Comments on: Where do eyes come from?

By: alan

alan — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 19:51:24 +0000

The understanding of this, as I expect you actually know, is not found in the natural world, being irrational as you have pointed out…who is it that has blinded the MINDS of those who are callous in heart?
Thank you for your reply – as usual, always informative.

By: bornagain77

bornagain77 — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 19:04:24 +0000

I agree with your diagnosis Alan:

My diagnosis: HYPERACTIVE IMAGINATION SYNDROME.

In fact from the crushing evidence coming in from genetics, molecular analysis of proteins, coupled with the fossil record, it seems that the imagination of evolutionary scientists is given more weight in biology than the evidence has now been given.

And as you point out it seems to border on some type of pathological disorder.

I found the following in “Good News” that may be of interest:

Darwin’s mother died tragically when he was 8 years old, and he followed the loose and freethinking ways of his father and deceased grandfather. He (Darwin) wrote in his autobiography, “I may here also confess that as a little boy I was much given to inventing “deliberate falsehoods”, and this was always done for the sake of causing excitement”….

” He often told lies about seeing rare birds” concurs Janet Browne. Once he invented an elaborate story designed to show how fond he was of telling the truth, It was a boys way of manipulating the world. “The lies were not connected to any sense of shame…More accurately, they mirrored a search for attention. He wanted to be admired…Lies-and the thrill derived from lies-were for him indistinguishable from the delights of natural history”
(Charles Darwin: Voyaging, pp. 13-14)

What is a deep profound mystery, that I have a very hard time understanding, is why is this one mans pathology, for inventing cunningly devised fables, persisting in science, and indeed, defies being brought to the justice of overwhelming evidence now present in science?

By: alan

alan — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 15:17:26 +0000

Yesterday I think I figured it out and this verifies it – If ID’ers and Creationists are said to be superstitious, darwinist are certainly deficient in some type of medication as having a type of ADHD – My diagnosis: HYPERACTIVE IMAGINATION SYNDROME. Perhaps Dawkins only real problem is needing a drug to help him pay attention to relieve him of his ATTENTION DEFICIT HYPERACTIVE DISORDER. Maybe he just didn’t evolve the needed chemical pathway for rationality.
thank you all very much…

By: Joseph

Joseph — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 15:10:46 +0000

Urbilateria — more biological constructs of the imagination. Where is the actual fossil evidence for these?

Umm, as long as you keep telic processes out of the mix, imagination is perfectly viable.

But anyway- what else could it have been if not Urbilateria?

There, it is not imagination. Rather it is logic-

1-we know these features evolved (eyes and bilateral symmetry)

2-we know they were not present in the first population(s)

3- therefore there had to be something and we call it Urbilateria.

(Cue Curly- n’yuck n’yuck n’yuck- wise guy ey!)

By: Frost122585

Frost122585 — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 14:36:36 +0000

Dembski you my dog for-eva! Thanks for keep’n it real all dem years. And don’t let nobody try and talk you down! I want to know where is the fossil record of the half-man-half-fish that didn’t quite make it 2008. Or even the half man half lizard would be perfectly adequate.

A half dog half cat would be nice as well.

Evolution is neat don’t you think?

By: William Dembski

William Dembski — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 14:09:00 +0000

Urbilateria — more biological constructs of the imagination. Where is the actual fossil evidence for these?

By: Berceuse

Berceuse — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 10:43:48 +0000

Not only is it a huge stretch for mutations to make the beginnings of an eye, but the organism’s brain has to work with it in a beneficial way. In a sense, it has to evolve simultaneously with the eye to be able to recognize the new information it’s receiving form it (i.e. “Oh, this new seeing organ tells me a predator is that way, so I should go this way”). Otherwise, it is completely worthless. I consider this and can’t belief Dawkins calls himself a “rational” individual. Poor man…

By: gore

gore — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 05:48:47 +0000

agreed vrf, I think in their line of thinking “if other animals have eyes also, thats proof it evolved”

By: vrf

vrf — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 05:45:37 +0000

I always thought that the convergent “evolution” of eyes supported an ID model more than NDE.

There is direction, purpose and intelligence when several different evolutionary branches end up at the same place. Makes sense they pushed it back to pre-fossil times. The accidental coicidences are just too much to believe, so we have to go back to the good ol’ reliable common ancestor. Everything is inherited.

The unfindable common ancestor seems a lot like a magic creature to me.

By: shaner74

shaner74 — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 03:16:15 +0000

Maybe Dawkins should tell a blind person how easy eyesight is to stumble upon. If an eye was so simple to build we would have no problem building one. These guys have willingly abandoned science in favor of atheistic storytelling – and the stories are pretty bad. I just hope history chastises them accordingly.