Intelligent Design: Irreducible Complexity?

[The Grand Nudger]

It doesn't have to do you any good. All it "has to do" is not kill you. Your skin, btw, is already collecting a shitload of information that you can't perceive, access, or even "do" anything with. It's also feeding you vast amounts of misinformation - which doesn't seem to have left you any worse for wear.

[Esquilax]

How did photoperiodism and daily synchronization of circadian rhythms develop before eyespots came along?

So you ask a question about the development of the eye, and then when the answer is given your idea of a rebuttal is to ask me a question about things that happened before the development of eyes began, as though that has any bearing at all on the question you initially asked?

Unfortunately a search on evolution of eyespots (the first step on the journey) mostly turns up pieces on false eyes on butterfly wings. Here's one that's on point:
http://www.d.umn.edu/~olse0176/Evolution/bacteria.html

Now that random mutation is understandable, imagine a population of plain, primitive bacteria (no specific size, shape, etc.). There are trillions of them scattered throughout the world. Imagine that one out of every million of these trillion bacteria experience a mutation which allows it to have a pigmented surface. That means we have one million bacteria with some kind of a light-capturing surface on them. A few out of these million bacteria develop the pigmented spot over an opaque surface connected somehow with the rest of the internal network of the cell (Patton). These few cells, have just developed a primitive type of vision.

The irreducible complexity problem is just blown off with a single sentence.

Because it's not a problem: as demonstrated by the very thing you quoted, the eye is very clearly reducible. What's your contention here?

I could have a light sensitive cell on my elbow, but it's not going to do me any good, as the rest of my body either doesn't receive the information it provides, or doesn't know to do anything with that information.

Yes, and if the light sensitive cell isn't also connected to an apparatus for interpreting the information it receives, then it doesn't confer a survival advantage, but it also doesn't confer a detriment, really. Which means it persists in the genome, until eventually it does find a connection to the rest. That's the whole idea of natural selection.

[Minimalist]

What's your contention here?

I think he is trying to prove that he is a creatard moron. I will happily concede that point to him.

[The Grand Nudger]

Phototropism in plants is achieved by way of auxin (essentially a growth hormone). When the photoreceptive proteins in plant tissue (called phototropins) register a signal, auxin on the shaded side of the stem releases hydrogen ions - setting in motion a cascade of chemistry leading to the release of enzymes called expansins - which cause the cell to swell and bend -towards- the light. We're not even sure that the photoreceptors are necessary, as auxin appears to be photophobic in it's own right. Course, one could simply say that auxin functions as a sort of inverted receptor in any case. I don't think that you could really say that the plant "knows what to do" in either case, it's just chemistry. Or would you disagree?

Photoperiodism and circadian rhythm are also establish in plants by similar, boring, chemical processes. None of which seem to require any "knowing". I used phototropism above because it's a much more fantastic and noticeable "reaction" to light than either - and it doesn;t seem to be "irreduceable complex" - despite being much more (seemingly)complicated than other processes that plants go through.

[coldwx]

This argument with him is just going to repeat itself. As in the last thread, he is provided with an avalanche of cited material and explanations and will completely ignore it. Meanwhile he will search for any minuscule exception or oddity and point it out without looking any further. It really is just a more "intelligent" god of the gaps argument. (pun intended) I know I am supposed to soldier on because others might benefit to see his arguments ripped to shreds but it becomes ridiculous at some point.

[popeyespappy]

Much of what is wrong with intelligent design including the blantant dishonesty of those involved with it's formulation was summed up nicely in Kitzmiller v. Dover. PBS made a decent documentary about the case. It's available here, but if you really want to know the details you have to read the transcript of the trial.

As far as intelligent design and the eye goes the guy that put the nerve fibers in front of the retina in the human eye didn't show a lot of intelligence. I guess practice makes perfect though and he got it right in the octopus. Does that mean the octopus is really ol Yahweh's chosen species?

[Esquilax]

This argument with him is just going to repeat itself. As in the last thread, he is provided with an avalanche of cited material and explanations and will completely ignore it. Meanwhile he will search for any minuscule exception or oddity and point it out without looking any further. It really is just a more "intelligent" god of the gaps argument. (pun intended) I know I am supposed to soldier on because others might benefit to see his arguments ripped to shreds but it becomes ridiculous at some point.

