Trilobite eyes (Introduction)

by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Friday, March 22, 2013, 10:23 (4265 days ago) @ dhw

DHW: Evidence of what, exactly? If no ancestors have been found, does that provide evidence of an almighty eternal mind from nowhere that created the universe and specially created trilobites, or pre-programmed trilobites in the first cells? Might it not be possible that the fossil record from, say, 500 million years ago is incomplete? Please remember that you are the one defending a concrete belief. I'm still not certain what that is, but David has repeatedly stressed that he thinks evolution happened. He believes in anthropocentrism but not in special creation. I therefore find his attack on Darwinism inconsistent. I also believe that evolution happened, but I've no idea how its mechanisms came into being. In my situation of non-belief (not disbelief ... I'm an agnostic, not an atheist), I will certainly avoid saying that God did it, for reasons I've explained to you in my post under "Intelligence". And when people insist that God exists (and some even think they know what he's like), or that chance must have created life, I'm inclined to say: "Wilful belief is an amazing quality, as is the ability of humanity to fabricate its own reality."
> -First, by all rights, 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.-Secondly, the Trilobite has no known precursors, yet demonstrates incredibly complex advanced biological functions. If evolution were true, this would be impossible. --> TONY: 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.
> 
> DHW: The word "mutation" simply means change. Darwin linked it to randomness, but I think my post makes it clear that I'm suggesting a non-random, "intelligent" variety. If all forms of life are descended from earlier forms, they can only have done so through a process of innovation/genomic mutation, even if your God engineered the changes. -Sure, mutation means change, but greater complexity requires an increase in the available information, which has never been demonstrated. In fact, what has been demonstrated is exactly the opposite, that mutations generally remove or destroy information from the genome. What you are talking about is akin to trying to use a single square drawn on a blank sheet of paper as a blueprint to built the Taj Mahal. -
>DHW: But before we go on with this discussion, I need to know once and for all whether, despite "the utter lack of evidence" that any organism ever sprang fully formed from nothing, you do or do not believe that your God created trilobites and every other species separately. If you do, what grounds do you have for believing that you yourself are not fabricating your own reality? If you don't, how do you think innovatory changes occurred?-I'm not sure how you think I have not answered this. I think the were created according to 'their kind', with allowances for deviation within specified parameters. -A good analogy, to take one from my own field, is creating a character for a game. When you create the base prototype for the character, it is largely unused data with some basic default settings. When the player logs in for the first time, they can modify their character in any way that your blueprint allows, but never more, and never less than what is allowed by the prototype. If the prototype declares that they will have two arms, two legs, two ears, two eyes, one nose, one mouth, that is what they will have. You might even allow for variation within each of those settings, but the player can never override them to have, say, three legs.

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