Intelligent Design vs Evolution of the Cell

The cell is an incredibly complex machine fundamental to all known forms of life. The more we learn about it, the more we discover how sophisticated it is, but also how absolutely amazingly precision engineered it is. To evolve a human, first you must evolve a cell. How can anyone possibly look at a living cell and say it evolved any more than they can point at a rolex watch and say that evolved?

And what about the eye? A complex piece of engineering on its own even before you factor in the amazingly complex visual system?

A little knowledge can be so dangerous. Even when I was a practicing Christian, that argument troubled me. I’d go so far as to say it began my fall from faith.

The human animal is a terribly imperfect creature, take the eye, for instance. A terrible piece of engineering. In the human eye, the retina is wired up back-to-front, with the light-sensitive cells behind the nerves and blood vessels that support it. That’s like putting the wiring of a ditigal camera infront of the CCD. And the nerves and blood vessels have to dive through the retina, creating a blind spot in each eye.

Squids and octopuses have eyes that are wired the other way around giving them far better vision and allowing more brain power to be spent on processing the actual image than constructing it. Well, according to Genesis 1, the process of 6 days of back to back creation left God in need of a rest, so maybe it was around after he made the cephalapods that he started getting tired and started botching up the eye design?

The human visual system is all a constructive illusion that we believe because we live within its confines. Canals on Mars? Ever noticed the second hand on a clock seem to pause? If you have one handy, watch it for a while and blink occasionally. When you happen to blink just as the hand move, the next second will seem to take longer. You can get the same effect by rapidly moving or rolling your eyes but harder to achieve as pronounced an effect.

This is the brain’s built-in response to a saccade – after restoring normal vision, the brain uses the first image it receives to fill in the last few miliseconds of the preceeding gap so that you don’t see darkness every time you move your eyes allowing us the impression of seamless, continuous vision.

Infact, our “frame rate” is incredibly low. But our self-contained little system is inherently self-delusional, as evidenced by the pausing second hand where the brain’s little visual deception causes an internal consistency with its own timing mechanisms.

Even conscious of this, its hard to shake of the absolute certainty that the hand is not keeping perfect time.

I find the limitations, failings and deceptions of the visual system astounding. What I once took to be the most conrete and infallible of the senses turns out to be a hodge-podge of make believe. And, indeed, our entire perception of reality is similarly manufactured and fictional. Most people have an image, a moment or a place they can recall in perfect detail. Wrong. Your brain is acting as both collector and inspector. Its more like you remember an index of associated memories and the process of that rememberance creates the illusion of a more complete memory.

Your mind’s eye is not a HDTV, that’s just how the sense we give ourselves of it.

The entire brain is similarly self-expressionate. We see, feel, hear and understand everything in recursive patterns. Because that’s how our brain works. Ultimately, everything resolves to some pattern of neurons. As I’ve said before, the human brain cannot understand randomness. We can get the concept, but never truly understand it. You get that randomness means no pattern, but still we see patterns in clouds, or stars, or static on the TV.  11111111122222222. That’s random. Just me pressing two keys at random. Your brain interpreted it as ones and twos, a pattern, so seeing beyond that is immediately and automatically hampered.

Religion – not uniquely, I see far too many ‘scientific’ theories that are based on the same thing – provides answers to basic universal questions – like the bizzare and sometimes crazy theories that percolate out of quantum physics. Unlike science, which throws a terrifying universe of further questions and answers at us – religion is succinct, simple, storable as a pattern.

So once you believe, it becomes incredibly difficult to see there are answers and questions beyond our immediate scope; it becomes very hard to be objective and see that our own questions are framed in the context and assumption of our existing belief set – just like its hard to accept that you can’t recall in perfect detail that amazing vista or the day she said “yes” or the moments before that terrible accident because you are both inquirer and respondent.

The cell didn’t evolve over night nor did life go from mud puddle to cells in a blink. Chemicals combined and separated, compounds formed and mixed, broke down and dissipated, seeped and flowed. And here and there some stuck together and became fussy about what else they would combine or react with. Gradually more and more complex compounds formed. At some point, an environment formed in which a new compound emerged with a new and different property. Instead of interacting with surrounding compounds, to break down and form something else, it caused surrounding compounds to form more of the same.