It really does highlight the uneven field that theists and ID proponents want to play on. They've set themselves up as interrogators, where we have to provide all this evidence for them, but all they have to do is poke single holes in it. In order to win, we need to have a perfect, comprehensive overview of absolutely everything concerning the specific topic, and for them to win, all they've got to do is find one flaw?

Meanwhile, they get to sit back, content to never provide evidence for their beliefs. It's ridiculous.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

This argument with him is just going to repeat itself. As in the last thread, he is provided with an avalanche of cited material and explanations and will completely ignore it. Meanwhile he will search for any minuscule exception or oddity and point it out without looking any further. It really is just a more "intelligent" god of the gaps argument. (pun intended) I know I am supposed to soldier on because others might benefit to see his arguments ripped to shreds but it becomes ridiculous at some point.

It really does highlight the uneven field that theists and ID proponents want to play on. They've set themselves up as interrogators, where we have to provide all this evidence for them, but all they have to do is poke single holes in it. In order to win, we need to have a perfect, comprehensive overview of absolutely everything concerning the specific topic, and for them to win, all they've got to do is find one flaw?

Meanwhile, they get to sit back, content to never provide evidence for their beliefs. It's ridiculous.

It's also the reason why nobody takes creationism or ID seriously. At least nobody who matters.

[John V]

How did photoperiodism and daily synchronization of circadian rhythms develop before eyespots came along?

So you ask a question about the development of the eye, and then when the answer is given your idea of a rebuttal is to ask me a question about things that happened before the development of eyes began, as though that has any bearing at all on the question you initially asked?

It does have bearing. The reason given is that the eyespots were beneficial in that they enhanced the functioning of photoperiodism and circadian rhythms. This begs the question of how those things developed without eyespots. However, if you'd like to move forward in the timeline, that's fine:

These complex optical systems started out as the multicellular eyepatch gradually depressed into a cup, which first granted the ability to discriminate brightness in directions, then in finer and finer directions as the pit deepened. While flat eyepatches were ineffective at determining the direction of light, as a beam of light would activate exactly the same patch of photo-sensitive cells regardless of its direction, the "cup" shape of the pit eyes allowed limited directional differentiation by changing which cells the lights would hit depending upon the light's angle.

First question is why a multicellular eyepatch developed. Next is why did it gradually depress into a cup. Then, how did the organism know what to do with directional information. What was the reproductive advantage of each of these stages?

Because it's not a problem: as demonstrated by the very thing you quoted, the eye is very clearly reducible. What's your contention here?

My contention is that "somehow" isn't an adequate explanation.

Yes, and if the light sensitive cell isn't also connected to an apparatus for interpreting the information it receives, then it doesn't confer a survival advantage, but it also doesn't confer a detriment, really. Which means it persists in the genome, until eventually it does find a connection to the rest. That's the whole idea of natural selection.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intr...ology.html

Mutation creates new alleles. Each new allele enters the gene pool as a single copy amongst many. Most are lost from the gene pool, ...

Most neutral alleles are lost soon after they appear...

Most new mutants are lost, even beneficial ones.

[Jaysyn]

I think it's just because humans previously did not understand how the eye works and how it was formed by evolutionary processes and therefore an Intelligent Designer was the reason. But now we DO understand the processes that created the eye and how it functions so therefore there was no reason anymore to wedge an Intelligent Designer in.

Cool, lets hear how the eye developed step by step.

You can start with the basics here.

In fact, eyes corresponding to every stage in this sequence have been found in existing living species. The existence of this range of less complex light-sensitive structures supports scientists' hypotheses about how complex eyes like ours could evolve. The first animals with anything resembling an eye lived about 550 million years ago. And, according to one scientist's calculations, only 364,000 years would have been needed for a camera-like eye to evolve from a light-sensitive patch.

And then when you understand it, you can move on to something with a little more meat to it here.

You're welcome.

---

I could have a light sensitive cell on my elbow, but it's not going to do me any good, as the rest of my body either doesn't receive the information it provides, or doesn't know to do anything with that information.

You could, but since it doesn't benefit you one bit in regards to your survival & ability to procreate, it doesn't matter now does it?

BTW, isn't ignoring mountains of evidence to keep arguing a debunked point against the forum rules?