Why I don't believe in evolution

[hecd2]

Kevin Walker:

That is a good question, especially on a Catholic forum. The Vatican has made it very clear how the Church views the theory of Evolution.

And the Vatican has made it very clear how the Church dislikes Darwinism. The Church is not threatened by the theory of evolution and takes a very dim view towards Darwinism.

Every Catholic should know the differences between Evolution and Darwinism!

Well Kevin has resigned from the site so he can’t reply, but what on earth is the difference between Evolution and Darwinism? One describes the mechanism by which the other works. Comparing Evolution and Darwinism is like comparing apples and frogs - they are different classes of thing. Evolution is the idea that species are mutable and that all species alive today descend from one or a very small number of common ancestors. Darwinism, in its modern form, is based on the synthesis of genetics and natural selection, known as the Modern Synthesis or neo-Darwinism and is the great integrating principle of modern biology - it is the mechanism by which evolution takes place.

Neo-Darwinism is a scientific theory and, from a purely scientific point of view, it doesn’t matter a jot what the Church thinks about it. Science does not take its cue from anyone’s religious opinions, but submits only to observations of Nature. In the case of neo-Darwinism, of course, the evidence is extremely strong. Kevin is wrong, however, about the Church’s opposition to neo-Darwinism. There is nothing in any Catholic Church doctrine that I am aware of that opposes the theory of neo-Darwinism, which is, to reduce it to a sentence, that the mechanism of evolution is random mutation and Natural (and/or Sexual) Selection.

When, through observation, we reach the conclusion, as we do, that humans alive today *cannot *be biologically decended from two and only two parents, the Catholic Church’s disapproval, such as it is, does not matter in the slightest. The scientific method is based on the extremely powerful principle that we follow where the evidence takes us regardless of whether that scandalises any religious, philosophical or superstitious beliefs, however sincerely or ‘authoritatively’ held. That principle is fundamental to the integrity and the power of science. We make a mistake if we try to use scientific ideas to prove or disprove theological concepts. It is equally misguided to attempt to influence scientific conclusions by applying religious notions. Good scientists are methodological atheists.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[Philip_P]

Angainor, just to clarify, I do accept evolution (wasn’t sure what you meant by the "believe it or not, you are starting to get it)

But the spot does not yet represent an advantage because, like the deer in the headlights, there does not exist a useful survival response. How can the spot spread into the population if it doesn’t represent an advantage?

Keep in mind that evolution is not “directed.” That is, the creatures did not evolve a light sensitive spot in order to avoid predators. Rather, the way it would work would be that some creatures would happen to be born with a genetic mutuation that made them more sensitive to light. This light sensitivity gave them a slight advantage, so they could pass this mutation on down. So really it would be more accurate to say that they happened to be light sensitive, and AS A RESULT, they also happened to be better able to avoid predators/find food/not run into walls (bottom line - survive longer and have more offspring), rather than the other way around.

Now does this challenge the idea of God as creator, since mutations are not “designed?” Only if you conceive of God as a watchmaker. What if we picture God as Genesis does, breathing His spirit into the world and calling forth? Then the staggering variety evolution produces is not random “chance,” but rather a testament to the infinite capacity of Creation to respond to the call of the Creator.

 

[IsaacSheen]

I’ll be honest, I haven’t read very much of this thread but I do have a question I am hoping can be answered.

If evolution is as incredibly slow as they say, yet it is some adaption to environment (for whatever reason) so that the organism can survive, how does evolution happen quickly enough to keep the species from getting wiped out quickly by say, ice age, predators or other developments throughout our multi billion year old planet? I hope I was clear, if not just let me know. Thanks in advance.

 

[vern_humphrey]

IsaacSheen:

I’ll be honest, I haven’t read very much of this thread but I do have a question I am hoping can be answered.

If evolution is as incredibly slow as they say, yet it is some adaption to environment (for whatever reason) so that the organism can survive, how does evolution happen quickly enough to keep the species from getting wiped out quickly by say, ice age, predators or other developments throughout our multi billion year old planet? I hope I was clear, if not just let me know. Thanks in advance.

Evolution is an effect, not a cause. Natural vaiiation occurrs all the time – each individual is unique. So in any species, some members will have some characteristics in a remarkable degree, others barely have it, or not have it at all.

