Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Müller Cells are Wavelength-Dependent Wave-Guides

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

The best arguments for evolution have always been from dysteleology. This world, as evolutionists explain, just does not appear to have been designed. Consider our retina for example. Isn’t it all backwards, with the photocells—which detect the incoming light—pointed toward the rear and behind several layers of cell types and neural processes. Does this make any sense? Surely such a claptrap would offend any “tidy-minded engineer,” as Richard Dawkins put it. But such arguments have never worked and the history of evolutionary thought is full their failures. Aside from the fact they are metaphysical and not open to scientific testing, they inevitably are simply false. The “bad retina design” argument, as discussed herehereherehere andhere for example  Read more

Comments
Thank you, Silver Asiatic. I would also think that with such an approach, students would have a greater appreciation and respect for ecology and conservation. -QQuerius
August 28, 2014
August
08
Aug
28
28
2014
12:09 AM
12
12
09
AM
PDT
Incidentally, wouldn’t it be interesting for a biology course to begin with the concept of studying an interdependent ecosystem rather than the usual cells to systems/organs to classification?
That's a very interesting and good idea which is actually much more friendly to the creationist/ID view than to evolution. In the evolutionary-view, there really is no balance or need to preserve variety of species. Evolution cannot think ahead to know which less-fit species to preserve in order to preserve the overall ecosystem.Silver Asiatic
August 27, 2014
August
08
Aug
27
27
2014
05:42 AM
5
05
42
AM
PDT
EvilSnack noticed,
Which is certainly something that a designer of an entire ecosystem would take into consideration when designing.
Good point. From what I've read and from personal experience, modeling a stable ecosystem is difficult. Even after prodigious tweaking of the model parameters, I was never able to mitigate the ever-increasing amplitude of the oscillating populations to the point of damaging the carrying capacity of the simulated ecosystem. The result was mass extinction. There seems to be some fine tuning involved, including competent feedback mechanisms. So, no flying lions that breed like rabbits. ;-) Incidentally, wouldn't it be interesting for a biology course to begin with the concept of studying an interdependent ecosystem rather than the usual cells to systems/organs to classification? -QQuerius
August 26, 2014
August
08
Aug
26
26
2014
10:57 PM
10
10
57
PM
PDT
groovamos observed
Whoa, whoa there. See, nature being ignorant, was still able to come up with the “Brights”, the most intelligent among us, who by the way created intelligence, since nature is stupid. And they have so cornered the idea market and of course they deserve to rule it.
Hmmm, I see your point. So, when fact and reason abandons them, they still insist on ruling, but by arrogant argumentation, relentless repetition, and vacuous vituperation. How charming. ;-) -QQuerius
August 26, 2014
August
08
Aug
26
26
2014
10:28 PM
10
10
28
PM
PDT
Joe @50
Just because something has degraded doesn’t mean the system was poorly designed.
Oh. Planned obsolescence.Acartia_bogart
August 26, 2014
August
08
Aug
26
26
2014
02:03 PM
2
02
03
PM
PDT
Q: What their relentless assertions do accomplish, however, is to expand the concept of pathetic far beyond its original definition. Whoa, whoa there. See, nature being ignorant, was still able to come up with the "Brights", the most intelligent among us, who by the way created intelligence, since nature is stupid. And they have so cornered the idea market and of course they deserve to rule it.groovamos
August 26, 2014
August
08
Aug
26
26
2014
01:07 PM
1
01
07
PM
PDT
And also remember that a designer may deliberately make use of an apparently inefficient design because the overall system in which that design will be placed runs better when one of its parts runs at a lower efficiency. For instance, I am assured that one of the proteins involved in photosynthesis is quite inefficient. However, this means that a given biomass of plant matter must have a correspondingly higher amount of total protein in order to survive, thereby increasing (however slight the increase may be) the amount of protein available to herbivores. Which is certainly something that a designer of an entire ecosystem would take into consideration when designing. So no, not even a feature that really is inefficient is disproof of a designer.EvilSnack
August 26, 2014
August
08
Aug
26
26
2014
05:41 AM
5
05
41
AM
PDT
A-B,
But I am not a designer, so what do I know?
