The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Sam Vimes

prinz wrote: »

My point was how someone would deride others as mindless zombies, incapable of rational thought etc would echo Herr Hitler so closely. I wasn't making any Creationist v. anyone point. Just highlighting the irony of the situation.

Like I said even if it was about the KKK I would still draw attention to the fact.:rolleyes:. Maybe I would agree maybe I wouldn't. But I would still draw attention to it. Again like I said it would be even more ironic to verbally attack the KKK in a manner reminiscent of Hitler. All DaveMaC's post did was highlight one type of mug slagging off another type of mug.... for being a mug. Pot..Kettle and Black spring to mind.

prinz wrote: »

This thread isn't about KKK. So if you wish to post similar remarks about the KKK on a different thread, I'll be the first to highlight the language used, and the irony inherent in it. Grabbing at straws tbh.

You said you would agree with the statement if it was said about the KKK. So you agree with things that echo Herr Hitler :eek:

JimiTime

So some moron comes in spouting the tired oul nonsense about being rational yadda yadda yadda, someone invokes Godwins Law. Get over it! What a bunch of whining pansy's:P

prinz

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You said you would agree with the statement if it was said about the KKK. So you agree with things that echo Herr Hitler :eek:

I also like Volkswagens and motorways........ :eek:.

Sam Vimes

prinz wrote: »

I also like Volkswagens and motorways........ :eek:.

You don't......have a moustache too do you :eek:

prinz

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You don't......have a moustache too do you :eek:

I just missed a bit.......(for the last few weeks)............honestly! :pac:

marco_polo

prinz wrote: »

Perhaps then you'd keep your opinions on whether or not it was an 'apt' analogy and my laziness in comparing same to yourself, when you have no basis on which to make those assumptions. Pet hate of mine. As it is I have neither the inclination or the time to start looking for passages online.

If I accept it was your intention to compare the language and style rather than anything else, can we all be friends again?

Then we can get back to ther serious business of figuring out how the Koala bears got all the way back to Oz after the flood. :pac:

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You may not be a proponent of the irreducible complexity idea (although I think it's a requirement of being a creationist, correct me if I'm wrong), but I thought I'd preempt the argument by asking some questions about the eye, an organ which I have often heard described as irreducibly complex. If the eye is irreducibly complex, explain:

1. Hawk's eyes and eagle's eyes which are considerably more complex and efficient than our own
2. Dog's eyes which are less complex and efficient than our own
3. Cat's eyes, who can see in the dark far better than us, can sense movement far better than us and whose eye structure is very different to our own
4. Colour blind people, who lack some of the "cones" that allow colour to be processed
5. The fact that birds and bees can see ultraviolet
6. Vestigial eyes (click number 6) which grow but degenrerate to be completely useless during fetal development. In fact explain vestigial organs in general if we're supposed to be created by a perfect designer
7. Four-eyed fish whose eyes are broken into two chambers so they can rest on the water's surface and see both above and below the water at the same time
8. Fish eyes, who can't turn them and don't require eye lids
9. Bat eyes, which are all but useless but not as useless as the vestigial eyes on some fish.

Are all of these types of eyes, all of varying structure, complexity and efficiency, all irreducibly complex?

....yes, they are all irreducibly complex ... just like a scissors, a hacksaw and a circular saw are all of varying structure, complexity and efficiency as well as being all irreducibly complex (because they have ALL been Intelligently Designed...and don`t work at all if any critical part is missing!!):pac::D

....the bat eyes are the equivalent of a saw with worn teeth ... i.e. a formerly perfectly designed thing (with originally perfect functionality) that has degenerated with time and the effects of the Laws of Thermodynamics (and Natural Selection)!!!:D

J C

Morbert wrote: »

You have been corrected on this before. Please provide evidence which demonstrates that proteins could not have evolved from simpler proteins. Assertions are irrelevant unless you can reference scientific research to back them up

.....one doesn't need scientific research to prove that two plus two equals four ... nor to prove that a specific simple protein with odds of 10^130 against it's spontaneous production is an IMPOSSIBILITY!!!