Now suppose the species is suddenly stressed. Two things can happen – one is that it will go extinct. The other is that some members will survive. Those who survive will be those who possess a characteristic that favors survival. If the stress is great and continues, the descendants of the original survivors will also be weeded out – with those possessing survival characteristic most strongly surviving, and those who have it to a lesser degree failing.

The result will be rapid evolution.

On the other hand, in a moderately stable environment, there may be a characteristic that gives the possessor a slight advantage – for example, brilliant plumage that attracts members of the opposite sex. Those members with the brightest and most gaudy display will be more successful at breeding, and those of their descendants who possess the same characteristic in a high degree will also be more successful.

But in such a case, the advantage may be real but slight – perhaps only a percentage point or less. The result will be slower evolution.

 

[Timothy888]

Well the Bible does say ‘that a day to God is ‘as’ a thousand years and a thousand years ‘as’ one day’ 2 Peter 3:8, time is immaterial, creation took 6 days (though in truth with God everything is possible) hmmmm, does that help?

 

[Philip_P]

IsaacSheen:

If evolution is as incredibly slow as they say, yet it is some adaption to environment (for whatever reason) so that the organism can survive, how does evolution happen quickly enough to keep the species from getting wiped out quickly by say, ice age, predators or other developments throughout our multi billion year old planet? I hope I was clear, if not just let me know. Thanks in advance.

As Vern noted, sometimes evolution can be quite rapid. Also, keep in mind that a rapidly changing environment can quickly turn what may have been a neutral variant into a trait which confers a competitive advantage. For instance, suppose some individuals in a certain species had a bit more hair than the majority of the population. The climate cools and food becomes scarcer. Those with less hair have to eat more as they lose more energy through heat. Meanwhile, those with more hair can get by with less food, as they lose less heat. It doesn’t have to be a huge difference, just enough that the “more hair” variant now becomes dominant, rather than the minority.

It also may help to keep in mind that the total number of species that have ever lived is mind-bogglingly large. For instance, just today I read that they just discovered yet another species of dinosaur. There have been many, many different forms of life on this planet, more even than are preserved in the fossil record.

 

[IsaacSheen]

Wow, thanks Vern and Philip. Those are great responses. I’m having trouble grasping one thing, please help me out…
Vernhumphrey:

Evolution is an effect, not a cause. Natural vaiiation occurrs all the time – each individual is unique. So in any species, some members will have some characteristics in a remarkable degree, others barely have it, or not have it at all.Now suppose the species is suddenly stressed. Two things can happen – one is that it will go extinct. The other is that some members will survive.

Those who survive will be those who possess a characteristic that favors survival. If the stress is great and continues, the descendants of the original survivors will also be weeded out – with those possessing survival characteristic most strongly surviving, and those who have it to a lesser degree failing.

Is this evolution coupled with natural selection? If evolution is an effect…why are there variances to begin with? Doesn’t there need to be a cause for an effect? Please bear with me, no one has ever taught me the nitty gritty of evolution.

 

[vern_humphrey]

IsaacSheen:

Is this evolution coupled with natural selection? If evolution is an effect…why are there variances to begin with?

“Natural selection” is one name for the process. Remember, Evolution is what happens. “The Theory of Evolution” is our explanation of how and why it happens. Like all fields of science, there can be more than one theory constructed from the same observational data – all more or less variations on a theme.

In sexual reproduction, the parents provide RNA (Riboneuclic Acid) and RNA strands combine to form DNA (Dioxy Riboneuclic Acid.) DNA is of course the building block of live. A sperm is essentially a bundle of RNA, and it combines with the mother’s RNA in the egg.

The DNA molecule is very long. It has been described as a spiral staircase, joined by the steps, one strand of RNA on each side. The “steps” are coded “G,” “A,” “T” and “C” – they make up a sort of 4-letter alphabet. Sections of the DNA are the genes, and it is through these coded genes that heredity is expressed. Some genes are recessive, some dominent, and they way they are expressed results in the physical characteristics of the individual.

The result is great variation in species. Think of your highschool class – some kids were tall, some short, some thin, some fat, some dark, some fair, and so on.

The great length of DNA means there is far more information in the molecule than needed. There is plenty of room therefore for new genes to become active. This happens when there is a strong selection for a particular characteristic.

IsaacSheen:

Doesn’t there need to be a cause for an effect? Please bear with me, no one has ever taught me the nitty gritty of evolution.

There are lots of causes for evolution – for example, we know the dinosaurs were wiped out when a comet hit what is now the Yucatan Peninsula, creating a dust cloud that took years to dissapate and changing the climate. Dinosaurs died, smaller, warm-blooded mammals survived.