Bingo. groovamos,
Quite entertaining to me when materialists insist nature created itself on one hand, but is rather stupid on the other hand. Stupid nature was so stupid that it couldn’t help but create itself.
Yeah, pretty ironic, isn't it. Well put. On the one hand, we have what's probably the most efficient code in the universe that's left no evidence of evolving in millions, perhaps billions of years. We have an avalanche of complex, interdependent chemical cycles, astonishing subcellular structures, and many other organic technologies that far surpass anything that humans have ever designed or manufactured by many orders of magnitude. Then, we have some biologists who have the temerity to assert that because they don't understand some aspect of an efficient and functional technology, it musta been poorly designed. Somehow, they've achieved a level of self-deception for which rational argument, blatant evidence, and frequent embarrassment have had no effect on their ideology, and thus they continue to assert their unsupported opinions and wild speculations as if their mere repetition somehow makes them more credible. What their relentless assertions do accomplish, however, is to expand the concept of pathetic far beyond its original definition. -QQuerius
August 25, 2014
August
08
Aug
25
25
2014
11:22 PM
11
11
22
PM
PDT
Jerry: We frequently see runaway species destroying ecology Anyone ever see the ecology destroyed? I have not, nor have read of such. I have never seen a destroyed planet either. Rather interesting how both have been postulated. When neither can be verified when the potential verifiers would be all dead. bogart: Again, only a big moron.., a “design” that increases the likelihood of macular degeneration and detached retina…MORON. I'm wondering where a designer of bogart's talent would plumb the vascular system for the light sensitive cells in mammals which must supply the highest by far rate of metabolic firepower of any cell in the organism. Quite entertaining to me when materialists insist nature created itself on one hand, but is rather stupid on the other hand. Stupid nature was so stupid that it couldn't help but create itself.groovamos
August 25, 2014
August
08
Aug
25
25
2014
10:08 PM
10
10
08
PM
PDT
Box, yes it is good design to require cells to get around the original poor design. But I am not a designer, so what do I know?Acartia_bogart
August 25, 2014
August
08
Aug
25
25
2014
08:39 PM
8
08
39
PM
PDT
#55 "Will the Real MORON Please Stand Up?"Box
August 25, 2014
August
08
Aug
25
25
2014
07:03 PM
7
07
03
PM
PDT
Sorry Querious, but a liar such as myself has a much better understanding of logic and rationale than you do. Connective tissue in front of detection system? Only a moron would suggest that this was ideal. Big frigg'n nerve going through the middle of the retina. Again, only a big moron.., a "design" that increases the likelihood of macular degeneration and detached retina...MORON. An invertebrate with a "design" that doesn't have to deal with these weaknesses? Sounds like a VISA moment to me.Acartia_bogart
August 25, 2014
August
08
Aug
25
25
2014
06:49 PM
6
06
49
PM
PDT
Our textbooks like to illustrate evolution with examples of optimal design - nearly perfect mimicry of a dead leaf by a butterfly or of a poisonous species by a palatable relative. But ideal design is a lousy argument for evolution, for it mimics the postulated action of an omnipotent creator. Odd arrangements and funny solutions are the proof of evolution - paths that a sensible God would never tread ... - SJG, The Panda's Thumb p. 20
Mung
August 25, 2014
August
08
Aug
25
25
2014
06:20 PM
6
06
20
PM
PDT
"May be true once you have the eey but it does not explain how all these different eyes popped into existence so suddenly and then stopped developing." An eye-popping event, to be sure.Mung
August 25, 2014
August
08
Aug
25
25
2014
06:05 PM
6
06
05
PM
PDT
Reciprocating Bill, Does Gould have anything to say about the origin of the eye in either of those books that's actually testable?Mung
August 25, 2014
August
08
Aug
25
25
2014
06:03 PM
6
06
03
PM
PDT
Joe @6 and Siver Asiatic @23 have it nailed. Consider a statement from a critic that sounds like this: "The side of a hammer that's shaped like a claw is extremely poorly designed for driving nails." The above statement is not a poor reflection on the designer, but rather a demonstration that the critic is arrogant and an idiot. But how much more advanced is the human eye than a claw hammer? Do the critics know what engineering compromises are represented in the human eye? The compromises include factors such as versatility, longevity, depth of field, sensitivity, durability, auto-repairability, compatibility (with what humans might be interested in and the processing power available to the visual cortex), and so on. So, to the critic, I'd suggest first designing a better organic eye, one that can replace a damaged one, before making any statement as to whether the eye is poorly designed or not! -QQuerius
August 25, 2014
August
08
Aug
25
25
2014
04:50 PM
4
04
50
PM
PDT
Acartia_bogart- Do all human visions systems function the same?