...it's pure MATHS ... the hardest of hard evidence !!!!:eek::)

Morbert wrote: »

This is untrue, as creatures with sight can evolve from creatures without sight.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003998277_blob07.html

...HOW has it been PROVEN that this`blob`evolved into a Hydra ... or indeed ANYTHING ELSE ... other than another (now possibly extinct) `blob`!!!:D

J C

qdog wrote: »

i find it really hard to believe that anyone still believes that the bible is an accurate description of how the earth began.

Why?

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

In fact that's exactly how natural selection works, it doesn't work the way you think it does because the way you think it works is random chance, ie it doesn't work. Natural selection doesn't "know" the answer but nature tells it it's got the wrong answer at each stage by killing it and that it's got the right one by not killing it.

...the only problem with this idea is that the number of 'wrong answers' is so overwhelming (10^130 for a simple specific protein) in comparison with 'right answers' (possibly as little as ONE) that EVERYTHING would be killed by such an undirected process!!!!

...what you are describing is akin to a quality control system for an Intelligently Designed factory ... NS is capable (with varying degrees of efficiency) of rejecting (i.e. killing off 'widgets' that are not up to standard ... BUT it is incapable of producing the Intelligently Designed 'widgets' in the first place.
...you are confusing a quality MAINTENACE system with a quality¨PRODUCTION system!!!

....as I have said before, while NS may explain the survival of the fittest ... it DOESN'T explain the arrival of the fittest !!!!:D

robindch

J C wrote: »

while NS may explain the survival of the fittest ... it DOESN'T explain the arrival of the fittest !!!!:D

It's only taken five years, but you finally understand the difference between Abiogenesis and Evolution. Congratulations!

I think we all deserve a pat on the back. And a drink.

marco_polo

J C wrote: »

...the only problem with this idea is that the number of 'wrong answers' is so overwhelming (10^130 for a simple specific protein) in comparison with 'right answers' (possibly as little as ONE) that the EVERYTHING would be killed by such an undirected process!!!!

...what you are describing is akin to a quality control system for an Intelligently Designed factory ... NS is capable (with varying degrees of efficiency) of rejecting (i.e. killing off 'widgets' that are not up to standard ... BUT it is incapable of producing the Intelligently Designed 'widgets' in the first place.
...you are confusing a quality MAINTENACE system with a quality¨PRODUCTION system!!!

....as I have said before, while NS may explain the survival of the fittest ... it DOESN'T explain the arrival of the fittest !!!!:D

Natural selection is indeed simply the quality control system of evolution. It has never been proposed as the mechanism for producing variability.

I think this marks the beginning of another 20 pages about mutations.

J C

marco_polo wrote: »

If I accept it was your intention to compare the language and style rather than anything else, can we all be friends again?

Then we can get back to ther serious business of figuring out how the Koala bears got all the way back to Oz after the flood. :pac:

...I have ALREADY cleared that one up for you HERE
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61090804&postcount=16233
...and HERE
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61094048&postcount=16235

...if the 'sleepy Koala' and his descendants spread out from Ararat in the direction of Australia at a 'sleepy' average speed of just one mile per day ... they would cover the 10,000 or so miles to Australia in less than 30 years...and if they averaged a 'snails pace' of just 200 metres per day they would cover the 17,000 km in about 230 years. I have found that Evolutionists are notoriously poor at mathematics ... despite always talking in large numbers rounded to the nearest billion!!!!

..... and the arrival of Koalas in Australia itself is easily explained by the land bridges that all scientists agree existed between Australia and the rest of Asia ... and disappeared due to a combination of rising ses levels due to the Ice Age meltwaters returning to the oceans and the tectonic submergence of some of these landmasses!!
...and you will find all of your questions answered here ...
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c006.html

... and the main reason that present-day Koalas are so lethargic is because of their poor and poisonous diet of Eucalyptus leaves ... and the fact that most of them are chronically infected with Chlamydia probably doesn't help either.
Healthy specimens leaving the Ark and 'munching' on wholesome nutritious food, could have sprinted to Australia (as Robin ironically suggested in his posting #16226) in as little as 10 years!!!!
....anyway, EVEN IF it took them 1,000 years to get to Australia their average speed would only be 0.03 miles per day or about 10 yards per hour - for a 5 hour day ... and there are some snails out there who could beat that performance!!!

....and could I AGAIN remind you of the first rule when you are in a hole (as you are on this issue) ... is to STOP DIGGING!!!:pac::):D:eek:

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
while NS may explain the survival of the fittest ... it DOESN'T explain the arrival of the fittest !!!!

robindch
It's only taken five years, but you finally understand the difference between Abiogenesis and Evolution. Congratulations!

...could I gently point out that 'the arrival of the fittest' includes the production of new genetic information required for BOTH Abiogenesis AND any putative so-called evolution of 'Microbes to Micro-biologists'!!!!!

...so, unfortunately for the Materialists, NS doesn't explain EITHER Abiogenesis OR any supposed subsequent Spontaneous Evolution!!!!:D:)

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

Healthy specimens leaving the Ark and 'munching' on wholesome nutritious food, could have sprinted to Australia (as Robin ironically suggested in his posting #16226) in as little as 10 years!!!!

:rolleyes:

I think that comment sums up this entire thread TBH

People will believe anything so long as it is comforting and safe.

J C

marco_polo wrote: »

Natural selection is indeed simply the quality control system of evolution. It has never been proposed as the mechanism for producing variability.

I think this marks the beginning of another 20 pages about mutations.

...and could I AGAIN gently point out that the supposed 'undirected mechanism' for producing variability is the genetic equivalent of a 'bull in a china shop' i.e. a mechanism that is UNIVERSALLY observed to degrade genetic information ...
....and, as a result, Mutagenesis is (wisely) UNIVERSALLY avoided by BOTH Creationists and Evolutionists alike!!!!:D:eek:

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

:rolleyes:

I think that comment sums up this entire thread TBH

People will believe anything so long as it is comforting and safe.

...NOT TRUE...
....Spontaneous Evolution is neither comforting (in this life) nor safe (in the next life) ... yet Materialists continue to believe in it with a faith-filled fervour that would put many Christians to shame!!!!!:):D

marco_polo

Wicknight wrote: »

:rolleyes:

I think that comment sums up this entire thread TBH

People will believe anything so long as it is comforting and safe.

Bit of a stretch considering it can't even be bothered travelling to Western or Northern Australia.

J C

wrote:

Sam Vimes
Nope, he (J C) doesn't understand evolution and apparently neither do you. I suggest you read this post where I explain mathematically how it works, how it can turn a 0.00000000000002735% chance of success into a 66% chance without any intelligent guidance!!

Originally Posted by Sam Vimes
There are two approaches to this, the random chance approach and the natural selection mechanism.

Random chance:
You roll the dice. You have a 1/6 chance of getting the right number each time and if you get the wrong number at any stage you have to start again. The odds of getting the 20 numbers in the right order are:
(1/6)^20=0.00000000000002735%

Natural selection:
You roll the dice just as before but this time, at each stage of the sequence you can roll the dice as many times as you want and when you put in the wrong number the sequence doesn't start again. The keypad waits until you get the correct answer and then moves onto the next number in the sequence.

...I have ALREADY (and comprehensively) answered this question HERE
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61193864&postcount=16332

...this isn't how Natural Selection works...the 'keypad' DOESN'T KNOW which are the correct answers at all points along the sequence ... this would only become obvious after ALL of the correct sequence has been assembled...and the protein starts working ...
There will be NO INDICATION that part of a critical sequence has been assembled ... or any 'lock in' of any progress in assembling part of the sequence like your example is claiming!!!!

The only way that your 'keypad' could know each 'correct' number along the sequence is if the numbers were pre-programmed into the 'keypad' by an Intelligent Designer ... and the system was intelligently programmed to 'lock in' each 'correct' number as it turned up - and then move on to the next number in the sequence ... but I think that kinda defeats what you were trying to establish with this 'keypad' idea of yours, in the first place!!!!