Another cause is genetic drift – if a few members of a species are isolated (say on an island), their descendents will not have the genetic (name removed by moderator)ut from other members. If, for example, several of the isolated individuals are redheads with blue eyes, there will be a lot more redheaded, blue eyed babies.

A third cause is slight advantage – we discussed how a bird with brighter plumage might have a better chance of finding a mate.

 

[Steve_Andersen]

RikasAngel:

….Athiests use evolution as proof of their philosophy. However, if you examine Evolution closely it favors creation.

No, not really
It says nothing about it at all
It can only deal with natural issues…not supernatural ones
Kind of like asking a thermometer which way is north…wrong tool for the job

RikasAngel:

…. Undirected random forces cannot create constant complex diversity.

Well
(1) Yes they can, and
(2) The process isn’t completely “random”. Organic chemistry/biochemistry is deterministic. You may choose to believe that that determinism is the Hand of God but it is not required for the theory to hold.

RikasAngel:

….Intelligent Desin is the Creation theory that I favor. Basically, it says that all the natural forces of the Universe are directed by a Supreme Intelligence. God. This satisfys Occum’s Razor, because it is simpler to believe that a Supreme Intelligence Directed the formation of the Universe, rather than just random coincidence.

Well no, since ID usually states that things happened as the fossil record shows they did but with the added assumption that God was guiding the process, it adds an extra layer to the explanation. Besides, since God is supposed to be eternal, transcendent, and beyond our comprehension; He is far more complex than mere measurable natural forces.

Remember that scientific theories are really explanations of things. An “explanation” which does not actually explain the operating mechanism is really no explanation at all Occam’s Razor can only be used to choose between two theories that both successfully explain the data. It is an apples an oranges thing

And yes, for those of you whose irony meters are also twitching, William of Occam originally used this principle to show that it was impossible to deduce God’s existence through reason alone, so one would have to take it purely on faith.

For all its good intentions Intelligent Design shoots itself in the foot because
(1) Despite what Occam (and others) has said it supposes that there is a purely rational approach to God…and
(2) Its supporters generally suppose that the Intelligence behind it all is the Christian God.

I choose to believe that God created the world

I can’t** prove** it; I believe it

He took 15 billion years to do it and He evolved species through natural selection (piece of cake for God really) Or he chose to make a world that looks indistinguishable from a world that’s 15 billion years old (piece of cake for God really) so we better believe it’s that old if we know what’s good for us.

 

[hecd2]

vern humphrey:

In sexual reproduction, the parents provide RNA (Riboneuclic Acid) and RNA strands combine to form DNA (Dioxy Riboneuclic Acid.) DNA is of course the building block of live. A sperm is essentially a bundle of RNA, and it combines with the mother’s RNA in the egg.

The DNA molecule is very long. It has been described as a spiral staircase, joined by the steps, one strand of RNA on each side. The “steps” are coded “G,” “A,” “T” and “C” – they make up a sort of 4-letter alphabet. Sections of the DNA are the genes, and it is through these coded genes that heredity is expressed. Some genes are recessive, some dominent, and they way they are expressed results in the physical characteristics of the individual.

The result is great variation in species. Think of your highschool class – some kids were tall, some short, some thin, some fat, some dark, some fair, and so on.

The great length of DNA means there is far more information in the molecule than needed. There is plenty of room therefore for new genes to become active. This happens when there is a strong selection for a particular characteristic.

I admire Vern’s adherence to evolutionary theory, but if he takes a didactic tone, it would be well if he actually knew what he was talking about. Much of the quote above is pure nonsense.

Parents do not provide RNA, and RNA does not combine to form DNA. In fact each parent provides one set of chromosomes (in humans, that is 23 chromosmes). Each chromosome is made up of double stranded DNA… A human sperm contains 23 chromosomes, each one of which is a double strand of DNA. Ditto, an egg. A fertilised cell and all normal somatic cells in a human being contain two sets of 23 chromosomes each of which is made of double stranded DNA.

RNA is present in normal cells - it is used in a number of processes including the translation of DNA to protein. The first step in this process is to copy the DNA, base by base pair to messenger RNA (or mRNA). RNA is also used in the ribosome to translate from mRNA to the protein via transfer RNA or tRNA.

The DNA molecule is not made of a spiral staircase with a strand of RNA on each side. In fact DNA is a double helix with two complementary strands of bases.

