Trilobite eyes (Introduction)

by dhw, Saturday, March 23, 2013, 15:29 (4264 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

TONY: 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.-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: Secondly, the Trilobite has no known precursors, yet demonstrates incredibly complex advanced biological functions. If evolution were true, this would be impossible.
 
It would certainly be impossible for the trilobite to have no precursors, since evolution argues that all organisms are descended from earlier organisms, going back to the first self-replicating molecules. One hypothetical explanation for the lack of fossils is that God created trilobites separately. Another is that no precursors have been found because trilobites died out 250 million years ago, and perhaps their precursors were not suited to fossilization. Take your choice.
 
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.
 
TONY: 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.-Your "generally" leaves room for exceptions that would drive evolution. Once upon a time, there was no such thing as an eye. We know that eyes now exist. Therefore once upon a time some organism somewhere underwent a change, whereby an eye (or Darwin's initial "light-sensitive nerve") came into existence. God may personally have inserted it into the first lucky organism, or the genome of the organism may have produced the change, but either way, it's a mutation. If you do not accept either of these explanations, do please give us your own.
 
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?-TONY: I'm not sure how you think I have not answered this. I think they were created according to 'their kind', with allowances for deviation within specified parameters.-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? 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? If your answer is no, please explain what you mean by 'their kind'.