On one hand you have a creationist who says that the eye is not poorly designed. On the other hand you have a creationist say that the eye was well designed but has degraded due to the fall.
Just because something has degraded doesn't mean the system was poorly designed. The two sentences are not contradictory, they are complimentary.Joe
August 25, 2014
August
08
Aug
25
25
2014
04:34 PM
4
04
34
PM
PDT
RB:
The exquisite adaptations evident in the vertebrate eye, in turn, exhibit the power of evolutionary processes to build complex and functional structural work-arounds in the face of constraints imposed by evo-devo pathways to which ancestral species had become irreversibly committed.
Only if those "evolutionary processes" were intelligently designed to produce a vision system. Unguided evolution can't even get to evo-devo, so you must be talking about IDE (Intelligent Design Evolution).Joe
August 25, 2014
August
08
Aug
25
25
2014
04:31 PM
4
04
31
PM
PDT
And you wonder why rational people say that creationism is out to lunch.
But yet these so called rational people can not defend what they believe. So may be there are a lot of people out there eating lunch but in different lunch spots.jerry
August 25, 2014
August
08
Aug
25
25
2014
04:12 PM
4
04
12
PM
PDT
On one hand you have a creationist who says that the eye is not poorly designed. On the other hand you have a creationist say that the eye was well designed but has degraded due to the fall. And you wonder why rational people say that creationism is out to lunch.Acartia_bogart
August 25, 2014
August
08
Aug
25
25
2014
03:38 PM
3
03
38
PM
PDT
Most discussions of the “bad design” argument miss the more subtle points
Then there is the not so subtle point that all eyes poofed into existence in a very short geological time frame, during the Cambrian explosion. That is like a hammer to the head in terms of subtlety.
His argument was that evolutionary processes, because operating through differential success of extant individuals, can result only in structures derivable from modified versions of prior developmental plans
May be true once you have the eey but it does not explain how all these different eyes popped into existence so suddenly and then stopped developing. They all could not result from differential success of extant individuals.jerry
August 25, 2014
August
08
Aug
25
25
2014
03:32 PM
3
03
32
PM
PDT
Most discussions of the “bad design” argument miss the more subtle points that, for example, S. J. Gould makes in his essays in his “Panda’s Thumb” collection of Natural History essays, as well as in “The Structure of Evolutionary Theory.” His argument was that evolutionary processes, because operating through differential success of extant individuals, can result only in structures derivable from modified versions of prior developmental plans. The signal evident in the vertebrate eye (for example) is not one of “bad design,” but rather an historical signal reflecting constrained evolutionary origins. The exquisite adaptations evident in the vertebrate eye, in turn, exhibit the power of evolutionary processes to build complex and functional structural work-arounds in the face of constraints imposed by evo-devo pathways to which ancestral species had become irreversibly committed.Reciprocating Bill
August 25, 2014
August
08
Aug
25
25
2014
03:22 PM
3
03
22
PM
PDT
Sorry – I haven’t the time to respond to so many opponents.