Equally, the supposed provider of the 'variation' upon which the NS is supposed to work is mutagenesis ... and, as a random undirected process, it is much more likely to 'undo' any 'progress' made to date than it is to produce other 'correct' parts of the sequence ... and that is why people very rationally AVOID mutagenic agents .... because mutations do VASTLY more HARM than GOOD!!!
....equally, NS has no way of selecting for 'correct bits' within a putative critical sequence that have absolutely no beneficial effects, until they are ALL in place ... it is the ultimate game of 'nothing happens until everything happens' .... and therefore NOTHING will EVER happen!!!!

NS is quite efficient at selecting between different levels of 'fitness' amongst individuals which ALREADY have functional biochemical processes ... and it acts as a 'culling process' upon individuals who have become unable to compete for mates and/or resources with other indivduals ... BUT it is UNABLE to produce ANY of the 'fitness' traits, in the first place.

...like I have said, NS can ensure the survival of the fittest ... but it cannot ensure the arrival of the fittest!!!!

...NS is a bit like a system which decides which car goes to the scrap heap and which doesn't ... which is quite EASY...in comparison with the task of making the cars, in the first place!!!

...NS is a quality control system at the end of an Intelligently Designed living 'assembly line' that is the reproductive system of all living organisms!!!

NS is just a simple 'culling agent' ... and it is NOT a sophisticated 'creative agent'!!!!

wrote:

Sam Vimes
It's what religious people continue to teach about evolution despite being corrected a million times.

....the ONLY people who hold to a religious faith on the 'origins issue' are the Materialists ... who continue to vainly hope that SOMEHOW matter spontaneously organised itself to 'move' Mice to become Motor Mechanics ... and they continue to desperately hold to this unfounded belief despite ALL objective physical evidence and ALL logic indicating that an Intelligence of inordinate capacity was required to produce the massive quantities of Specified Complexity observed in ALL living organisms!!!!!:pac::):D

J C

marco_polo wrote: »

Bit of a stretch considering it can't even be bothered travelling to Western or Northern Australia.

...like I have already said, the main reason that present-day Koalas are so lethargic is because of their poor and poisonous diet of Eucalyptus leaves ... and the fact that most of them are chronically infected with Chlamydia probably doesn't help either...and that may ALSO explain the absence of Koala from Western and Northern Australia!!!!;):D

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...the only problem with this idea is that the number of 'wrong answers' is so overwhelming (10^130 for a simple specific protein) in comparison with 'right answers' (possibly as little as ONE) that the EVERYTHING would be killed by such an undirected process!!!!

...what you are describing is akin to a quality control system for an Intelligently Designed factory ... NS is capable (with varying degrees of efficiency) of rejecting (i.e. killing off 'widgets' that are not up to standard ... BUT it is incapable of producing the Intelligently Designed 'widgets' in the first place.
...you are confusing a quality MAINTENACE system with a quality¨PRODUCTION system!!!

....as I have said before, while NS may explain the survival of the fittest ... it DOESN'T explain the arrival of the fittest !!!!:D

As I already explained mathematically, the odds are not 10^130. This figure relies on the idea of irreducible complexity but you offer no proof but to keep saying it over and over. I asked you if you can prove that a molecule made up of most of the atoms of a protein cannot perform any useful function and you have not done this

You proclaim things to be irreducibly complex and when given examples such as different types of eyes that work just fine without the parts that you claim an eye cannot work without you simply proclaim again that they are irreducibly complex

It has been explained to you that natural selection is not meant to explain the arrival of the fittest, that is achieved through genetic mutations and you simply restate that natural selection does not explain the arrival of the fittest. No one said it did

Do you actually read our posts or do you just like repeating yourself ad nauseum?