Did you think I was talking about DNA or life or something? Actually, I was just talking about salt crystals. When certain atoms link up in the right way, they create an opportunity for repetition. Over a million years the early earth veritably froths and bubbles, boils and churns. It gets smacked about by rocks and snowballs containing all kinds of atoms and molecules. Lightning, wind, vulcanism, rain, erosion… But when your belief system tells you the universe was created in 7 days, its really very hard just to conceive of how simple and obvious it is that all these lucky coincidetal science experiments would happen to come together in the same puddle of mud. Chances are all of those experiments happened countless times until they happened upon a molecule of two hydrogen atoms and one of oxygen bumped into them.

Its absolutely incredible to believe that blind chance happened to zap a puddle of mud and create life. But we’re talking about a planet’s worth of atoms that weren’t doing anything else. Billions and billions of little laboratories. There are over 70 naturally occuring elements on this here planet of ours, over 50 of them in abundance. An entire planet of temperature variations and varietous mixing activities. Its so far beyond the scale the human brain can comprehend and so we quietly simplify it down to the analogy of “natures chemistry set”. Of course life didn’t evolve from a handful of test-tubes.

But a salt crystal is simply the simplest of all generations – atoms of the same element binding together. The evidence for a tumltous laboratory of ever varying conditions and environs is right there in the ground beneath our feet – there is no single chemical formula for “rock”; we don’t find tin atom by atom, it comes in veins; we don’t dig up carbon, and we don’t find diamond mountains, we find diamonds.

The cell didn’t evolve from a puddle of mud anymore than the iPhone is the direct descendant of the telegraph. How did the blind watch maker conjuor up something as complex and full of interdependencies as the cell? It didn’t. The blind watch maker probably invented something more like a sundial or an egg-timer or the water clock. 

Many of the essential components of the cell – like DNA, RNA, amino acids, proteins, all exist in nature. Between the telegraph and the iPhone there’s John Logie Baird, the CRT and the mobile phone, to name but a few steps.

The cell, no doubt, has its dinosaurs. After all, if you put aside the religious scale of creation for a while, there was an awful lot of time for an entire planet of atoms to try out one or two variations on the theme.

PS I’m not trying to tell you what to believe, and if your personal faith rested on the basis that evolution isn’t true and that Genesis 1 was a literal truth then I guess you weren’t paying much attention when you read Genesis 2 where the order is a little bit different.

If the bible is genuinely divinely inspired then I take that as the author’s way of saying “Creation? Bit complicated that and a bit off topic for this book of moral and spiritual guidance (but not taboo). We’re going to be focusing on when to stone people and when not to kill, having a few battles and some significant slavery and suffering, discuss rituals for cutting meat and, uhm, other things, and a lil’ bit about loving one another in a spiritual way before a big finale of fire and brimstone for a climax”.

Base your faith on the message and not the translation.

24 Comments

Sounds like you’ve just finished the selfish gene by Richard Dawkin ;)
After reading it, all the fluffy GCSE scence-y “this is how natural selection and evolution” works suddenly clicked into place. Slightly more of a grok-enducing moment is then reading the blind watchmaker

I’m just forever amazed that anything evolved from such simple “rules” – but I do think that has now influenced my work – very tempted to learn prolog or lisp properly and just tell the language what the rules are and let it come up with the program and solution.

— asn

Actually, it was an article on how alternative math/algebra such as Clifford Algebra might explain some of the uncertainty of quantum physics/mechanics.

For instance, in standard math, multiplication is commutative – 3 x 2 = 2 x 3 = 6.

But rotation in space is not commutative – take a box, rotate it left 90 degrees then forwards 90 degrees; now try that in a different order – forwards 90, left 90. The result is a different spatial arrangement. (By forwards I mean around its y axis rather than ‘towards you’)

I’m summarising a 6 page article that touched on not just the one theory but a whole series of theories and investigations which seem to hint that there might actually be a “fourth angle” without all the complications of extra dimensions or spooky ‘observer’ effects.

I’ve always distrusted the seeming maze of ever more complex and “spooky” theories that current quantum theory generates.

I put the article down and glanced at the clock just as it moved, and I had that eerie feeling that it stayed longer than it should, and even as I knew it hadn’t, I still believed it, couldn’t make my brain truly see what it had actually seen, only flag the memory as incorrect.

