Would you like to add or edit content here? Here's how you can have an account!
Talk:Argument from irreducible complexity
Okay, WHY hasn't anyone covered this yet? It's the single best argument theists have against evolution. I just wrote a MASSIVE paper in regards to this. I'll borrow some stuff to write up a simple article. -Evilagram 09:18, 20 May 2008 (CDT)
Go for it - I agree it needs help. I added your image uploads to the gallery of scientific images. Feel free to edit the page and add more details.--Pile 11:17, 20 May 2008 (CDT)
I've added significantly to the content of the article. I've put up a large number of points against the two most common IC arguments. I'll research and add additional arguments. Being an argument of such importance we REALLY should cover it. If anyone is willing to help, then I ask them to lend a hand, whether in cleaning up the article or adding additional material. -Evilagram 16:57, 20 May 2008 (CDT)
Looks good - you can probably also borrow some content from The fact of evolution page, which has some video on the bacterial flagellum.--Pile 17:01, 20 May 2008 (CDT)
evolution of the eye
The image accompanying the item about evolution of the eye is a little "magical" and ignores one of the best points when arguing against intelligent design of the eye. The eye has design faults that lead us to a good idea of how it may have evolved.
The worst flaw of the eye is that the light receptors point in the wrong direction. They point toward the head instead of outward toward the light like the eyes of octopus, for instance, do. This is the root cause of all the problems we have with detached retina. This would indicate that the eye might have developed in this sequence:
- a patch of light-sensitive nerves
- a bump on the surface of the skin giving some directionality
- a semitransparent side to the bump focussing the light slightly
- the bump folding over so that the clearer side is facing outward
- the bump sinking into a protective cavity (which helps more with directionality) and gradually develops lids
- the focussing part refines to become a lens and some kind of aperture control (the iris) probably develops from existing skin muscles
- muscle control of the embedded bump (now a ball) controls direction.
Older eyes had four color receptors. Early mammals were nocturnal and didn't need color vision, which actually lowered the effectiveness of low-light vision because color receptors (cone cells) took up room in the retina that the more sensitive black and white cells (rods) might otherwise use. Those variants with less color vision survived better so color vision was gradually lost. After mammals were able to expand into niches left open by the death of most of life on Earth at the end of the Mesozoic they inherited many daytime occupations in which color vision once more became important. Most of the color vision, almost entirely lost, again repopulated the retina of some mammals, however one color had been completely lost -- ultraviolet. Hence we see only three colors whereas most other non-mammalian animals (birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish) see four colors.
I don't know how I should add this (though I'm gradually learning). Please feel free to insert it any way you wish. Or I can take my best shot at adding it if you want. -- Miriam 23:34, 2 August 2010 (CDT)
This site costs a lot of money in bandwidth and resources. We are glad to bring it to you free, but would you consider helping support our site by making a donation? Any amount would go a long way towards helping us continue to provide this useful service to the community.
Click on the Paypal button below to donate. Your support is most appreciated!