“I encountered similar logic a few years ago in a conversation with an old friend, a Darwinist now teaching at a university. He had just returned from the Galápagos, and he told me the standard story of Darwin’s finches. I pointed out that much of what he had just told me was false, and that in any case Darwinian evolution didn’t explain the origin of the finches in the first place. “But it had to be evolution,’ he said, “there’s no other possible explanation.” “Sure there is,” I said, “finches could be designed.” He replied: “But if there’s design there must be a Designer, and we know there isn’t. So it had to be evolution.” Whatever this is, it’s not science.”

It looks as if this comment suppoprts my view above – i.e. it’s either Darwinian evolution or it’s IC. Or the definition of IC has to change.

“Michael Denton has described life as “wheels of complexity within wheels of complexity.” That is, it’s irreducible complexity all the way down.”

You have elegantly captured the gist of what I was trying to say. The point about IC is not some “God of the Gaps” argument – according to the definition Behe uses, all of life is IC. The conclusion is, it’s either evolution or its IC.

If that isn’t the case then the definition of IC needs to be changed.

Does anyone even know what gene or genes is responsible for the vision system? No.

Hermagoras, an English Prof. banned from UD, answered on my blog:

Just FYI, because I can’t comment at UD: Comprehensive Set Of Vision Genes Discovered: Identification Could Help In Diagnosing And Treating Blinding Diseases. This article (six years old) begins, “Harvard Medical School researchers have discovered nearly all the genes responsible for vision, which could help in diagnosing and treating blinding diseases.”

See the full article here.

The article doesn’t even address the question I asked. Now we know why hermagoras is banned from UD- stupidity just gunks up the blog.

By the way here is the rest of the list…

1. Materialism did not predict the big bang. Yet Theism always said the universe was created.

2. Materialism did not predict a sub-atomic (quantum) world that blatantly defies our concepts of time and space. Yet Theism always said the universe is the craftsmanship of God who is not limited by time or space.

3. Materialism did not predict the fact that time, as we understand it, comes to a complete stop at the speed of light, as revealed by Einstein’s special theory of relativity. Yet Theism always said that God exists in a timeless eternity.

4. Materialism did not predict the stunning precision for the underlying universal constants for the universe, found in the Anthropic Principle, which allows life as we know it to be possible. Yet Theism always said God laid the foundation of the universe, so the stunning, unchanging, clockwork precision found for the various universal constants is not at all unexpected for Theism.

5. Materialism predicted that complex life in this universe should be fairly common. Yet statistical analysis of the many required parameters that enable complex life to be possible on earth reveals that the earth is extremely unique in its ability to support complex life in this universe. Theism would have expected the earth to be extremely unique in this universe in its ability to support complex life.

6. Materialism did not predict the fact that the DNA code is, according to Bill Gates, far, far more advanced than any computer code ever written by man. Yet Theism would have naturally expected this level of complexity in the DNA code.

7. Materialism presumed a extremely beneficial and flexible mutation rate for DNA, which is not the case at all. Yet Theism would have naturally presumed such a high if not, what most likely is, complete negative mutation rate to an organism’s DNA.

8. Materialism presumed a very simple first life form. Yet the simplest life ever found on Earth is, according to Geneticist Michael Denton PhD., far more complex than any machine man has made through concerted effort. Yet Theism would have naturally expected this level of complexity for the “simplest” life on earth.

9. Materialism predicted that it took a very long time for life to develop on earth. Yet we find evidence for “complex” photo-synthetic life in the oldest sedimentary rocks ever found on earth (Minik T. Rosing and Robert Frei, “U-Rich Archaean Sea-Floor Sediments from Greenland—Indications of >3700 Ma Oxygenic Photosynthesis”, Earth and Planetary Science Letters 6907 (2003): 1-8) Theism would have naturally expected this sudden appearance of life on earth.

10. Materialism predicted the gradual unfolding of life to be self-evident in the fossil record. The Cambrian Explosion, by itself, destroys this myth. Yet Theism would have naturally expected such sudden appearance of the many different and completely unique fossils in the Cambrian explosion.

11. Materialism predicted that there should be numerous transitional fossils found in the fossil record. Yet fossils are characterized by sudden appearance in the fossil record and overall stability as long as they stay in the fossil record. There is not one clear example of unambiguous transition between major species out of millions of collected fossils. Theism would have naturally expected fossils to suddenly appear in the fossil record with stability afterwards as well as no evidence of transmutation into radically new forms.

As an engineer (and obviously not a biologist), I find these statements greatly oversimplified.