Which is how I think we’ve arrived at our convoluted, self-deluding theories of quantum physics and intelligent design. Intelligent design isn’t science, its trying to question science through a religious microscope, unable to see the incorrectness of the context the questions are asked in, or the unsuitability of the questions; just like quantum physics advancing with the assumptions in John Bell’s paper on the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox as taken.

*nods* Yes, I do recommend the above two books mind.

I’m definitely a proponent of the simplest explanation being the most likely, any theory that requires a large number of relatively improbable situations to come into being worries me – admittedly that might be my distrust of humanity (cue Roswell, moon landing conspiracies etc – e.g. if governments cant keep simple things quiet I don’t believe they could hide big things)

Then again, NASA managed to get men to the moon (ahem – lets leave that as a hypothesis until proven otherwise shall we) using Newtonian physics – which is good enough in most cases, quantum theory and even chaos theory are only theories – they fit observed behavior – and will surely be found to be false in future years – see the replacement of quantum with strings ;)

My other sound bite that I take to heart is:
“you can only prove that something exists, and not that it doesn’t”

Hence leaving myself open to the possibility that religions might actually have something in there ;)

— asn

I always thought that when you had to go into N dimensions to describe a real world events. Something must be not quite right. I think most of the quantum physics suffers from the uncertainty principle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

The act of measuring what you observe alters what is being observed.

My first reaction to the intro was that you were visited by two guys wearing white oxfords and ties, on a two year quest to find the golden tablets.

Breed, Just to nitpick, what you summarized in your second paragraph is not the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. The uncertainty principle states (to grossly summarize) that you cannot know both the position AND the momentum of a particle at any given time. It does not state that if you observe a particles position you perturb it in such a way that you cannot observe its momentum.

Speaking about randomness, I just read i very entertaining book called “The Black Swan – the impact of the highly improbable” that concerned humans’ constant need to feel like they can control, understand, and predict random events. It’s also a long constant rip at economists that persist in modeling the market as a gaussian process, despite overwhelming evidence that it’s not. If you’re interested in these kinds of things, I highly recommend it.

My understanding was that the act of measuring subtracts from the total energy state of what you are measuring. You can know one but not the other. I thought that was why there is a lot of indirect measurements at the sub atomic level in an attempt to get a more accurate definition of the total state of the particle at the point of observation.

I might have learned these on the same day and they are forever mixed.

Black Swan is on my want to read list.

that concerned humans’ constant need to feel like they can control, understand, and predict random events

Randomness is to the brain what seeing xrays is to the human eye. The brain has no verbiage for either, its only at the conscious level we can connect a variety of patterns that give us a concept of it. We can recolor an image with the xrays using an existing color; or we can understand randomness as “a lack of designed patterns”. But in doing so, what your brain truly “knows” is something else.

Breed: See Bell’s Theorem and EPR: Implications for quantum mechanics.

I’m always amused by the fact that you can ask anyone to give you a list of numbers they think is random, put it side by side with a list of numbers “randomly” generated by a computer .. and you can tell which one the human generated virtually all the time by knowing what to look for.

We suck at randomness.

Thank whoever for the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Otherwise Toto’s home state would be teaching ignorant design even as we blog.

All certitude is suspect.

So is irony.

…@/

Both religion and science are based upon unprovable assumptions. Religion calls that faith. Science calls it non-falsifiable.

Cosmic Jackpot (Why our universe is just right for life) by Paul Davies (author of The Mind of God) takes stock of the ultimate question – why can life exist in the universe?

I’ll let him make the arguments, but its right on your thoughts, Ollie, including the quantum theory questions you raise.

Enjoy

^Yep, The 5th Miracle by Paul Davies is an easy read on this topic aswell.

KFS1, did you read about the unified theory proposed by Garrett Lisi (aka Surfer Dude) recently? It went way over my head, but it mentioned Clifford Algebra at some point.

Is that the one that discusses color changes within gluons and comes up with what looks like a star-of-david diagram of the interactions between the properties of the lowest level subatomic particles?

That’s the one…..freaky! I sent the link to rickb the other day….there’s a YT explaining the rotation part. Would be interesting to see if it’s provable.

