Trilobite eyes (Introduction)

by dhw, Wednesday, March 20, 2013, 18:20 (4057 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: The changes were not gradual (a second correction of Darwin), but some neo-Darwinists have already challenged this, and proposed "punctuated equilibrium" as an alternative. Darwin's theory still stands. Evolution driven by genomic "intelligence" instead of random mutation is still evolution, common descent is still common descent, and natural selection is still what determines the survival or otherwise of organs and species.-DAVID: Darwin's theory is quivering, not fully standing. Yes evolution occurred, but the key is epigenetics, not amorphous intelligence. The genome knows how to advance complexity when it has to.-"Knowing how to do something when you have to" sounds like intelligence to me. Why should epigenetics preclude intelligence? -DAVID: It is planned to do that.-So God planned a mechanism that would enable the genome to innovate, probably in response to a changing environment. Welcome back to our concept of the "intelligent genome".
 
DAVID: The trilobite eyes have no known precursor. Complex compound eyes with bifocal lenses to campensate for the aberration when eyes look into water, with a different reflex angle for light. And what about the neurological attachments to a 'brain' to interpret the sights from the eye? And the complex developemnet of brain neurons to interpret the electric signals to give a conscious picture of what the eye is sending to the brain? Complexity upon complexity. All of this had to develop as specified complexity to give a whole functioning visual process. By chance mutation, no way!-Long since agreed. So are you saying that God stepped in and "plopped" complex compound eyes into one of his creatures, or are you saying that the "intelligent genome" (as above) invented complex compound eyes? If it's the latter, Darwin's theory of common descent, mutations (but not random, and not gradual) and natural selection still stands firm. And, to keep you happy, it doesn't exclude divine design and never did.
 
As for Dawkins, his flawed reasoning was what initially spurred me into writing the "brief guide" and opening up this website. We should not judge God by his followers. The same courtesy should be extended to Darwin.