The Problem with Christians

[Esquilax]

Evidence of design would include any multi-part system but let's go with the human eye, a topic you've probably debated many times before, so I'll hopefully be taking a different approach. Here is a brief description of the major parts of the eye.

Yes, I have debated the evolution of the eye many times. One would think that you people would stop bringing it up, since we actually know how the eye evolved, but I think if there's one thing we've all learned from this discussion, it's that you in particular won't let your complete unwillingness/inability to research stop you from making wild, unjustified assertions.

What we have is an integrated system of many parts and each part is supposedly a product of random  genetic mutation. However, on their own, the vast majority of these mutations would have been useless, since they are dependent on the other parts in order to function. For instance, you could have a perfectly formed eye, but with no optic nerve you won't see anything, and even if you had an optic nerve, you still couldn't see unless you had millions of neurons, with hundreds of millions of connections in the brain to interpret and process the data.

Except that the eye didn't pop out of nowhere, fully formed, in a single step, nor did it evolve each individual part of a modern eye like building a model kit of a single designed end result, as though coming together to form a modern eye. Rather, isolated and simple mutations coalesced into its current form: at no point did an individual component of a human eye evolve in place, then another, and then another, etc. Different organs, evolved for different functions, gradually evolved additional functionality and formed the mechanisms of the eye. Each individual mutation served some use on its own, and eventually those uses changed and expanded as more structures analogous to the eye began to form. It actually started out as just a light sensitive patch of cells on the "skin" of an organism: Here, you can check it out, if you want. Not that you will, since it disagrees with what you want to be true, but still...

So, not only is your whole conception of the situation so comically misrepresentative that it's laughable, but you also mention useless mutations, as though the fact that they're useless would preclude them from happening at all, which is yet another area that I wish you'd bothered to look up before you opened your mouth: useless mutations persist in populations all the time simply because they aren't fatal to the organisms enough to be selected out. It's why humans have wisdom teeth still.

Why won't you just research before you speak, for once?

So what are the chances that random mutations (of the sex cell)s could write the code for a complete visual system? I would say none. As I demonstrated with the haemaglobin example, the chances of randomly generating the correct sequence of amino acids to create this one protein was one in 10 to the power of 650. But now we have to have a very large number of random mutations to produce thousands of different proteins required to make vision possible. If we look at a tiny part of the whole visual system, the aqueous humor, we see that it contains hundreds of different proteins,

So, just to be clear: you're... ignoring my response to your Hemoglobin claim, which is equally applicable to your claims about the eye, and just pretending that it never happened? You're going to persist with this, despite having already been debunked almost as soon as you made the claim?

That's... that's what you're going for here? Ostrich with its head in the sand?

So what is the statistical probability that random mutations of the DNA would end up coding for the 676 proteins found in the aqueous humor?

Why do you still insist that this is the process exclusively described by evolution, despite being corrected on this at least three times by now, just by me alone? Are you ignoring my responses, or just haven't you read them? Are you lying, or ignorant?

That would be (on average) one in twenty multiplied by one in twenty, 450 times for each protein, multiplied by 676 for the total number of proteins. Since 10 to the power of 50 is considered absurd, and the chances of correctly constructing each of the 676 proteins by chance is vastly more than 10 to the power of 50, this equates to zero probability that the aqueous humor proteins could develop by random chance.

Bear in mind that the AH proteins are a tiny part of the visual system, the chances of having random DNA mutations being responsible for the thousands of essential protein components in the rest of the visual system is just plain absurd.

And now that we've reached the end of yet another comprehensive refutation that you'll no doubt ignore, I'll ask my favorite question that you seem desperate to avoid: do you have any positive evidence for your god?

In fact, do you even know what positive evidence is? Because I asked you for some regarding design, and when you finally deigned to respond your "evidence" was "this is so unlikely under evolution," which is, to those paying attention at home, negative evidence. I asked you for something that demonstrates design, and you responded by attempting to poke another hole in evolution, which is, you know, the opposite of that. All you ever do is subtract, and bitch, and go negative. You don't have a single shred of positive evidence for your claim, and so you're reduced to trying to make every other competing claim seem as ridiculous as your claim. It's sad.