Life Evolution Within Cosmic Evolution,
Design And Randomness

A. The Cosmic Drive and Purpose Behind
The Drive and Purpose Of Life

(From chapter III of “Life, Tomorrow’s Comprehension” )
http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-P81pQcU1dLBbHgtjQjxG_Q–?cq=1&p=372

(1) Again, Earth Life Is A Real Virtual Affair; it pops in and out of existence from its matrix, which is the energy constrained in Earth’s biosphere. The totality of life in Earth’s biosphere (the outermost part of the planet’s shell, including air, land, surface rocks and water, within which life occurs, and which biotic processes in turn alter or transform. Wikipedia.) is a temporary grand store of constrained energy, and all living organisms are elaborate temporary energy storage containers and all genes-genomes are “Life quanta” organisms, carriers of “Life photons”.

(2) Singularity and D-Infinity (max expansion/ cosmic energy dilution) are the two cosmic stable states. Their in-between is a metastable state. This corresponds to commonsense observation: the denser the compacting goal of material the more energy is required, and vice versa the more thorough the disintegration of material the higher the amount of energy released. It seems that E=mC^2 is a specific case of the cosmic (and universal) process

E=Total[m(1+D)]

where D is the Distance from Big Bang point and the sum is of all spatial values of D from D=0 to D=selected value.

[BTW, (Nov 9 2006), following Newton (1) gravity is decreased when mass is decreased and (2) acceleration of a body is given by dividing the force acting upon it by its mass. By plain common sense the combination of those two ‘laws’ may explain the accelerating cosmic expansion of galaxy clusters, based on the above E/ m/ D suggested relationship.]

(3) Life, and every and all objects and processes including natural laws, are – since their non-existence at singularity – products of evolution and are continuously further evolving. Everything in the cosmos is fractal, rehappens on many scales, and is continuously evolving. Each and every system in the universe continuously evolves within the total universal evolution and all the systems’ evolutions are intertwined. Ergo (Big-Bang’s) energy is the base element of everything in the universe and individual genes are the base elements of Life. Cosmic evolution is evolution of energy, and within it Life’s evolution is the evolution of the genes/energy-quanta carriers.

(4) At the beginning was the energy singularity. At the end will be near zero mass and an infinite dispersion of the beginning energy. In-between, the universe undergoes continuous evolution, consisting of myriad energy-to-energy and energy-to-mass-to-energy transformations. The cosmos evolution process comprises, though, phenomena of forms of temporary energy storages, energy dispersion constraints. Examples of such temporary pockets are black holes of all sizes, and all forms of biospheres wherever they are.

The temporary constrained energy pockets are far-removed versions, up-fractionally evolved, scattered cosmic fragmants of singularity-akin energy storages. Energy stored in the temporary constrained energy pockets resists dispersion; we do not yet comprehend why. However, we do comprehend that we, all Earth life, are real virtual constrained energy pockets formed by Earth’s biosphere energy store in the process of enhencing Earth’s biosphere energy content and for resisting its dispersion by maintaining it bio as long as possible.

B. Life Evolution Within The Cosmic Evolution

All cosmic objects, processes and (natural) laws, not having been in existence at singularity, are products of evolution and are further evolving.

Life system(s) is a sub-system of energy. The evolution of Life(s) system(s) differs from the evolution of non-living system(s) in Design and Randomness.

Non-living systems evolve in accordance with laws that evolve during the systems’ evolution, affected and selected randomly by the Ambience. This route of evolution, even if it ‘enables’ temporary diversions from the inavoidable final end state of the cosmos, has a fixed overall direction and a fixed end state.

Whereas Life system(s) evolve with Design, with the design and culture selected by the evolution of Life’s prime organisms, the genes-genome, for surviving as long as possible, for lengthening as much as possible the period of constrainig their planet’s biosphere energy, even if in a hopeless eventualy losing struggle to maintain their planet bio.

Dov Henis

THERE IS A NEW DISCIPLINE:

The Quest for Right, a series of 7 textbooks created for the public schools, represents the ultimate marriage between an in-depth knowledge of biblical phenomena and natural and physical sciences. The several volumes have accomplished that which, heretofore, was deemed impossible: to level the playing field between those who desire a return to physical science in the classroom and those who embrace the theory of evolution. The Quest for Right turns the tide by providing an authoritative and enlightening scientific explanation of natural phenomena which will ultimately dethrone the unprofitable Darwinian view.

The backbone of Darwinism is not biological evolution per se, but electronic interpretation, the tenet that all physical, chemical, and biological processes result from a change in the electron structure of the atom which, in turn, may be deciphered through the orderly application of mathematics, as outlined in quantum mechanics. A few of the supporting theories are: degrading stars, neutron stars, black holes, extraterrestrial water, antimatter, the absolute dating systems, and the big bang, the explosion of a singularity infinitely smaller than the dot of an “i” from which space, time, and the massive stellar bodies supposedly sprang into being.

