(November 2, 2017 at 4:20 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote:(November 2, 2017 at 3:59 pm)SteveII Wrote: Even if we presuppose an already vastly complicated cell to kick off the evolution of the eye, an eye makes absolutely no sense on its own. You need a mechanism to process the information and be able to do something about it to relate it to a survival benefit--or no increase in functionality will evolve. But wait again, you don't need a light processing center to make decision if you don't have any light sensitive information to process. What came first, the ability to move, the ability to sense light or the processing center to ascertain some survival benefit from light and effect movement? Seems like all three are needed for any survival benefit to occur. But wait, it's worse than that. For there to be an evolved increase in functionality in the eye (like to discern shapes), you would need a massively more complex processing unit for there to be any survival benefit---but what survival benefit led to the evolution of the processing unit without the complexity of the eye already present? How did that happen? For reference, this would be the "mechanism" sense of the definition of evolution which you said was fact.
BTW, this had to happen in something like 30 branches of the old tree of life all independent of each other.
Things don't all have to happen one after the other you know, eyes and nervous systems can both gain complexity at the same time.
Link didn't work.
You are just restating the theory--not explaining any of it. If the mechanism of evolution is a known scientific fact, my questions should have fairly straightforward answers: How do seemingly irreducibly complex systems evolve when the development of the component parts require each other to confer a survival benefit? Don't use generalities. They eye is a good example.
