The Co-existence of Science and Theology

11/29/2007 01:52:52 PM · #826

I know there are flaws, but its a fascinating area of research. As for complexity, as dawkins says "unweaving the rainbow doenst make it any less beautiful".

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

11/29/2007 01:59:34 PM · #827

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

"Natural selection is the non-random survival of randomly varying genetic codes."

I completely agree with Dawkins on this. End of story. I'm not sure how this differs from what I have, perhaps less eloquently, been trying to say.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Yes, I believe in evolution, but I also would feel that the person who truly understands biology would be uncomfortable with some of the hurdles which have been surmounted merely by time and chance.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I'm just saying we need to give that complexity the respect it deserves and either be awed that it was created or be awed that it arose by chance.

It differs, because in the Dawkins quote he essentially indicates that evolution by natural selection is specifically non-random survival of traits produced by chance mutations, but in your previous two quotes you clearly remove the entire non-random part from your allusion to the process of evolution, either by accident or design.

An eye didn't come in to being merely by time and chance and similarly the theory of evolution doesn't require us to be awed by things that arose by chance alone. It is a fairly fundamental misstatement of the theory at that point. That was simply the point I was raising, after you'd made the comment a few times.

OK, I buy that. I was not being clear. Here is where the time and chance come into play even considering natural selection. The eye is the product of probably hundreds to thousands of genes. I don't know the exact number and I'm not sure anybody does. Each gene would have arisen by the random mutation or duplication or deletion of previous genetic code. Natural selection keeps the good ones and discards the bad ones. There is the possibility (since we don't know the exact process by which the eye evolved) that there is not enough time given a certain rate of genetic mutation to produce the requisite number of mutations for natural selection to operate on.

To use the terminology I used before. We need to respect the complexity of the eye because we do not understand the great number of mutations required to produce the variability for natural selection to operate.

I guess I take a little bit of umbrage with a line of argument which I caught Dawkins using and have seen used.

A) Critical thinking is beneficial.
therefore
B) Natural selection produced critical thinking.

The argument is too simplistic and may even be backwards.

with regard to the eye, I do not necessarily buy the logic behind:

A) The eye is beneficial
B) Many different classes of animals have eyes
therefore
C) Natural selection has produced the eye many times.

It may be true, but the "therefore" doesn't make logical sense.

Louis

Nikon D800

11/29/2007 02:17:55 PM · #828

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

A) The eye is beneficial
B) Many different classes of animals have eyes
therefore
C) Natural selection has produced the eye many times.

Can you point out where this kind of argument is specifically made by Dawkins? I've heard him say that an eye may have evolved within something like 250,000 generations only, and so is very "prone" to evolving, and that is the reason why so many organisms have eyes of so many different varying types.

pidge

Canon EOS-7D Mark II

11/29/2007 02:25:56 PM · #829

Actually, they've found a master regulatory gene that all animals with eyes have: Pax6

Sponges apparently have a similar type gene - though they have no eyes. Cnidarians (jellyfish and the like) also have a similar type gene near their eye spots (those that have them)

Current Opinion in Genetics & Development
Volume 5, Issue 5, October 1995, Pages 602-609

New perspectives on eye evolution

Georg Halder, Patrick Callaerts and Walter J GehringE-mail The Corresponding Author
Department of Cell Biology, Biozentrum, University of Basel, Klingelbergstrasse 70, CH-4056 Basel, Switzerland

Available online 7 February 2002.

Abstract

The highly complex eyes of vertebrates, insects and molluscs have long been considered to be of independent evolutionary origin. Recently, however, Pax-6, a highly conserved transcription factor, has been identified as a key regulator of eye development in both mammals and flies. Homologues of Pax-6 have also been identified in species from other phyla, including molluscs. The wide variety of eyes in the animal kingdom may, therefore, have evolved from a single ancestral photosensitive organ.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

11/29/2007 02:30:14 PM · #830

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

There is the possibility (since we don't know the exact process by which the eye evolved) that there is not enough time given a certain rate of genetic mutation to produce the requisite number of mutations for natural selection to operate on.

Last night's Powerball numbers were 8-23-32-37-39 PB- 38. There is the possibility (since we don't know the exact air fluctuations and collisions involved) that there was not enough time given a certain rate of random number appearances to produce that particular result. Nevertheless, we can see (pun intended) that it did.

Note that Powerball is basically a random system, while evolution is constrained by selection. If the appearance of numbers 8 and 23 made it more likely that there would be another drawing, while any number between 10 and 20 made it less likely that there would be another drawing, then the system couldn't be considered a game of mere chance no matter the mechanism. THAT is where the distinction lies.

Message edited by author 2007-11-29 14:41:28.

11/29/2007 02:33:28 PM · #831

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
A) The eye is beneficial
B) Many different classes of animals have eyes
therefore
C) Natural selection has produced the eye many times.

Can you point out where this kind of argument is specifically made by Dawkins? I've heard him say that an eye may have evolved within something like 250,000 generations only, and so is very "prone" to evolving, and that is the reason why so many organisms have eyes of so many different varying types.

Well, I pointed out the one on critical thinking. That came from the video. Someone asked about critical thinking and evolution and he said it was a) beneficial and b) natural selection produced it. That question was maybe 15 minutes into the video.

The beef I would have with Dawkins' verbage is the "prone". He would point to the fact that lots of different classes of animals have eyes and thus evolution is "prone" to produce it. That argument makes the presupposition that evolution is the only game in town. (Scientifically that may be true, philosophically it may not.) I can understand how his "science only" blinders lead him to these conclusions, but I don't necessarily think they are quite fair to make when someone asks a question that doesn't limit itself to "science only".

In other words. If we have this exchange:

Creationist: "It seems wild that the eye, a complex organ, would evolve so many different times in such a short span of time. Do you think this may indicate evolution is not the whole answer and that we need to look outside science for the answer?"
Dawkins: "Posh! Evolution is prone to developing the eye! Can't you see (he'd be witty like this with the pun.:))? The scallop has them. The squid has them, insects and vertebrates have them. They are everywhere!"

I don't think his answer considers the real question "Is evolution enough?" because he views the evidence with the answer "It is enough." already in his mind.

Message edited by author 2007-11-29 14:36:05.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

11/29/2007 02:33:42 PM · #832

Originally posted by pidge:

Actually, they've found a master regulatory gene that all animals with eyes have: Pax6

Here's an interesting related article.

Louis

Nikon D800

11/29/2007 02:41:21 PM · #833

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

The beef I would have with Dawkins' verbage is the "prone".

That may have been exclusively my word. I can't remember what he said, but could probably find it later.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

He would point to the fact that lots of different classes of animals have eyes and thus evolution is "prone" to produce it. That argument makes the presupposition that evolution is the only game in town. (Scientifically that may be true, philosophically it may not.)

My interpretation of this is that it is rather the point.

I also don't think Dawkins is quite as flip as that, because his answers regarding evolution are sound, not quite so shrill. And lastly, I don't think someone describing themselves as a creationist can really hope to ask an intelligible question of a man like Dawkins without appearing to be foolish, as in his Lynchburg lecture. I'm certain those Liberty students would disagree and think they actually scored a few points, but no, they really didn't.

pidge

Canon EOS-7D Mark II

11/29/2007 02:43:11 PM · #834

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by pidge:
Actually, they've found a master regulatory gene that all animals with eyes have: Pax6

Here's an interesting related article.

Cool! But they really should look into making squid eyes compatible with out bodies as their eyes our much better designed than ours ;-)

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

11/29/2007 02:50:33 PM · #835

Originally posted by pidge:

... they really should look into making squid eyes compatible with out bodies as their eyes our much better designed than ours ;-)

Then you'll be even more disappointed with what the camera captures. It may be better instead to develop a pseudo-cyborg mechano-organic camera:
dna-mediated
Squid
Lens
Recorder

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

11/29/2007 03:03:28 PM · #836

As a little bit of light relief, have a look at this video of dawkins. That has to be the best rebuttal ever! It never ceases to make me laugh.

Louis

Nikon D800

11/29/2007 03:09:27 PM · #837

Yeah, that's a good one, but it reminds me that a frequent criticism of him is that he's too sharp-tongued. Good grief. The man is brilliant, has thousands of facts at his fingertips. He's too sharp-tongued? That's the best they can do? :-)

11/29/2007 03:16:07 PM · #838

Definately, my missus is currently studying at cambridge university to be a vet, he often gives talks there so she is going to keep an eye out for me! I just finished reading the devils chaplain which covers a multitude of subjects - he has a real gift for language (maybe God gave it to him...)

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

11/29/2007 03:30:36 PM · #839

Originally posted by pidge:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by pidge:
Actually, they've found a master regulatory gene that all animals with eyes have: Pax6

Here's an interesting related article.