The philosophy rejects any divine intervention. Therefore, let the philosophy of Darwinism be judged on these specifics: electron interpretation and quantum mechanics. Conversely, the view that God is both responsible for and rules all the phenomena of the universe will stand or fall when the facts are applied. The view will not hinge on faith alone, but will be tested by the weightier principle of verifiable truths – the new discipline.

The Quest for Right is not only better at explaining natural phenomena, but also may be verified through testing. As a consequence, the material in the several volumes will not violate the so-called constitutional separation of church and state. Physical science, the old science of cause and effect, will have a long-term sustainability, replacing irresponsible doctrines based on whim. Teachers and students will rejoice in the simplicity of earthly phenomena when entertained by the new discipline.

The Quest for Right is not only an academic resource designed for the public schools, but also contains a wealth of information on pertinent subjects that seminarians need to know to be effective: geology, biology, geography, astronomy, chemistry, paleontology, and in-depth Biblical studies. The nuggets from the pages of Biblical history alone will give seminarians literally hundreds of fresh ideas for sermons and teachings. The ministry resources contained in The Quest for Right serve as invaluable aids that will enrich graduates beyond their highest expectations.

You will not want to miss the adventure of a lifetime which awaits you in Volume 1 of The Quest for Right.
Visit the official website for additional information and to purchase a copy: http://questforright.com/

“A book that will change the world.” – Wayne Lin, Editor, Tate Publishing LLC

Looks like you’ve been tagged by the agenda spammers.

It’s clogging up my reader. :)

What requires more faith? Believing in a Creator, or in the philosophy of Oops? Is “oops” the best that materialism can come up with? Is oops truly a more rational conclusion than design? It would take more faith than I could possibly muster in order for me to accept that the universe is simply a product of oops. Especially in light of modern scientific discoveries that continually point toward a supernatural explanation. While evolution is indeed a fact, Darwinism grows ever more faint. Materialists cling to the corpse of Darwin, using not science or reason to hold their position, but rather sophistry and rhetoric.
1.Unlocking the Mysteries of Life.
http://thoughtsongod.wordpress.com/2008/02/12/unlocking-the-mystries-of-life/
2.From Darwin to Hitler:Ideas Have Consequences
http://thoughtsongod.wordpress.com/intelligent-design/

I thought you were making sense for a few sentences. Just passing through (looking for someone who thinks like me, I suppose). It seems rather arrogant to say that God didn’t do a very good job designing the eye and therefore it must have happened accidentally. Wow! That’s an argument!

It seems rather arrogant to say that God didn’t do a very good job designing the eye and therefore it must have happened accidentally.

It would only seem that way if you picked up the sound bite and didn’t actually read the post. Arrogance is the presumption of a superior position. In my post I actually cited the superior position – the fact that a simple scrutiny of the human eye reveals a plethora of defects and weaknesses that I could grant might be divine wisdom except that there is a radically superior alternative out there in nature.

In-fact it is the creationist who is being arrogant when they cite the human eye as proof of god – because they believe in god, therefore they believe they are made in his image and therefore they are the image of perfection and therefore their eyes are the eyes of perfection and since their eyes are perfect clearly they can’t have happened by accident.

But apparently god decided that squid deserved better-than-perfection when it came to the design of their eyes.

It is the creationist being arrogant refusing to hear or understand that the sensation we have of perfect 140 billion megapixel continuous vision is an illusion necessitated by the poor quality of our eyes. Which would be a low blow for a deity to pull – humans are remarkably easy to fool visually and a great many injustices arise because a human is so thoroughly convinced they saw one thing when infact they saw another. Take dyslexia, for instance, which can cause people to read entirely different words than they saw, and the many minor variants that can cause people to be blind to entire paragraphs or even arguments… And you want me to believe that this is because somehow, after populating the sea and the air and the land, when the almighty got around to creating us, he thought “yeah the squid system is better, more efficient, uses less energy, causes less confusion and deception … but I’m gonna go with this unreliable, flaky and error prone system I used in the fishes instead”. Perhaps he wanted us to be scared of the dark?