It seems to me that the task at hand is not to explain the evolution of the eye, but to explain the evolution of the visual system. After all, what good is 100% of an eye. A perfect vertebrate eye is no more useful than a television camera. Both need lots of other “stuff” to be useful.

The eye needs to be nourished, therefore it needs new blood vessels. It needs to be put somewhere, therefore it needs an eye socket and associatied support structures including muscles. It needs to send an image to something that can interpret that image: a brain and nerve pathways. And the brain must know how to interpret that image so that the organism can respond appropriately.

Then the eye and its associated systems must be constructed. Construction involves both parts and process. How does the construction plan evolve? Where is this information stored? How is the construction plan executed? Where are the process instructions stored? How are the process instructions executed? Parts must arrive at the right place at the right time.

If all these things must be in place to a have a fully functioning visual system, is not the visual system irreducibly complex? Along with bornagain77, I would hope to see the concept of irreducible complexiity extended to the macroscopic level.

It seems sensible to use the Venus fly-trap to take the concept further and into the realm of nature.

If I remember the story correctly, Behe got interested in the Bacterial Flagellum because despite the fact that a lot of research had already been done, none of the literature offered any plausible explanation for the flagellum’s evolution. The BF was simple/basic enough and well studied enough to thwart attempts at “NDE-of-the-gaps” arguments. That is, it is harder to argue that “we just don’t know enough about the BF, but when we do, it will all fall into place”.

Plausible? The world has yet to see one such explanation. Every one we’ve ever seen has been ludicrously oversimplified. They all quickly and quite naively pass over by leaps and bounds – by mere assumptions – 1000s upon 1000s of intermediate mutational steps.

One of them (by Ma’ayan Semo) that I read was literally hilarious. The conclusions being :”The eye came first. In a fairly real sense, the brain is an outgrowth of the eye“.

He also states: “To begin with the overall structural morphology of extant image forming eyes can be compared, as to similarities in design and development patterns

Poor photon catch and poor photon catch are limitations to this design. But it is still a common design utilised by many diurnal insects [as if they just picked out one over the other on their own - borne]
Their basic design is very similar but their development …
There are 9 different optical principles that have been used in the design of eyes and all 9 are represented more than once in the animal kingdom…
And besides, early life would have run out of organic molecules if it didn’t learn to make its own with photosynthesis…
We can also assume that something like Vitamin A was around ”
emphasis mine

This Phd has eyes sitting like a tumor on some unknown organism with no brain to interpret the light passing through the proverbial “spot”

Just look at the use of design terminology! And even the cognitive word learn! So life learned!??!

Only a Darwinist could believe such nonsensical fairy tales with as evidence his own imagination – for there is no other evidence.

The more I study the human eye, the harder it is to believe that it evolved. Most people see the miracle of sight. I see a miracle of complexity on viewing things at 100,000 times magnification. It is the perfection of this complexity that causes me to baulk at evolutionary theory.

The retina is probably the most complicated tissue in the whole body. Millions of nerve cells interconnect in a fantastic number of ways to form a miniature ‘brain’. Much of what the photoreceptors ‘see’ is interpreted and processed by the retina long before it enters the brain

.
- Dr. George Marshall, University of Glasgow

When the light photon first hits the retina, it interacts with the molecule “11-cis-retinal”. As the photon is absorbed, the 11-cis-retinal molecule goes from an elbow-type position to a straight position.

In a complicated series of reactions, 11-cis-retinal is bound to the protein “rhodopsin” (RH). The change in the shape of the retinal forces changes in the shape of the rhodopsin (RH). This provides the rhodopsin with the ability to interact with the protein “transducin” (T). This interaction creates a situation in which a small organic molecule “GDP” falls off the transducin and is replaced by another molecule “GTP.” The complex of T and GTP has the ability to interact with “phosphodiesterase”, whose shape is changed by the interaction, causing a “cutting” of the molecule “cyclicGMP (cGMP), turning cGMP into 5-prime-GMP (5′-GMP).

Some of the cGMP interacts with a protein “ion channel” to allow sodium ions from the outside into the inside of the cell. The ion channel closes down, the sodium concentration changes, and this changes the voltage across the membrane, causing a current to be sent down the optical nerve to the brain to be interpreted.

In short, this is a much-oversimplified explanation of the “simple light-sensitive spot” of Darwin. Darwin persuaded much of the world that a modern eye evolved gradually from a simpler structure, but he did not even try to explain where his starting point for the simple light sensitive spot came from.

http://www.arn.org/docs/mm/vidgraphics.htm
http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/m.....mistry.htm

The eyes still have it.