Cool! But they really should look into making squid eyes compatible with out bodies as their eyes our much better designed than ours ;-)

IIRC the squid eye is adapted to low light, low color vision. The "backward" nature of the human retina has something to do with the discharge of the color cones to prepare for the next photon. I'd have to dig the link up though.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

11/29/2007 03:42:46 PM · #840

As long as we're going to borrow from other species, how about ... (ahem) eagle eyes? I think I'd like to be able to spot a mouse under a bush from a couple hundred yards away ... :-)

FocusPoint

XIAOMI Redmi Note 8 Pro

11/29/2007 03:45:06 PM · #841

Originally posted by GeneralE:

As long as we're going to borrow from other species, how about ... (ahem) eagle eyes? I think I'd like to be able to spot a mouse under a bush from a couple hundred yards away ... :-)

We don't have to see them. We have the technology, we can smoked them out and shoot them one by one.

RonB

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

11/29/2007 04:39:06 PM · #842

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by pidge:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by pidge:
Actually, they've found a master regulatory gene that all animals with eyes have: Pax6

Here's an interesting related article.

Cool! But they really should look into making squid eyes compatible with out bodies as their eyes our much better designed than ours ;-)

IIRC the squid eye is adapted to low light, low color vision. The "backward" nature of the human retina has something to do with the discharge of the color cones to prepare for the next photon. I'd have to dig the link up though.

I can't help but notice the Freudian slip in the use of the word DESIGN in reference to Squid Eyes.

FWIW, the human eye is "designed" specifically for our bodies. Squid eyes wouldn't work. In humans, there must be a mechanism to deal with the buildup of heat where light focuses on the retina ( ever burn paper by focusing sunlight on it with a lens? ). Thus, the rearmost layers of the eye contain heat sinks and an abundant capillary network to disperse that heat. Squid don't have a heat problem.

pidge

Canon EOS-7D Mark II

11/29/2007 05:17:06 PM · #843

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by pidge:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by pidge:
Actually, they've found a master regulatory gene that all animals with eyes have: Pax6

Here's an interesting related article.

Cool! But they really should look into making squid eyes compatible with out bodies as their eyes our much better designed than ours ;-)

IIRC the squid eye is adapted to low light, low color vision. The "backward" nature of the human retina has something to do with the discharge of the color cones to prepare for the next photon. I'd have to dig the link up though.

I can't help but notice the Freudian slip in the use of the word DESIGN in reference to Squid Eyes.

FWIW, the human eye is "designed" specifically for our bodies. Squid eyes wouldn't work. In humans, there must be a mechanism to deal with the buildup of heat where light focuses on the retina ( ever burn paper by focusing sunlight on it with a lens? ). Thus, the rearmost layers of the eye contain heat sinks and an abundant capillary network to disperse that heat. Squid don't have a heat problem.

It wasn't a slip. It was a deliberate poke at the debate over how can an eye evolve. Based on what I've posted, you really think I think the squid eye was 'designed'? Having cloudy lenses and a layer of nerves over our retina is specific to our bodies and the best we've got? I don't know much about eyes, but I really think our eye could be 'designed' better.

Doc - I'd like to see the article about backwards retinas.

I think the general has the best solution for all of us with the dSLR eyes ;)

RonB

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

11/29/2007 05:35:28 PM · #844

Originally posted by pidge:

Doc - I'd like to see the article about backwards retinas.

If you're REALLY interested, there is an excellent video by Dr. George Marshall that explains construction of the entire eye. The video is about 53 minutes long, but very interesting. Mostly it's just the science of how the human eye is actually constructed along with an attempt to explain why it's "good" that it's "designed" as it is. ( note: there is a little bit of "designer" credit in there by Dr. Marshall, because he is a believer - but it's really a very small bit ). The video is a little over halfway down the page HERE

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

11/29/2007 06:45:50 PM · #845

Originally posted by pidge:

Doc - I'd like to see the article about backwards retinas.

Well, this isn't the site I had originally found, but this will do. While I'm sure the site trueorigins will raise some suspicions, the article is well cited which should at least lend to a neutral bias when reading it. It's fairly technical so I apologize for that.

Judith Polakoff

Nikon D7000

11/30/2007 01:05:30 AM · #846

An interesting article in The New Yorker magazine this week:

Darwin's Surprise

zxaar

11/30/2007 01:14:28 AM · #847

I am waiting for 'The Co-existence of Science and Theology-2' thread.

This is more fun than 'pick you fav ....' thread.

:-D