Trilobite eyes (Introduction)

by dhw, Monday, March 25, 2013, 15:36 (4052 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

TONY: First, by all right, if evolution is true, then the structure for these eyes should have evolved significantly, yet they are by and large the same as those found in the Horseshoe crab.-DHW: I don't understand this. The extant horseshoe crab is probably a descendant of the extinct trilobite. Why should the trilobite eye have evolved significantly? Evolution doesn't mean endless improvement. If it did, by now you and I should be able to see pockmarks on Mars with the naked eye!-TONY: The design of your eye is functionally perfect, as the article David linked in response points out. It simply can't get any better design wise. -The design of the trilobite eye may also have been functionally perfect. Ditto the horseshoe crab. So why, if evolution is true, should the trilobite eye have "evolved significantly"?-TONY: Science is about observations, not speculations. Therefore, giving a scientific theory on the grounds of speculation is not science, it is faith.-I'm not sure what you mean by "giving" a theory. A theory remains theoretical until it is proved true. When it is proved true, it becomes a fact. I myself believe in the theory of common descent, but am very dubious about the theories of random mutations and gradualism. Darwin's theories are based on scientific observation, as are David Turell's, but their conclusions are speculative. We are all free to believe them or not.
 
DHW: My apologies, but I really don't understand the biblical account. Please enlighten me. Do you believe God separately created the first fish, birds, reptiles, invertebrates, amphibians and mammals? If your answer is no, please explain what you mean by 'their kind'.-TONY: A fish will always be a fish, never a mammal, amphibian, reptile, insect, or bird. It has never been observed to happen.-So do you believe that the first fish, mammals, amphibians etc. were separately created by God? (I'll be happy with a yes or a no!)-Dhw: And do you believe that sharks and sardines, or pythons and crocodiles, or mice and tigers evolved from the first fish, reptiles, mammals? If your answer is yes, do you believe they evolved through any means other than innovatory changes in the genome?-TONY: We know there are classifications of animals. We have NEVER seen an occasion where an animal from one distinct classification suddenly developed a new feature that moved it into another classification. They remain, to this day, classified according to their kind.-So do you believe that mice and tigers evolved from a common ancestor? If so, do you believe they evolved through any means other than innovatory changes in the genome? (I'll be happy with a yes or a no to each question!)-TONY: In short, according to their kind means exactly what it says, regardless of whether read as a religious text or science book. 
That being said, I have also stated that I believe the grand designer left wiggle room for adaptation. I even gave a nice little analogy about human designers, wanting to allow for flexibility and creativity in their creations, that have done the exact same thing.-Adaptation will not necessarily entail innovation, and this is the problem I am grappling with. I hate to repeat myself, but like you and David I am sceptical about Darwin's random mutations and gradualism. That is why I've suggested the alternative of the "intelligent genome", which David accepts with the proviso that God invented it. Do you also accept this alternative, or do you believe that every innovation (e.g. sight, hearing, sex, legs, wings, liver, brain etc.) was the result of God's direct intervention? (I'll be happy with a yes or a no to each question!)-****-You, BBella and David put some extremely stimulating and revealing posts on the "Intelligence" thread during our cold British night. I hope to offer a response tomorrow.