Trilobite eyes (Introduction)

by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Tuesday, March 26, 2013, 03:21 (4052 days ago) @ dhw

DHW: 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"?-That's the question, isn't it? If they are functionally perfect, what is left to evolve? If they were functionally perfect from the very beginning, that is a blow in the gut to evolution of any sort which relies on having something to improve upon. You can't improve upon perfection.-> 
> TONY: Science is about observations, not speculations. Therefore, giving a scientific theory on the grounds of speculation is not science, it is faith.
> 
> DHW: 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.-That was a typo. Science can not prove, only disprove. What I meant though, is that speculation does not prove a theory, nor is attempting to do so science. Believing a theory that is not supported by the evidence or that has not been observed is faith, not science. I personally can not believe in common descent, because I have never seen a single observation that demonstrates one species becoming another. What I have observed is functionally perfect design and extreme complexity in even the earliest of organisms.-
> DHW: 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!)-Yes, I believe that their was at a minimum, a first fish, amphibian, mammal, etc., and more likely at least one of each of the animal families. A good basis for this is noting which animals can not successfully interbreed. What the actual distribution was, I have no clue. - 
>DHW >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!)-No, I have seen nothing in science or nature that leads me to believe that mice and tiger shared a common ancestor. Similarities in their design are just as likely to to signs of a common designer that each creature must deal with a similar environment as they are of common ancestry. Given that the evolutionary split dates based on genetic mapping do not match with the fossil records and supposed appearance of the animals, I would venture to say it is MORE likely. That being said, I am open to the possibility if it is ever actually observed to happen instead of being pure conjecture. However, I don't think it will ever be observed. -
>DHW: 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!)-Before I can accept that theory, I would have to observe, or see a published study that has observed, ANY new feature being evolved, and not simple an alteration on an existing feature. See, the problem with your intelligent genome is that is presupposes evolution from a common ancestor is true. There simply is no evidence of that beyond speculation based on observations that could mean something else entirely.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.