You could if you could promote a clear and coherent explanation for origins. That way you could point to it and it would answer most questions. You could still say that there was no evidence of a designer at any point in history prior to humans and therefore things must have developed naturalistically even if there is no science today that can explain either the origin of life or evolution since life first appeared. I assume you hold this position because you never defend any science on these issues. The ID people could say that life in its origin and in its changes is too complex to have developed naturalistically so there must be some designer some place who influenced the process even if there is no direct evidence of this designer or the methods used to exert this influence. But instead you take absurd positions. Why???jerry
August 25, 2014
August
08
Aug
25
25
2014
03:17 PM
3
03
17
PM
PDT
MF:
Sorry – I haven’t the time to respond to so many opponents.
Just pick 10 or 12.Mung
August 25, 2014
August
08
Aug
25
25
2014
02:22 PM
2
02
22
PM
PDT
Sorry - I haven't the time to respond to so many opponents.Mark Frank
August 25, 2014
August
08
Aug
25
25
2014
01:35 PM
1
01
35
PM
PDT
SA @37
I fully agree. The problem I had was that Dr. Hunter introduced the topic as ‘metaphysical’ and not open to scientific testing.
Excellent point. And I would like to address Mark Frank's objection @1:
Aside from the fact they are metaphysical and not open to scientific testing, they inevitably are simply false
Not open to scientific testing except that they are false! Interesting.
It would probably be more accurate to state that the generic argument "the eye is bad design..." is metaphysical and not open to scientific testing, while the specific argument "...because the retina is wired backward" is one of the inevitably false parts. By analogy, consider the specific assertion "All women are ugly." Like the statement "the eye is badly designed", most reasonable people would find this statement ludicrous, in addition to a metaphysical statement that is not open to testing. However, if you specify a reason/criteria for the statement, such as "...because they have eyes that aren't crossed and 13 teeth" (analogous to "the retina is wired backward"), you can reasonably prove the assertion false by showing that all women do not have 13 teeth, and that "crossed-eyes" are not a generally-accepted requirement for beauty. And, even if it could be shown that women do, in fact, have 13 teeth and uncrossed eyes (analogous to "hmm, it does seem that the retina is wired backward"), the declaration of universal ugliness (or bad design) is still an untestable metaphysical statement. Hence, Dr. Hunter's statement that evolutionary bad design arguments are metaphysical, untestable, and false is true, just shorthand.drc466
August 25, 2014
August
08
Aug
25
25
2014
01:24 PM
1
01
24
PM
PDT
Mark Frank. Your extremely weak answer supports my proposition. Why cannot you admit that this is a problem for Darwinian evolution. You must know this but yet you dredge up irrelevant examples that do not in anyway undermine the thesis I offered. Also, don't give us that nonsense that there is no direction to Darwinian processes. There certainly is a direction, to make the organism more fit in terms of offspring and anything that helps that will be favored. And generally any characteristic that helps it dominate will lead to more offspring.jerry
August 25, 2014
August
08
Aug
25
25
2014
12:32 PM
12
12
32
PM
PDT
#31 drc466 I would only change it a little 1) [If] the Human eye was designed to convert photons into an image 2) and since Cameras ... etc. The evolutionist has to concede the first point.Silver Asiatic
August 25, 2014
August
08
Aug
25
25
2014
12:25 PM
12
12
25
PM
PDT
JGuy 32 -- LOL. It's bad apparent design if we assume a designer who will do things the way I want them done. :-)Silver Asiatic
August 25, 2014
August
08
Aug
25
25
2014
12:13 PM
12
12
13
PM
PDT
So your semantic argument of what is good? what is bad? is completely irrelevant. Evolutionists make claims of bad design based on specific criteria – research disproves all those claims – claims of bad design ultimately fail based on their own criteria.
I fully agree. The problem I had was that Dr. Hunter introduced the topic as 'metaphysical' and not open to scientific testing. But if you establish a scientific framework, then you can test it. "A well-designed eye should be efficient (with measures of efficiency)." You could then use science to test that -- as was done in this case.Silver Asiatic
August 25, 2014
August
08
Aug
25
25
2014
12:10 PM
12
12
10
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply