Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true

[rossum]

That does not disprove my point, which is being successful by chance many times is very unlikely, unless a super intelligent being is over seeing the whole process.

Natural selection is not a chance process. If you treat evolution as a chance process then you will misunderstand it, and your calculations will get the wrong answers. Natural selection weeds out wrong answers, leaving a selection of various right answers, which then go on to produce the next generation.

Even if that process was true (which again I doubt, given the low chance of surviving with a under developed eye) intelligence is clearly needed to make those improvements.

No it is not needed. Some molluscs, though not Nautilus, have eyes with no lens, but filled with jelly. The lens evolved from the front part of that jelly filling.

You solve the problem of the origin of complexity by proposing an infinitely complex intelligence. That is not a solution to the problem.

 

[John10]

Natural selection weeds out wrong answers

And who instructed natural selection right from wrong ?

Even Darwin himself realized this
“To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.”

From the Origin of Species, CHAPTER VI–DIFFICULTIES OF THE THEORY

 

[PickyPicky]

Even Darwin himself realized this

You quote Darwin, but in that misleading way common to opponents of evolutionary theory. Do you know what Darwin went on to say? Were your sources sufficiently honest to complete the quote?

 

[PickyPicky]

Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.

And there you have it, It may on the face of it be contrary to common sense, or “insuperable by our imagination”, but there you have it.

It’s a shame your source did not quote Darwin honestly.

 

[John10]

His presupposition that evolution was true, led him to believe that the increasing complexity of the eye was due to natural selection, and he left it at that. The how of this supposed progression was not explained by Darwin.

 

[John10]

It was honestly quoted, Darwin had doubts about his theory, which he later on tried to solve.

 

[buffalo]

Irreducible Complexity is a red herring.

Ir makes for good storytelling. Show the complete stepwise path evo took to the eye.

We also see the eye “evolving” several times.

 

[buffalo]

Natural Selection is now the Darwinist god. It can do anything. It takes blind faith to actually believe this.

 

[PickyPicky]

No, it is not Darwin having doubts (although any scientist will be constantly questioning his findings). It is from the same section of Origin you quoted, where he deals with difficulties that might be argued from “organs of extreme perfection”, and answers those difficulties. To quote him as you have is thoroughly misleading and shamefully bad practice.

 

[rossum]

And who instructed natural selection right from wrong ?

No instruction needed, just simple mathematics. If you have six grandchildren then there are more copies of your genes in the population than someone who has one or no grandchildren. Repeat over many generations and there are more and more copies of those advantageous genes.

Even Darwin himself realized this

“To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.”

This is a long running creationist quotemine, which lies by omission. I suspect that you did not get that quote from Darwin, but from a secondary source. Be careful of using secondary sources without checking the original.

Here is how Darwin continued from where your source cut him off:

… When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated; but I may remark that, as some of the lowest organisms, in which nerves cannot be detected, are capable of perceiving light, it does not seem impossible that certain sensitive elements in their sarcode should become aggregated and developed into nerves, endowed with this special sensibility.

I suggest that you go and read the original. That way you will not be fooled by misleading quotes, which those of us on this side of the argument have seen many times before. Even Answers in Genesis thinks that the quote you used is misleading, see Didn’t Darwin Call the Evolution of the Eye Absurd?.

 

[John10]

And who instructed natural selection right from wrong ?

If no instructions are needed then it is a random process.

 

[rossum]

Show the complete stepwise path evo took to the eye.

Certainly. See the Nilsson and Pelger (1994) paper which I referenced above in post #9551.

Pay more attention in future please. Asking questions that have already been answered wastes everyone’s time.

 

[John10]

As I’ve stated before his common sense kicked in with the eye problem, however he would not self-defeat his own theory and therefore had to come up with an explanation. He never however never addresses the how of those numerous graduations from simple and imperfect eyes to a complex and perfect one.

To be clear, I believe in microevolution, however I do not believe in the macroevolution or molecule to man theory.

 

[rossum]

If no instructions are needed then it is a random process.

No, it is more like compound interest. As an example, take a stable population of 1000 organisms; on average each organism has one descendant in the next generation. Now let a beneficial mutation appear with a 1% advantage, so the mutated organism will have on average 1.01 descendants in the next generation. For comparison I include ten other mutated organism with a 1% disadvantage. Start with a population of 10 deleterious, 989 neutral (or unmutated) and 1 beneficial mutations. See what happens if we let the population reproduce for one thousand generations:

Generation  Deleterious   Neutral   Beneficial
----------  -----------   ------    ----------
     0         10.0       989.00          1.00
     1          9.9       989.00          1.01
    10          9.0       989.00          1.10
   100          3.7       989.00          2.70
   500          0.1       989.00        144.77
   700          0.0       989.00       1059.16
  1000          0.0       989.00      20959.16

That is how natural selection amplifies and spreads beneficial mutations through a population. You can also see that the deleterious mutations are eliminated and do not spread, despite being more common initially.