I have given two examples on this thread where evolution produced new characteristics, one where E-coli developed the ability to metabolise citrus and another where multicellularity evolved right before the scientists eyes. I'm dying to hear your explanation. No doubt it will involve more proclamations of IC and rebuttal of claims that were never made. Oh and some smilies

Sam Vimes

JC, this diagram shows the major stages of the evolution of the eye

1. Each stage can be produced from the last through genetic mutations
2. Each stage is less complex than the next
3. Most importantly, each stage shows a functioning eye
4. Each stage has benefits over the last so they can be chosen by natural selection

Therefore the eye is not irreducibly complex

Sam Vimes

Now, just to show how the above diagram directly contradicts your claim of irreducible complexity:

J C wrote: »

...this isn't how Natural Selection works...the 'keypad' DOESN'T KNOW which are the correct answers at all points along the sequence ... this would only become obvious after ALL of the correct sequence has been assembled...and the protein starts working ...
There will be NO INDICATION that part of a critical sequence has been assembled ... or any 'lock in' of any progress in assembling part of the sequence like your example is claiming!!!!

The diagram shows six separates stages of eye development. Each new step provides a new capability but the only thing that is absolutely necessary for something to be called an eye is the photoreceptive cells, everything else just improves efficiency, such as how the lens allows focussing of light but a pinhole can still allow limited imaging and directional sensitivity.

And because each step improves efficiency, because at each step the eye functions better than it did before (but not as well as our current eye) "the 'keypad' KNOWS which are the correct answers at all points along the sequence" and "there IS INDICATION that part of a critical sequence has been assembled".

I've crossed out the word critical because the only critical part is the photoreceptive cells.

J C wrote: »

The only way that your 'keypad' could know each 'correct' number along the sequence is if the numbers were pre-programmed into the 'keypad' by an Intelligent Designer

Morbert

J C wrote: »

...I have ALREADY (and comprehensively) answered this question HERE
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61193864&postcount=16332

...this isn't how Natural Selection works...the 'keypad' DOESN'T KNOW which are the correct answers at all points along the sequence ... this would only become obvious after ALL of the correct sequence has been assembled...and the protein starts working ...
There will be NO INDICATION that part of a critical sequence has been assembled ... or any 'lock in' of any progress in assembling part of the sequence like your example is claiming!!!!

The only way that your 'keypad' could know each 'correct' number along the sequence is if the numbers were pre-programmed into the 'keypad' by an Intelligent Designer ... and the system was intelligently programmed to 'lock in' each 'correct' number as it turned up - and then move on to the next number in the sequence ... but I think that kinda defeats what you were trying to establish with this 'keypad' idea of yours, in the first place!!!!

Equally, the supposed provider of the 'variation' upon which the NS is supposed to work is mutagenesis ... and, as a random undirected process, it is much more likely to 'undo' any 'progress' made to date than it is to produce other 'correct' parts of the sequence ... and that is why people very rationally AVOID mutagenic agents .... because mutations do VASTLY more HARM than GOOD!!!
....equally, NS has no way of selecting for 'correct bits' within a putative critical sequence that have absolutely no beneficial effects, until they are ALL in place ... it is the ultimate game of 'nothing happens until everything happens' .... and therefore NOTHING will EVER happen!!!!

NS is quite efficient at selecting between different levels of 'fitness' amongst individuals which ALREADY have functional biochemical processes ... and it acts as a 'culling process' upon individuals who have become unable to compete for mates and/or resources with other indivduals ... BUT it is UNABLE to produce ANY of the 'fitness' traits, in the first place.

...like I have said, NS can ensure the survival of the fittest ... but it cannot ensure the arrival of the fittest!!!!

...NS is a bit like a system which decides which car goes to the scrap heap and which doesn't ... which is quite EASY...in comparison with the task of making the cars, in the first place!!!

...NS is a quality control system at the end of an Intelligently Designed living 'assembly line' that is the reproductive system of all living organisms!!!

NS is just a simple 'culling agent' ... and it is NOT a sophisticated 'creative agent'!!!!


