Trilobite eyes (Introduction)

by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Tuesday, March 19, 2013, 15:07 (4062 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: These Cambrian animals had very complex eyes and horseshoe crabs today still use similar ones. The amazing part of this story is there are no ancestors to trilobites, before trilobites appeared. Who made these complex eyes? chance?
> Every Darwinist's nightmare:
> 
> http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2013/03/looking-a-trilobite-in-the-eye.html?ref=hp 
> 
> DHW: I'm as sceptical as you about chance creating these complex mechanisms, but what exactly is your alternative explanation? You believe that evolution happened, so I presume you're not suggesting that since there are no ancestors, God indulged in separate creation. (Would it not be wiser to say there are no "known" ancestors?) Or that he "plopped in" these complex eyes. Or that the very first cells preprogrammed trilobites along with all the other new species that appeared (and in the case of trilobites disappeared) during and after the Cambrian Explosion. 
> -Isn't it strange how, when presented with evidence to the contrary, the human mind will do anything to avoid saying that God did anything at all? Willful disbelief is an amazing quality, as is the ability for humanity to fabricate its own reality. -
> DHW: However, we have agreed that within the genome of existing organisms is a mechanism which enables some of them to invent new organs as and when the environment demands or encourages such invention. If this is how it happened, the appearance of the trilobites is not a Darwinist's nightmare. Mutations did take place, but instead of being "random" they were directed by the "intelligent genome". 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.-
All of this despite the utter lack of evidence that any mutation was ever beneficial or that any mutation of any type has ever ADDED INFORMATION to the organism.

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