This is a very simple model and easy to set up on a spreadsheet, but it is enough to show the advantage natural selection gives a beneficial mutation and how it spreads through a population over the generations.

 

[rossum]

He never however never addresses the how of those numerous graduations from simple and imperfect eyes to a complex and perfect one.

Other scientists since Darwin have addressed the issue, as with the Nilsson and Pelger paper I referenced above.

And the human eye is far from “perfect”. We cannot see as well as an eagle, we cannot see ultra-violet light, as some birds can and we cannot detect polarized light as bees can. Our eye is sufficient for our needs, which is all that it needs to be.

 

[John10]

Now let a beneficial mutation appear with a 1% advantage

However somebody had to set the correct initial conditions, plus let natural selection know what is an advantage, that still requires intelligence. So even if I accepted macroevolution (which I do not) it does nothing to prove against the need for a super intelligent being.

 

[John10]

Our eye is sufficient for our needs, which is all that it needs to be.

The eye is essentially a living camera of extraordinary sensitivity, yet it is much more superior to any manmade camera.

Each part of the eye has unique responsibilities to allow us to see. The eye is similar to a camera, yet can do much more. The eye is self-lubricating, self-repairing, and self-cleaning.

Not to mention the eyes have existed long before any sort of camera was ever invented, and cameras required a lot of collective work from many very intelligent individuals.

Evolutionists often leave out the key ingredient necessary to account for an increase in complexity: information, and that can only come from intelligence.

 

[GiftofMercy]

But Satan did God’s will when he destroyed Job’s family and workers. God Himself gave them over to Satan to do whatever he wanted. Thus Satan’s actions then were in accordance with God’s expressed will. How can actions in accordance with God’s will not be good?

the story of Job.

Satan as a name, an entity, a proper noun, is not mentioned at all in the Hebrew Bible. Christians know the Hebrew Bible as the Old Testment. In the Hebrew Bible The term ‘adversary’ or ‘the adversary’ is used. This can mean a human or supernatural adversary. This is pronounced ‘hasaat aan’. We first encounter this term ‘the adversary’ in the Book of Job Chapter 1 v 6
It is in New Testament times and firstly in inter testiment times that Satan begins to be named as Satan.

I am surprised no one has brought up the translational debates going on that surround the first few chapters of Genesis in this massive thread. There are quite a few interesting translational differences in verses between the Hebrew and English translations. The first is apt to comment on here.

The first three words in Genesis, as translated in the ESV are ‘In the beginning’. The first three words in the Hebrew Bible, in Biblical Hebrew are ‘When God began to create’
This whole issue hides a complex and protracted debate about the interpretation of Gen 1:1-3. There are 4 basic arguments in play at the moment. They have huge significance for the theology of these chapters.
They centre around 'what does it mean for God to be Creator. For example in the Hebrew Bible, verse 2, as a Biblical aside, describes the conditions when God began to create. Translated Versions describe a sequence of events.

 

[rossum]

plus let natural selection know what is an advantage, that still requires intelligence.

How does gravity know which way is down? That requires intelligence. You are anthropomorphising a natural process.

Natural selection does not need to “know”. It just counts grandchildren. More grandchildren means more copies of your genes in future generations. Beneficial genes make more copies then deleterious or neutral genes.

No intelligence is needed, just grandchildren.

 

[rossum]

yet it is much more superior to any manmade camera.

Very obviously wrong. Why do you expect something so obviously wrong to convince anyone with even the slightest scientific knowledge? We have X-ray cameras and our eyes cannot see X-rays. We have infra-red cameras and our eyes cannot see infra red.

You are making too many obvious errors in your posts. You need to think about what you are saying more carefully first. You are not preaching to the choir here.

Evolutionists often leave out the key ingredient necessary to account for an increase in complexity: information

Evolutionary processes are perfectly capable of increasing Shanon information, a gene duplication will do that. Likewise they can increase Kolmogorov information, gene duplication followed by a mutation in one of the copies will do that. If you are using a different measure of information then you will need to specify it objectively so it can be measured before and after any change to see if it has increased or not.

You cannot talk about increasing information unless you can measure it. Otherwise you cannot know if your statement is correct.