....the ONLY people who hold to a religious faith on the 'origins issue' are the Materialists ... who continue to vainly hope that SOMEHOW matter spontaneously organised itself to 'move' Mice to become Motor Mechanics ... and they continue to desperately hold to this unfounded belief despite ALL objective physical evidence and ALL logic indicating that an Intelligece of inordinate capacity was required to produce the massive quantities of Specified Complexity observed in ALL living organisms!!!!!:pac::):D

You make no sense. All of the above is wrong and you have been corrected on it before, but you still post these assertions again regardless.

Natural selection of random mutation can account for development of molecular information as described by molecular information theory.

Morbert

J C wrote: »

.....one doesn't need scientific research to prove that two plus two equals four ... nor to prove that a specific simple protein with odds of 10^130 against it's spontaneous production is an IMPOSSIBILITY!!!

...it's pure MATHS ... the hardest of hard evidence !!!!:eek::)

You have been corrected on this before. I asked you for scientific evidence that proteins could not have evolved from simpler proteins, not that proteins could not have spontaneously generated.

...HOW has it been PROVEN that this`blob`evolved into a Hydra ... or indeed ANYTHING ELSE ... other than another (now possibly extinct) `blob`!!!:D

It is an example of the development of eyesight through natural selection, which you declared was impossible.

Soul Winner

Morbert wrote: »

It is an example of the development of eyesight through natural selection, which you declared was impossible.

Before the first eye started to develop in the first organism, did that organism know what it wanted to gain by developing the eye? i.e. to be able to see? If the knowledge of what it means to be able to see was non existent before the actually seeing ability was attained by the first organism then why did that organism even begin to develop eyes in the first place if it didn’t know then what the advantages of seeing would have been?

We know in most animals that there is a nerve(s) which connects the eye to the brain, so which came first? The brain? The nerve? Or the eye? Obviously not the eye so it must have been either the brain or the nerve. If it was the brain then like above, how did it know what it wanted to attain before it attained it? Why did it project a nerve ending outward to where it could become sensitive to the sunlight and thus develop into an eye?

If it was the nerve or the nerve ending that came first then how did it know what it wanted to attain before it knew what it meant to be able to see and all this before it was even attached to a brain or the surface of the skin?

Or did the nerve grow from the surface of the skin into the brain to let the brain know what it was missing from the outside? If so then how did it know what it wanted to attain before it attained it? Or was the attainment of the ability to see the result of a chance happening?

I know what you’re going to say, I just don’t understand the theory of evolution.

marco_polo

Soul Winner wrote: »

Before the first eye started to develop in the first organism, did that organism know what it wanted to gain by developing the eye? i.e. to be able to see? If the knowledge of what it means to be able to see was non existent before the actually seeing ability was attained by the first organism then why did that organism even begin to develop eyes in the first place if it didn’t know then what the advantages of seeing would have been?

We know in most animals that there is a nerve(s) which connects the eye to the brain, so which came first? The brain? The nerve? Or the eye? Obviously not the eye so it must have been either the brain or the nerve. If it was the brain then like above, how did it know what it wanted to attain before it attained it? Why did it project a nerve ending outward to where it could become sensitive to the sunlight and thus develop into an eye?

If it was the nerve or the nerve ending that came first then how did it know what it wanted to attain before it knew what it meant to be able to see and all this before it was even attached to a brain or the surface of the skin?

Or did the nerve grow from the surface of the skin into the brain to let the brain know what it was missing from the outside? If so then how did it know what it wanted to attain before it attained it? Or was the attainment of the ability to see the result of a chance happening?

I know what you’re going to say, I just don’t understand the theory of evolution.

The simplest 'eye' requires neither a brain, a nervous system or an actual eye .

http://www.iscid.org/encyclopedia/Eyespot

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

Before the first eye started to develop in the first organism, did that organism know what it wanted to gain by developing the eye? i.e. to be able to see?

I don't like where this is going ... :pac:

Soul Winner wrote: »

If the knowledge of what it means to be able to see was non existent before the actually seeing ability was attained by the first organism then why did that organism even begin to develop eyes in the first place if it didn’t know then what the advantages of seeing would have been?