The length of DNA doesn’t provide space for new genes to become active per se - new genes arise, generally, by duplication; then one of the duplicated genes is free to mutate and fix a new function.

DNA is not ‘dioxyribonuclic’ acid but deoxyribose nucleic acid.

To conclude, I can’t fault Vern’s motivation, but it’s important if one takes a instructional attitude that one at least gets the basics right.

Go here for an introduction to evolutionary theory, including an introduction to the basics of DNA, RNA, proteins and molecular biology in general:
evolutionpages.com/intro_evolution.htm

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[infoguy]

…

When it is written,

[A]re you aware that the Catholic Church does not have a problem with the theory of evolution?

My guess would be that the Church does not have a problem with evolution in regards to microevolution, the development and changes within species over time.

Macroevolution refers to the Darwinist theory that life on earth has appeared and grown by chance/mutation.
This is very problematic. In fact, Intelligent Design debunks this theory.

Someone posted the example about the development of the eye.

Here’s another one: the bacterial flagellum in the living cell, with which about 40 different kinds of proteins are needed to produce a working one.

It is a rotary engine capable of 100,000 rpm, hardwired into a sensory mechanism so that it gets feedback from its surrounding environment.
Scott Minnich, molecular biologist from the University of Idaho, describes the Flagella motor; ‘It has two gears, forward and reverse, water-cooled, proton motive force, it has a stator, it has a rotor, it has a u-joint, it has a drive shaft, a propeller, and they function as these parts. It’s not convenient that we give them these names – it’s truly their function…’

wvi.net.au/preview/2/mystery/

Darwinists want to say that was formed by “chance”?? Uh-uh. No way.

…

 

[Steve_Andersen]

infoguy:

…
Darwinists want to say that was formed by “chance”?? Uh-uh. No way.

…

No “they” say it evolved through the mechanism of natural selection
It is a deterministic process…not “chance” like flipping a coin

Remember, simple as they may be, modern bacterium are also the product of 4 billion years of evolution.

micro…macro feh! :banghead:
help me to be patient, Lord

 

[PhilVaz]

infoguy << Here’s another one: the bacterial flagellum in the living cell, with which about 40 different kinds of proteins are needed to produce a working one. >>

It was and still is one of Mike Behe’s best cases for “design” but the evolution of the BF has since been written about: Why Intelligent Design Fails by Young/Edis and Debating Design by Dembski/Ruse, see the chapter by (Catholic biologist) Kenneth Miller.

And here is a TalkOrigins/TalkDesign attempt at explanation

Evolution in Brownian Space: model for the origin of the bacterial flagellum

BTW, “intelligent design” is more than saying “God guides evolution” – that is “theistic evolution” which I happen to accept. The level of “God’s involvement” is where you get into conflict with science. What ID says specifically is that an unnamed and unidentified “intelligence” designed or created (from scratch, from nothing, out of a “puff of smoke”) the elephant, the whale, the human body, OR at least in Behe’s case, the bacterial flagellum and other complex things. But even Roman Catholic and evangelical Christian scientists have criticized that as non-scientific since it introduces something supernatural which can’t be tested.

BTW, Behe accepts all the rest of evolutionary theory, including the age of the earth, macroevolution including human evolution. He has no problem with common descent and says “natural selection explains many things” (see Darwin’s Black Box, page 5). Behe has also stated (see Uncommon Dissent edited by Dembski, page 143-144) that Darwinism (natural selection), theistic evolution, or his “intelligent design” idea are all acceptable Catholic positions.

For the latest official statement, see the International Theological Commission "Human Persons Created in the Image of God" published July 2004, by a group headed by then Cardinal Ratzinger, now Benedict XVI, especially paragraphs 62-70. Paragraph 69 briefly discusses the “intelligent design” issue. Evolution or “descent with modification” (Darwin’s definition) or common descent (including human evolution) is called “virtually certain” – while adding some caveats:

“The nub of this currently lively disagreement involves scientific observation and generalization concerning whether the available data support inferences of design or chance, and cannot be settled by theology…Divine causality and created causality radically differ in kind and not only in degree. Thus, even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within God’s providential plan for creation…In the Catholic perspective, neo-Darwinians who adduce random genetic variation and natural selection as evidence that the process of evolution is absolutely unguided are straying beyond what can be demonstrated by science. Divine causality can be active in a process that is both contingent and guided. Any evolutionary mechanism that is contingent can only be contingent because God made it so. An unguided evolutionary process – one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence – simply cannot exist…”

Sounds like theistic evolution (a truly contingent natural process falls within God’s plan), and this is the statement approved by Ratzinger (now Benedict XVI) last year.

