On 14/09/2011 18:16, James Brown wrote:
In message , Martin Brown
writes
On 14/09/2011 15:35, James Brown wrote:

It was. Try this for size. It's from a chapter Spencer wrote in "The
Evolution Crisis", a compilation of five scientists who reject
evolution:


Sometimes I think folk protest too much. Given the length of time it
would take by a process of unguided evolution for a single cell (coming
in any case from inanimate chemicals) to develop photosensitivity let
alone be part of such a complex item as an eye-ball - personally I find
that a leap of faith which neither satisfies at a scientific level nor
at the level of personal belief.

You have been tricked by the Intelligence Design fraternity - a thinly
disguised alternative bunch of science deniers in the USA who think
Bishop Ushers 6000 year old Earth is true because the Bible says so.

I don't think for one moment that I have Martin. I cannot imagine how
you think an organism with a single working photosensitive cell but
without ALL the necessary brain already in place to process the data
could possibly have an advantage in the survival of the fittest - and
you haven' told me how the cell got photosensitive - or IR sensitive etc.

OK. You are just ignorant. A slightly different proposition.

The first organisms with a photoreceptor were almost certainly single
celled or small colonies of photosynthetic algae rather similar to some
of the ones that still exist (Chlamydomonas and Volvox). They move to
where the light best suits them without any understanding of what they
are doing - basically a random walk with a slight preference for
movement in the direction that is towards where they want to be.

These organisms are still able to survive in the modern environment
essentially unchanged from hundreds of millions of years ago.

Wallow in your ignorance of science and superstitious beliefs if you
wish, but do not expect to get an easy ride. This is the 21st century
and not the dark ages. Goddidit is a hopelessly inadequate explanation.

Evolution is not strictly unguided. It is guided by survival of the
fittest that then get to reproduce. In an environment before there are
any photosensors the first organism to develop the slightest
capability of phototropism has an enormous advantage over everything
else.

The human eyeball is an odd design with a blind spot right in the
centre of the field of view. So you are left with either a God that is
a lousy design engineer or evolution as the mechanism. I think on
balance I prefer the latter interpretation. YMMV

You may - with your amazing stereoscopic orbs consider that you would
have done a better exit route for the optic nerve etc. But I wonder if
you haven't just got a bigger blind spot somewhere ;-))

There are several alternative solutions to the problem and other species
have implemented them. Most notably put the wiring behind the
photosensors so there need never be a hole in the imaging detector for
the cable. Cats have reflectors behind the eye to improve photon
efficiency we do not (that is why a cats eye is bright in a torch beam).

You are left with the God of the Gaps - either He is a lousy designer or
his "finest" creation was deliberately designed with a substandard eye.
He managed to get it right for other species...

The get out of jail free card is labelled "God moves in mysterious ways".

Possible of course that God trained as a civil engineer - only they
would be dumb enough to route the sewage system directly through the
entertainment district (a joke incidentally told to me by a vicar).

Science doesn't seek to answer the question is there a God.

I would hope not. Nor try to answer the question - why?

Why? What?

For the record I think Dawkins is wrong to claim absolute knowledge that
N, the number of deities is exactly zero without proof. It is
unscientific to be anything other than agnostic - there is no evidence.

Regards,
Martin Brown