Posted: Jun 06, 2014 4:52 pm
Hi guys! Here are four questions on the origin of the human (or various other) eyes. I've been reading Evolution's Witness: How Eyes Evolved, and I debated the author's colleague, a Univ of Calif prof of ophthalmology on the topic. If you Google: scholars doubting darwin, you'll see, in the U.S. alone, links to lists of thousands of specific individuals, and then further research by prestigious secular pro-Darwin institutions showing that more than half a million, college graduates, most of them with PhDs and degrees in the applied biological sciences, who believe that strict materialist Darwinism cannot account for human life and that God must have been involved. So here are the kind of questions that lead educated folks to doubt Darwinism:
1. By Darwin and Dawkin's slow and gradual steps (like how you climb Mt. Improbable), would you agree that, in theory, *IF* THERE ARE NO STEPS between two very complex biological systems (like perhaps monochromatic and dichromatic vision), that neo-Darwinism is falsified.
2. Is it possible that there are no physical or even logical steps between monochromatic and dichromatic vision systems? (There is a non-trivial level of increased complexity going to dichromatic vision.)
3. When you consider, as in the image below (and at http://rsr.org/files/images/science/vis ... stream.jpg ), that a brain's incoming visual data stream doesn't include anything like an analog representation of the outside world, but instead, presents a symbolic encoding of that information, can you identify any of the fundamental laws of chemistry or physics that involve symbolic processing?
4. Looking at the image below (and at http://rsr.org/images/PermTOL/TrochleaKGOVchallenge.jpg ) does all that you've learned about neo-Darwinism enable you to give a rough algorithm, no details, just a broad-stroked description, of how one of the more simple functional aspects of our vision system could evolve? PZ Myers posted this challenge, and said that, speaking for himself, he could not. Even though it's one of the simplest parts of the eye system, I think it's unanswerable from your belief system.
Thanks for giving me a place to ask these questions!
- Bob Enyart
Denver, Colorado, USA
1. By Darwin and Dawkin's slow and gradual steps (like how you climb Mt. Improbable), would you agree that, in theory, *IF* THERE ARE NO STEPS between two very complex biological systems (like perhaps monochromatic and dichromatic vision), that neo-Darwinism is falsified.
2. Is it possible that there are no physical or even logical steps between monochromatic and dichromatic vision systems? (There is a non-trivial level of increased complexity going to dichromatic vision.)
3. When you consider, as in the image below (and at http://rsr.org/files/images/science/vis ... stream.jpg ), that a brain's incoming visual data stream doesn't include anything like an analog representation of the outside world, but instead, presents a symbolic encoding of that information, can you identify any of the fundamental laws of chemistry or physics that involve symbolic processing?
4. Looking at the image below (and at http://rsr.org/images/PermTOL/TrochleaKGOVchallenge.jpg ) does all that you've learned about neo-Darwinism enable you to give a rough algorithm, no details, just a broad-stroked description, of how one of the more simple functional aspects of our vision system could evolve? PZ Myers posted this challenge, and said that, speaking for himself, he could not. Even though it's one of the simplest parts of the eye system, I think it's unanswerable from your belief system.
Thanks for giving me a place to ask these questions!
- Bob Enyart
Denver, Colorado, USA