Phil P

 

[PhilVaz]

infoguy << This is very problematic. In fact, Intelligent Design debunks this theory. >>

Macroevolution is only problematic if you’ve never read a science textbook, relied solely on creationist sites like AnswersInGenesis, ICR, Kolbe Center or other pseudo-science, and haven’t memorized the following sites and articles

Evidences for Macroevolution by Theobald and TalkOrigins

Introduction to Evolution by Alec of EvolutionPages.com

And where Cardinal Ratzinger (now the Pope) says "Evolution is virtually certain, deal with it you creationists." (see paragraphs 62 - 70). Sorry he doesn’t imply the elephant, the whale, the human body, or even the bacterial flagellum was created in a puff of smoke. The soul yeah, but that’s a theological, not a scientific question.

“While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5-4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism.” (Ratzinger’s International Theological Commission, “Human Persons Created in the Image of God”, July 2004, paragraph 63)

I.E. “Evolution is a fact, and I am infallible.” – Pope Benedict XVI

And don’t forget the Firing Line Creation-Evolution debate, I transcribed the thing, I may as well advertise

Phil P

 

[Angainor]

Philip P:

Keep in mind that evolution is not “directed.” That is, the creatures did not evolve a light sensitive spot in order to avoid predators. Rather, the way it would work would be that some creatures would happen to be born with a genetic mutuation that made them more sensitive to light. This light sensitivity gave them a slight advantage, so they could pass this mutation on down.

I understand. But it is the idea that the light sensitivity gave a slight advantage that I would have to have demonstrated to me. The creature born with a genetic mutation that made it more sensitive to light would be just as likely (if not more likely) to ignore or move towards a preadator it has never before been able to “see” than to move away from the preadator.

The critter just now gained the ability to detect the preadator by way of genetic mutation. It is new. Just like automobiles are new to deer. Deer happen to have the wrong survival response to the new danger of cars. What are the odds that the critter would both gain light sensitivity and also happen to have the right survival response to the new information? I don’t know. I don’t know if any scientists have even adressed the quesiton.

I imagine the odds are low enough that it would never happen by chance, but odds are nothing to God.

 

[Steve_Andersen]

Angainor:

I understand. But it is the idea that the light sensitivity gave a slight advantage that I would have to have demonstrated to me. The creature born with a genetic mutation that made it more sensitive to light would be just as likely (if not more likely) to ignore or move towards a preadator it has never before been able to “see” than to move away from the preadator…

You’re creating a false dilemma again
Just because things use vision to get away from predators now is no guarantee that was what it was used for then
Sensitivity to light has numerous implications …”seeing” is just part of the picture

As I said before the Sun is a fairly prominent feature in our landscape. It is not really a leap to say that “knowing” where it is has advantages.
IR warms things and UV initiates certain chemical reactions

Many things are light sensitive on the molecular level (ever wonder why many beverages are sold in colored glass bottles?) so it is not just an ability of multi-cellular organisms

Even things without specialized “eye spots” are light sensitive. That is where the process begins. Eyes just didn’t magically appear on a slug one day.

And as for an organism not knowing what to make of an capability “it never had before”…it was born that way so it always had that capability

BTW that part about an organism being just as likely to ignore or move towards a predator is part of the deterministic nature of the process. All outcomes aren’t equal; those that linked the light sensitivity to a beneficial response were the ones who lived to pass on the trait.

 

[RikasAngel]

Hello All,

I apologize for speaking in absolute term in my previous post. Allow me to explain in more objective terms:

Firstly, in terms of our Catholic Faith, it is not a matter of Othrodoxy to believe in the Literal Seven Day Creation. The Church allows us to decide for ourselves whether we believe in instantaneous or long-term creation. For us as Catholics we are required to Believe that God brought all things into existance.

When Evolution is used to “disprove” the existance of God, that is where it all hits the fan. It is true that Evolution occurs as a result of “determinate” factors, i.e. Natural & Sexual Selection. However, the key question is whether these forces are directed by an outside power or not. Science cannot prove if it is or not. That is the key.

Science is the study of the Observable world. So as C.S. Lewis points out, God, if he is God, would exist outside of the observable world. So science cannot make the grand leap and say that all things in the Universe come as a result natural causes rather than supernatural ones. Which is exactly what Science professors teach. That is not a fact that can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Which means it cannot be professed as absolute truth. It is only a theory.

