The real alternative to design (Evolution)

by George Jelliss , Crewe, Saturday, March 08, 2008, 12:01 (6102 days ago) @ David Turell

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. - It does seem reasonable to me to argue that the architecture of the squid eye is more "logical" from the point of view of a conscious designer. (Incidentally I think the argument is due to Kenneth Miller rather than Richard Dawkins.) 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. - 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.