Natural selection says that any adaptation that has not got a purpose will be removed from the gene pool. So how could a functioning eye be formed over a long period of time when there is no function until the whole system is in place?
The final nail in the coffin for the concept of natural selection came with the recent discoveries of DNA and how the cells work.
36 comments
Actually, DNA and how the cells work was the nail in the coffin for the concept of natural selection. Concerning the first part, that's not what the law of natural selection states. It only states that those who are better adapted to the environment will be the ones who will let their genes pass and prosper. Concerning how they remove non-functional elements, it doesn't mean that they disappear immediately(look at the appendix), it means that the individuals, EVENTUALLY, they will atrofiate the useless organ or they will let individuals who had done that procreate, and, eventually, it will disappear. And of course, we speak about organs whose function is not clear ANY LONGER, not clear in general.
But you're not supposed to believe in DNA. Haven't you ever read Genesis 30:37-39? Here it is:
And Jacob took him rods of green poplar, and of the hazel and chesnut tree; and pilled white strakes in them, and made the white appear which [was] in the rods. And he set the rods which he had pilled before the flocks in the gutters in the watering troughs when the flocks came to drink, that they should conceive when they came to drink. And the flocks conceived before the rods, and brought forth cattle ringstraked, speckled, and spotted.
Natural selection would be wrong if it stated that. Unfortunately for you Darwin was smarter than you are. If the most survivable of a species happens to have some utterly useless trait then that trait, along with all the others it possess, will be passed down. DNA and the workings of cells do nothing to weaken the argument for evolution or natural selection. Not really sure where you got that idea seeing as you stated it with no supporting evidence or reasoning.
"The final nail in the coffin for the concept of natural selection came with the recent discoveries of DNA and how the cells work."
Maybe on Alternate Bizzaro World that was the case: it certainly wasn't here.
Natural selection says that any adaptation that has not got a purpose will be removed from the gene pool.
No. It says no such thing. Only the traits that threaten the survival are simply morel likely to be removed by way of the particular offspring not being able to cope with the environment and hence dying before passing on the genes.
So how could a functioning eye be formed over a long period of time when there is no function until the whole system is in place?
This is a bullshit argument. An eye started from patches of photo-sensitive cells on the surface of the skin. Go read a book, you moron.
There are animals with light-sensitive patches on their skin, light sensitive patches in pits ("pin-hole" cameras), simple eyes, complex eyes, multi-lens eyes, etc. In fact we can see in various living animals just about every step in the sequence from a simple light-sensitive patch to human eye. We can watch how the eye develops in embryos. Furthermore, the human eye is defective. The retina points backwards toward the skull. We can explain how that evolved, too. How does it get explained by a perfect Designer? Why would the Designer give the crown of his creation defective retinas while doing it right for the lowly squid?
DNA is far from being the final nail in the coffin for the concept of natural selection. DNA helps solidify natural selection with regard to the eye. Dogs need good low light vision. So they've abandoned full color vision (which doesn't work in low light) in favor of better night vision. As CW says, "any adaptation that has not got a purpose will be removed from the gene pool". And that's what happened with dogs. Dogs have the genes for color vision. But the genes have fallen into disrepair. A damaged nucleotide here and there has made them useless. But because color vision wasn't needed, these genetic defects weren't weeded out by natural selection. How does this get explained by a perfect Designer? Why would a Designer give a dog a complete set of genes for color vision, then disable them?
Gee, you can tell how many of these fundies are regular Bush Dimbulb listeners. Make a totally ridiculous statement authoritatively. Never explain your point, just run on and act as though it is a given. Creation weird, you have bounced a lot of hot air out there, now prove it.
Yeah, so, the chief problem with Darwin's ToE was that he couldn't point to a specific mechanism for inheriting variant traits. Then along came Mendel and proved beyond doubt there was one. Some considerable time later, along came the Watson, Crick & Franklin combo who identified this, er, missing link as DNA. That's some fucking useless coffin you got there, CW. It keeps falling apart.
So why does there have an eye but nothing in the middle? I never heard anyone from evolution school give an adequate explanation for that one.
I'm not surprised. It's kind of difficult to respond to meaningless incoherence.
Molluscs prove you wrong!
Some molluscs have simple light sensitive patches that let them tell light from dark. Nautiloids have pinhole eyes, which lack lenses but allow them to form crude images. Squids and octupi have eyes with lenses that are as good or better then our eyes.
Nautilus eyes work even though they don't have lenses, they can't see as well as we can, but they can see better then a limpet with it's light-sensitive patches, and that can make the difference between life and death.
Well, it IS filled with clear, delicious jello...
image
...and that's good enough for me.
And which discoveries would those be?
Could you perhaps tell the rest of the class what they are, and explain how they disprove natural selection?
Could you explain how knowing how "the cells" work falsifies natural selection as a mechanism for evolution?
You're arguing from a "God of the Gaps" argument. It doesn't work.
"So how could a functioning eye be formed over a long period of time when there is no function until the whole system is in place?"
Bullshit. Also ratshit, batshit, and iguana crap.
Yes, there is absolutely no reason why a proto-fishie would need blurry vision or even a sense of light when it could simply wander around in the dark...
Evolution does not work that way.
And you fail to explain your DNA evidence, so... um... I win by default? nvm.
any detrimental adaption will be reduced in the gene pool (rarely totally removed as can be shown be the existance of some truly nasty genetic quirks).
A functioning eye can be the result of a large number of incremental changes each giving an slightly improved chance of survival to reproduction.
Actually, there's plenty of pointless things that we could do without. Gallbladder, appendix, curly hair, all kinds of things that don't serve a purpose.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
