The real alternative to design (Evolution)

by David Turell , Sunday, March 09, 2008, 02:44 (5886 days ago) @ George Jelliss

George Jelliss states: " The point about the structure of the eye being different in different species is not that one structure is functionally better than another, it is that it provides evidence for evolution by natural selection acting upon variations. Given particular variations natural selection acts over time to improve the functionality of anything that proves useful, that is to "optimise" it within the constraints already acquired. No doubt the eye of the squid works well for the environments in which it lives." I agree. 
 
He further states: "One can speculate that if the human eye had begun with the squid architecture it could well have evolved to be more optimal than the version we now have. It would still be different from the squid eye because it would have evolved to meet the requirements of a land mammal." Here Jelliss misses the point of the term "convergence" as used by Simon Conway Morris in his book, "Life's Solution, "Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universe, 2003". Morris' point is that most animals start in evolution with very similar DNA and then diverge to differing solutions as dictated by requirements of their environment, just as Jellis stated. There is no way the human eye could have developed from a squid architecture under this concept. I believe there are actually five or six diffrent types of eyes in nature. The point of my previous reply was that simply looking at structure cannot ever tell us that its type of design can preclude a diety or for that matter include one. The living structure can best be analyzed by determining if it satisfies optimal function for its environment, not how pretty it is.
 
 Jelliss final statement: "In writing the above I have become more conscious of how difficult it is to write about evolution without using terminology that implies design and intention and purpose and so on behind the natural processes." I agree completely. Biologic machines sure look designed and purposeful. Elsewhere in this website I have given a reference to a future planned meeting of Darwin scientists, many leading lights in the Neo-Darwin movement, who are questioning the role of natural selection as a prime mover. I think we all need to follow that closely. There are substantial changes in thinking and theory coming.