I personally think of the human eye in a way that is optimized for full sufficiency.
In others words, its the best it can possibly be for a human. Take a laptop for example. If you want compactability you will have to sacrifice a few hardwares out of it. If you want the best hardware and all features, you might have to sacrifice design and compactibility, or even price.
Its difficult to have it all at that same time without having to sacrifice a thing or two in exchange……

You’re also basing it on a false assumption that since the human eye isn’t perfect according to our own standards therefore God doesn’t exist.

If the imperfect eye is evidence that a perfect God doesn’t exist then we should shift blame on “evolutionary process” for being responsible for not giving us better eyes even as of today.
I guess evolution can’t do its job right either or we are all just looking for someone or something to blame.

Its difficult to have it all at that same time without having to sacrifice a thing or two in exchange……

You’re also basing it on a false assumption that since the human eye isn’t perfect according to our own standards therefore God doesn’t exist.

I’m afraid you have it the wrong way around. I am counterpointing the argument, often presented, that the eye is complex and perfect, far too perfect and far too intricate to have evolved by mere chance, and that this complexity and perfection is thus proof we were purposefully constructed by a watchmaker, i.e. god.

There is no “false assumption” in what I’ve presented, but there is a certain bias in your comparison to a laptop which is – of course – purposely built to a particular aim. Someone sits down and plans out a laptop. So naturally compromises are made and multiple models are made to satisfy different demands, but they are done purposefully.

There would be no disadvantages to humans having a squid’s optic system. It is more efficient, it requires less brain power to process images. The human eye is not perfect. It could be called “adequate” except it is costly. You think you can see everything infront of you, but you can’t.

Because of the numerous deficiencies in our eyes, you can actually only see very little. You dedicate a significant amount of brainpower to building and maintaining a memory of what your eyes saw recently, and a lot of energy to continuously saccading your eyes to refresh portions of this image-memory. These updates require a lot of additional processing to compensate for the optical defects in our version of the eye.

The only false assumption here is yours, that there would be negatives to humans having a squid-like eye.

To use your laptop analogy, lets say a manufacturer is building a $500 laptop. They’ve got everything together except the memory. They have two choices: two sticks of 256Mb DDR1 ram which add $100 to the cost of the machine and will account for 5% of battery usage, or two sticks of 1Gb DDR3 ram which will add $25 to the cost of the machine and account for 0.5% of battery usage.

In the case of human vs squid, we got the 256Mb DDR1 sticks.

An even better way to close the analogy would be someone building two laptops with webcams. Both webcams produce roughly the same apparent resolution of image, but the squid version of the laptop is cheaper and produces a single, clean 1280×1024 bmp image in a single shot. The human laptop has a shorter battery life, less memory available, yet its camera works by taking a 160×128 jpeg of one portion of the image, then slewing quickly and taking the new 160×128 portion. This physical motion consumes additional battery power, but also requires additional software running on the laptop to combine the images, correct for the motion-blurring caused by the slewing, correct for changes in the thing being viewed while the 8 portions of the image are being captured, buffer the image while it is being assembled, and eliminate the wiring which would otherwise appear in the middle of each 160×128 quadrant. This software uses a significant amount of CPU and battery drain.

Does it prove there isn’t a god? Not at all, perhaps his sense of humor is satisfied by creating a series of intelligent beings imbued with a concrete sense of “seeing” that is so vastly inferior to an aquatic mollusk. Perhaps he thought it would be ironic to give us a visual system that doesn’t seem to be suited to much more than keeping away from lions and catching branches. Perhaps he thought it would keep us humble. But he seems to have gone out of his way to make it imperfect.

Remember: the bible says the animals were created first, so the squid had its eye before we did. Which means that god must have chosen to implement a totally different eye design for us, or decided to go ahead and seriously impair our vision and tie up a whole bunch of brain to compensating for it. An odd choice.

As for “blaming” evolution… Evolution doesn’t say we’re evolved from squids or their ancestors. According to evolution, their eye evolved for entirely different reasons and from an entirely different origin. The fossil record seems to explain why our eye has the failings it does, and apologizes for the inferiority by explaining that it is simply making the best out of what it has.

My intention wasn’t to disprove god, nor was that my claim. I simply question the validity of the eye as evidence for the proof of god.

Leave a Reply

Name and email address are required. Your email address will not be published.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title="" rel=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <pre> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong> 

%d bloggers like this: