Trilobite eyes (Introduction)

by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Saturday, March 23, 2013, 18:42 (4264 days ago) @ dhw

DHW: 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!
> -The design of your eye is functionally perfect, as the article David linked in response points out. It simply can't get any better design wise. Sharks are functionally perfect in their ability to detect electrical currents, and we KNOW they are ancient. --> TONY: Secondly, the Trilobite has no known precursors, yet demonstrates incredibly complex advanced biological functions. If evolution were true, this would be impossible.
> 
> DHW: 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. O-I said no "Known" precursors, not that they didn't exist, simply that nothing has been observed with sufficiently similar biological traits that is older than it. Science is about observations, not speculations. Therefore, giving a scientific theory on the grounds of speculation is not science, it is faith.-> 
> 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.
> 
>DHW: Your "generally" leaves room for exceptions that would drive evolution. Once upon a time, there was no such thing as an eye. -No, the 'generally' you are referencing means that information is not always "removed or destroyed"; sometimes they are simply suppressed. There are sometimes self-correcting transcription errors such as can be found in traits that skip a generation. - 
>DHW: 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'.-
A fish will always be a fish, never a mammal, amphibian, reptile, insect, or bird. It has never been observed to happen. The simplest explanation being the best, it has never been observed because it has never happened. What HAS been observed, is dogs with short hair growing longer hair; animals with feathers grow different colored feathers, animals which already possess a trait are known to refine a trait, particularly when selectively bred. However, they NEVER have demonstrated the development of a function which did not previously exist. -A bacteria which doesn't eat or digest food does not spontaneously gain that ability through mutation or epigenetics. They may learn to metabolize new food, but that is an adaptation of an existing system. -In short, according to their kind means exactly what it says, regardless of whether read as a religious text or science book. We know there are classifications of animals. We have NEVER seen an occasion where an animal from one distinct classification suddenly developed a new feature that moved it into another classification. They remain, to this day, classified according to their kind. -
That being said, I have also stated that I believe the grand designer left wiggle room for adaptation. I even gave a nice little analogy about human designers, wanting to allow for flexibility and creativity in their creations, that have done the exact same thing. Having seen the same design principals applied by sentient, intelligent designers with the same or similar results works as a sort of third party verification of the type that 'science' is not even willing to consider.

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