How much actual evidence is there against Evolution (Macro)

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

I know such claims don't refute claims of irreducible complexity. I just want to know why such claims are made, and when they are, critics of ID say "game over, you lose." I mean, it was even asserted at Dover that Michael Behe's examples of irreducibly complex systems had been refuted. When they hadn't. And I think your analogy of crossing a river is somewhat simplistic. That is all.

[BGoodForGoodSake]

I know such claims don't refute claims of irreducible complexity. I just want to know why such claims are made, and when they are, critics of ID say "game over, you lose." I mean, it was even asserted at Dover that Michael Behe's examples of irreducibly complex systems had been refuted. When they hadn't. And I think your analogy of crossing a river is somewhat simplistic. That is all.

Simplistic?
Really?

With what basis can you claim that the eye shows Irreducible Complexity?

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

I know such claims don't refute claims of irreducible complexity. I just want to know why such claims are made, and when they are, critics of ID say "game over, you lose." I mean, it was even asserted at Dover that Michael Behe's examples of irreducibly complex systems had been refuted. When they hadn't. And I think your analogy of crossing a river is somewhat simplistic. That is all.

Simplistic?
Really?

With what basis can you claim that the eye shows Irreducible Complexity?

First of all, I no longer like analogies. For your last question, see pages 18-25, Darwin's Black Box. Unlike the hypothesis of how the eye evolved, Michael Behe looks at how vision works at the level of proteins and ions etc-not the "lens, retina, cornea" level.

[BGoodForGoodSake]

First of all, I no longer like analogies. For your last question, see pages 18-25, Darwin's Black Box. Unlike the hypothesis of how the eye evolved, Michael Behe looks at how vision works at the level of proteins and ions etc-not the "lens, retina, cornea" level.

So let me ask you, do you think the bio-chemical basis for vision is drastically different between an insect an octopus a frog and a human?

Is Behe arguing that the eye could not have evolved or is he arguing that the light detecting mechanisms are irreducibly complex. It would seem the latter. And thus this has absolutely no bearing on the discussion of the eye itself as being irreducibly complex.

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

First of all, I no longer like analogies. For your last question, see pages 18-25, Darwin's Black Box. Unlike the hypothesis of how the eye evolved, Michael Behe looks at how vision works at the level of proteins and ions etc-not the "lens, retina, cornea" level.

So let me ask you, do you think the bio-chemical basis for vision is drastically different between an insect an octopus a frog and a human?

Is Behe arguing that the eye could not have evolved or is he arguing that the light detecting mechanisms are irreducibly complex. It would seem the latter. And thus this has absolutely no bearing on the discussion of the eye itself as being irreducibly complex.

Well, an eye requires a light detecting mechanism (unless we radically redefine what an eye is). So how does this have nothing to do with the irreducible complexity of an eye?

Thought this was interesting-not a rebuttal to anything you've said-just interesting.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB ... ad&id=1061

[BGoodForGoodSake]

First of all, I no longer like analogies. For your last question, see pages 18-25, Darwin's Black Box. Unlike the hypothesis of how the eye evolved, Michael Behe looks at how vision works at the level of proteins and ions etc-not the "lens, retina, cornea" level.

So let me ask you, do you think the bio-chemical basis for vision is drastically different between an insect an octopus a frog and a human?

Is Behe arguing that the eye could not have evolved or is he arguing that the light detecting mechanisms are irreducibly complex. It would seem the latter. And thus this has absolutely no bearing on the discussion of the eye itself as being irreducibly complex.

Well, an eye requires a light detecting mechanism (unless we radically redefine what an eye is). So how does this have nothing to do with the irreducible complexity of an eye?

Because the evolution of the eye does not involve changes in the light detecting pathway only in the structures around it. It's like saying that the refridgerator is spicy because there is a bottle of hotsauce inside of it.

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

First of all, I no longer like analogies. For your last question, see pages 18-25, Darwin's Black Box. Unlike the hypothesis of how the eye evolved, Michael Behe looks at how vision works at the level of proteins and ions etc-not the "lens, retina, cornea" level.

So let me ask you, do you think the bio-chemical basis for vision is drastically different between an insect an octopus a frog and a human?

Is Behe arguing that the eye could not have evolved or is he arguing that the light detecting mechanisms are irreducibly complex. It would seem the latter. And thus this has absolutely no bearing on the discussion of the eye itself as being irreducibly complex.

Well, an eye requires a light detecting mechanism (unless we radically redefine what an eye is). So how does this have nothing to do with the irreducible complexity of an eye?

Because the evolution of the eye does not involve changes in the light detecting pathway only in the structures around it. It's like saying that the refridgerator is spicy because there is a bottle of hotsauce inside of it.

So, in the hypothetical evolution of the eye, we assume that irreducibly complex systems are already in place. Shouldn't you have to explain those too? Evolution is supposed to explain everything. And some claim it does.

[BGoodForGoodSake]

Because the evolution of the eye does not involve changes in the light detecting pathway only in the structures around it. It's like saying that the refridgerator is spicy because there is a bottle of hotsauce inside of it.

So, in the hypothetical evolution of the eye, we assume that irreducibly complex systems are already in place.

Yes we assume the system is in place given the fact that three different series of eyes exist in nature which all use the same visual pathway. You're the one who assumes it is irreducibly complex.

Shouldn't you have to explain those too? Evolution is supposed to explain everything.

How can a science explain everything at the level of specificity you seem to be demanding? That's forensics, an (application of scientific theories and technology in investigation), not science itself, the (process of developing theories). For instance in physics we have the atomic theory and countless tables and charts of physical properties. We don't need a general theory for how a specific combination of semiconductors and other materials create transistors. The theory of Evolution contains explanations of the processes involved. We can only speculate on past occurances.

Going back to irreducible complexity, are you saying that there is no way for the visual pathway to have formed peicemeal? Think about phototropism and it's relation to vision.

What you are doing is a series of why's which can go on ad infinitum.
Why is it bright outside?
Because the Sun's out.
Why?
Because it's day time.
Why?
Because it's not night time...