Intelligent Design is an oppossing theory. It theorizes that all “Natural” phenomena are a result of purposeful direction rather than sheer undirected chance. What it boils down to is that Evolution, in an of itself, does not hurt or help either side of the God debate. Each side can claim the natural world as proof of their belief. Which means Atheism and Theism will have to duke it out philisophically. Which in my opinion, is where the question of whether God exists belongs.

 

[vern_humphrey]

hecd2:

I admire Vern’s adherence to evolutionary theory, but if he takes a didactic tone, it would be well if he actually knew what he was talking about. Much of the quote above is pure nonsense.

Parents do not provide RNA, and RNA does not combine to form DNA. In fact each parent provides one set of chromosomes (in humans, that is 23 chromosmes). Each chromosome is made up of double stranded DNA… A human sperm contains 23 chromosomes, each one of which is a double strand of DNA. Ditto, an egg. A fertilised cell and all normal somatic cells in a human being contain two sets of 23 chromosomes each of which is made of double stranded DNA.

RNA is present in normal cells - it is used in a number of processes including the translation of DNA to protein. The first step in this process is to copy the DNA, base by base pair to messenger RNA (or mRNA). RNA is also used in the ribosome to translate from mRNA to the protein via transfer RNA or tRNA.

The DNA molecule is not made of a spiral staircase with a strand of RNA on each side. In fact DNA is a double helix with two complementary strands of bases.

The length of DNA doesn’t provide space for new genes to become active per se - new genes arise, generally, by duplication; then one of the duplicated genes is free to mutate and fix a new function.

DNA is not ‘dioxyribonuclic’ acid but deoxyribose nucleic acid.

To conclude, I can’t fault Vern’s motivation, but it’s important if one takes a instructional attitude that one at least gets the basics right.

Go here for an introduction to evolutionary theory, including an introduction to the basics of DNA, RNA, proteins and molecular biology in general:
evolutionpages.com/intro_evolution.htm

Alec
evolutionpages.com

Thanks for the correction.

 

[Angainor]

Steve Andersen:

You’re creating a false dilemma again
Just because things use vision to get away from predators now is no guarantee that was what it was used for then
Sensitivity to light has numerous implications …”seeing” is just part of the picture

In my defence, I am simply going with the description I am given on how the eye could have evolved. I realize it is not exactly rigorous science, but yet this description seems to be the best science can do at the moment.

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

The “tiny survival advantage” is given as the event that gets the evolution of the eye started. It is the event that overcomes the coefficient of static friction and allows evolution to start taking place. I dispute the “tiny survival advantage” exists. You may be starting on the right track in trying to answer my concern, by trying to tie in other affects. Maybe. I suspect you are simply replacing one problem with another equally tough one.
Steve Andersen:

As I said before the Sun is a fairly prominent feature in our landscape. It is not really a leap to say that “knowing” where it is has advantages.

It is a leap. It may be a small leap, but it is a leap that I don’t think science has addressed. Animals are stupid. Simple animals are thoroughly stupid. I just do not think it is easy as assuming the ability to detect the sun is an advantage in itself. It would have to be demonstrated to me. That is all I’m saying.

 

[Steve_Andersen]

Angainor:

In my defence, I am simply going with the description I am given on how the eye could have evolved. I realize it is not exactly rigorous science, but yet this description seems to be the best science can do at the moment.

I beg to differ, a quick summary from a popular science TV show is not the best science can do

Angainor:

The “tiny survival advantage” is given as the event that gets the evolution of the eye started. It is the event that overcomes the coefficient of static friction and allows evolution to start taking place.

Again you missed point I was trying to make, I’m sorry if I’m not being clear.

It didn’t allow “evolution to start taking place” evolution is always taking place
The is no biological equivalent of static friction

From simple molecules being sensitive to light to the eyes you’re reading this with there is a common thread

Angainor:

I dispute the “tiny survival advantage” exists.

Then why is almost everything on the planet sensitive to light?

Angainor:

…….It is a leap. It may be a small leap, but it is a leap that I don’t think science has addressed. Animals are stupid. Simple animals are thoroughly stupid. I just do not think it is easy as assuming the ability to detect the sun is an advantage in itself. It would have to be demonstrated to me. That is all I’m saying.

OK, what would you accept as a demonstration?