Richard Dawkins - Irreducable Complexity and the Evolution of the Eye

It is often claimed that the human eye could not have evolved. Here Richard Dawkins explains how small steps can lead to complex biological structures which themselves still have a purpose and help the animal to survive.

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• richard
• dawkins
• evolution
• creationism
• intelligent
• design
• eye
• evolved

[snsScotch]

@dwheel39 Indeed, it is perfectly normal and scientific for differing interpretations of information to 'do battle' until better information comes along. As an example, see the so-called 'black hole war' between Stephen Hawking and Leonard Susskind/Gerard T'hooft. Susskind famously compared it to Intelligent Design when he said that the real, substantive scientific controversy over the last two decades was not creationism or intelligent design — these were trivial — but the black hole war.

[snsScotch]

@dwheel39 Firstly, I submit that Dawkins doesn't use science or biology as a tool to substantiate his anti-theism, but that science and biology and the study of the natural world are the ORIGIN of his atheism and apostasy. Secondly, the only 'scientific interpretations' that his peers are skeptical of are his contributions to the realm of Memes and Memetics as well as his work in evolutionary psychology. Disagreement among peers is not an indication of the value of the work or its correctness.

[snsScotch]

@dwheel39 You are just terrible. The evidence is laid out for you and you gloss over it by... what? Simply ignoring it? Declaring that Darwinian theory has been 'disproven' (which is something that only happens in maths, btw) based on nothing but your assertion that is has been? What part of our knowledge of genetics does anything but support Darwinian evolutionary theory? I submit that you have no legs to stand on and that everything you've said has the credibility of a child's rebuttal.

[TheCrazyGameFreak]

@QuinnBook

have a look at sciencedaily(dot)com/releases/­2012/01/120117144330.htm

the problem no longer continues to lie.

[raponte1955]

simply stupid!

[AndyCielecki]

@dwheel39

I would have thought providing examples of intermediary stages of a structure you contend is 'irreducibly complex' was the perfect way to demonstrate the validity of evolution, or at the very least the utter fallacy of irreducible complexity.

'With all that we know of genetic information' all that we know and have discovered in recent times regarding genetics only increase the weight of evidence in support of evolution.

BTW the TOE does not try to explain the origin of life.

[grfield1]

...Ridiculous!

[dkthg]

witness the idiocy below me.

[dwheel39]

It should be obvious to anyone who has read Dawkins or listened to a debate/lecture that he is anti-religion. He has a right to his opinion but to use biology to substantiate his atheism is rather dishonest. So many of his scientific peers vehemently disagree with his scientific interpretations so his beliefs are not grounded in "science", but rather his philosophical worldview of materialism. Also, he is ignorant of history, philosophy, and theology.

[dwheel39]

@3:00...this is your evidence against irreducible complexity? I'm sorry, but natural selection accounting for the complexity of the eye or the origin of life is absurd. This is myth and the Darwinian theory has proven itself to be unsatisfactory and impossible. With all that we know of genetic information, to still cling to these antiquated Darwinian theories from the early 1900's is just irrational and i would argue, ridiculous.