe. Objective truths are testable and repeatable for anyone that cares to do so.

Just follow our converstion so far:
I claimed that Science provides a more objective understanding of the world around us...

You reply with something on the order of "Nonsense! Scientists believe light is a wave and a particle! What rubbish!"

I respond with examples showing how that understanding leads to tangible devices, that work for me or you regardless of your "belief" about the particle or wave nature of light.

I asked for a similar example from the greater understanding given by the Biblical tale of Noah's Ark, knowing that such an example is clearly impossible. The point of the request was to illustrate that religious beliefs are not objective, they don't function the same for everybody.

You responded by telling me that this is a "Straw Man" argument, yet when you tell me that such and such theory is rubbish, and I am able to respond with tangible, repeatable evidence of the validity of such a "rubbish" theory, you cannot reciprocate with tangible examples from religious truths.

Science is testable and verifiable, and results of such work operate the same for anyone, regardless of belief.

Religion is subjective and untestable and unverifiable. There are many religions in the world, all claiming to have a hold on the "truth". Many, if not all, are mutually exclusive, meaning, they cannot ALL be right. The natural corollary is that MOST of them are wrong. Do you believe in Odin, Thor and Loki? Did not think so. How about Zeus and Apollo? No? Jupiter? You see, over the course of time, ALL of those deities had significant followings. Where are they now? Why are they gone? What has replaced them?

What has survived as "truth" from these times? Euclidian Geometry, for example, which works for today's 6th graders, whether or not they believe Nike is the goddess of victory. That's objective.

[dinoparty]

I’m not missing the point at all. It appears you are stuck because (1) you claim that the only objective truth is truth that is “repeatable”, (2) you cannot state that your claim in no. 1 above is itself objectively true, as it is not repeatable, (3) you cannot claim that Jefferson’s statement is objectively true, as it is not repeatable.

So all at once, you implicitly admit that your own argument is not objectively true, and that you must believe that the claims of the Declaration of Independence are not objectively true.

Seems to me that common sense says: some truths are self-evident. Period.

[RFEngineer]

“From a science point of view, there is no built in goal...”

You can’t discuss actual science with GGG or any “creation science” advocate - To them, the only point of science is to prove Creation and literal Genesis interpretation.

While folks who actually understand what you post appreciate it, I hope you understand that GGG, and the rest of his “creation science” ilk not only will not understand, but over time they’ve gotten to the point where they don’t even pretend to understand. You’re just wrong, despite actual science saying otherwise.

If it doesn’t say it was so in Genesis, then you must be wrong is the unspoken refrain. The other unspoken refrain is that if you believe in actual science that contradicts literal Genesis in any way you are going to hell.

There are only a couple honest “creation science” freepers that will actually admit that, but it is an amusing exercise - because you will never succeed in discussing actual science with them.

[GourmetDan]

"What can be “seen” is the mechanisms by which evolution theoretically occurs."

AKA, the fallacy of affirming the consequent.

This has been explained to ES before but he likes to base his beliefs on logical fallacy and pretend it is science.

[GourmetDan]

"Science is testable and verifiable, and results of such work operate the same for anyone, regardless of belief."

And evolution is not science because it is based on the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent.

An inability to think-critically will get you every time.