The organism doesn't decide if a mutation provides advantage, the environment does. The organism just mutates. In certain enviornments a mutation that provides the ability to sense the direction of light has obvious advantages since light from the sun is the energy most life uses to grow. In others (such as at the bottom of the sea, much less so (though some animals at shallow deeps can sense sunlight and uses that to tell which is up because dead food will be falling from above)

Soul Winner wrote: »

We know in most animals that there is a nerve(s) which connects the eye to the brain, so which came first? The brain? The nerve? Or the eye?

None of them. It doesn't work like that. What came first the precursor to all of these designs.

It is like asking in your new LCD flat screen TV which came first, the LCD screen, the case or the remote control. But if you look at last years TV it isn't the same TV but missing one of these components. It is still a fully functioning TV. And the previous years TV, and the previous year etc etc.

The way you are thinking of evolution, and the way JC and Wolfsbane inaccurately present it, is like thinking that this years TV is a 50s TV that someone has duck taped an LCD screen on to.

If that was the case you would be correct in asking how the heck does the LCD screen interface with the rest of the TV that has no idea that it should be expecting an LCD screen.But of course it doesn't work like that.

Evolution is a process of gradual tweaking the design as a whole. It is not intelligent or directed, but shares some properties of intelligent design such as a TV (I await JC's inevitable ridiculous comment with glee ... ). Designers don't make new things by bolting whole new things on to old things and hoping they some how work together and neither does evolution.

A modern TV looks nothing like a 50s TV, but the designers have not simply bolted new stuff on with duck tape.

This is the flaw of irreducibly complex argument, the idea that evolution just adds stuff whole sale, so the opposite is to just remove stuff whole sale. They say then that this cannot work without part X, as if all evolution did was add part X. Which is like saying that all modern TVs need an LCD screen to display the picture, 50s TVs didn't have LCD screens therefore no TV from the 50s ever worked.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Obviously not the eye so it must have been either the brain or the nerve. If it was the brain then like above, how did it know what it wanted to attain before it attained it?

That is a completely inaccurate way of looking at evolution. The organism doesn't want things. It mutates and the environment works out if that mutation was good or not.

Sam Vimes

Soul Winner wrote: »

Before the first eye started to develop in the first organism, did that organism know what it wanted to gain by developing the eye? i.e. to be able to see? If the knowledge of what it means to be able to see was non existent before the actually seeing ability was attained by the first organism then why did that organism even begin to develop eyes in the first place if it didn’t know then what the advantages of seeing would have been?

I've tried to explain this in terms of the fish. No the organism did not "know". A genetic mutation that it had no control over produced a nerve ending that was sensitive to light. This nerve ending was beneficial to the organism for a variety of reasons so it survived much better than its brethren that did not have this "eye".

Because it survived better it reproduced more, passing on the gene for the light sensitive nerve ending. Eventually the ones without the nerve ending died out.

That's how it works. It's not that it "knows", it's that these uncontrolled mutations happened to be good for the given environment so they survived better and reproduced more, thereby passing on these beneficial mutations

Sam Vimes

Really it's genetic mutation that you don't understand because you don't see how it can produce a nerve ending where there wasn't one before, you see mutation as a bad thing because it mostly produces what we call mutants, ie bad things.

But I'm sure you've seen things like people with 6 fingers or webbed hands. Neither of the parents had these oddities but the child has them because a mutation occurred. Having a 6th finger isn't particularly beneficial but what if this mutation happened in an animal that doesn't have opposable thumbs? Suddenly he'd be able to pick things up and beat his opponents to death and he'd get all the mates. And after a few years he'll have had sex with the whole population and this opposable thumb mutation will take over.

Or what if the webbed fingers mutation happened in an animal that lived near the shore? Suddenly it'd be able to swim better, eat more food, get more energy and have more sex

So the actual production of the thumb or the webbed fingers isn't deliberate, it's a mutation the same way having 6 fingers is a mutation but if this mutation happens to be beneficial it gets passed on.

And that's evolution in a nutshell