quote:

---

Originally written by Kelandon:

Your second is fine, I guess, but non-periodic and non-random forms can arise without the intervention of an intelligence, as we've discussed over and over again.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Kelandon:

In other words, I'm calling you on your description of eyes as irreducible. Demonstrate that no proto-parts of eyes could have any value on their own without the full structure of an eye. If you can't do that, you can't prove that eyes are irreducible.

---

quote:

---

The fossil record shows this very thing! That is why you all like punctuated equilibrium. I’ve been yelling this all along, that complex structures spring up suddenly in the record. There’s no sex, then sex; no feathers, then feathers; no insects, then insects; etc.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Stillness:

Human vision is irreducible because it has many parts that have no function without multiple parts in place. If one of the parts that form the irreducible system is removed, it is rendered completely useless. ... If you take out the retina ..., optic nerve, or visual cortex humans cannot see. This has nothing to do with your beliefs or mine - it is a fact.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Kirby had never eaten toes before.:

Why does this look familiar?

---

quote:

---

A small number of primitive structure -> a small number of less primitive structures -> a larger number of less primitive structures -> ... -> a complex structure assembled from a large number of complex structures.

I'm honestly not sure if you've noticed the difference yet. You've certainly never acknowledged it.

—Alorael, who actually thinks irreducible complexity in man-made items is an interesting problem. The components of cars weren't invented all together to make a car. They were invented one by one, often for different uses. They didn't come into existence at the same time and they never existed uselessly.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Stillness:

I can’t imagine it and I have never seen a model that explicitly and quantitatively details such changes.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Kelandon:

As Slarty has already objected, you're going from "I can't imagine it and haven't seen it" to "It can't exist." Irreducibly complexity says that such a model can't exist, not that it doesn't exist right now.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Stillness:

I see the difference, but as of yet have seen no detailed theory as to how such a thing could occur. Simply saying, “structure x was once used in a more primitive organism for some other purpose” glosses over much. In the teachings of common descent, organisms don’t have an intelligent agent that can move structures about, plan, and adapt them for sophisticated new purposes like a car does. Not only do they have to be functioning through the whole theoretical process, but also there has to be some advantage so that these genes are passed.

---

quote:

---

A copied and pasted answer:
Here's how some scientists think some eyes may have evolved: The simple light-sensitive spot on the skin of some ancestral creature gave it some tiny survival advantage, perhaps allowing it to evade a predator. Random changes then created a depression in the light-sensitive patch, a deepening pit that made "vision" a little sharper. At the same time, the pit's opening gradually narrowed, so light entered through a small aperture, like a pinhole camera.

Every change had to confer a survival advantage, no matter how slight. Eventually, the light-sensitive spot evolved into a retina, the layer of cells and pigment at the back of the human eye. Over time a lens formed at the front of the eye. It could have arisen as a double-layered transparent tissue containing increasing amounts of liquid that gave it the convex curvature of the human eye.

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Stillness:

Finally somebody seems to understand that irreducibilty has nothing to do with evolution! Now if you can understand that it doesn't have anything to do with impossibility you will have truly outshone your peers.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Kirby had never eaten toes before.:

Originally written by Stillness:
Simply saying, “structure x was once used in a more primitive organism for some other purpose” glosses over much.

---

quote:

---

A copied and pasted answer:
The simple light-sensitive spot on the skin … Random changes then created a depression in the light-sensitive patch…At the same time, the pit's opening gradually narrowed… Eventually, the light-sensitive spot evolved into a retina…Over time a lens formed… It could have arisen ...

---

quote:

---

Actually, every change has to confer no disadvantage strong enough to cause the mutation to breed out before some advantage accrues.

---

quote:

---

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.

---

quote:

---

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.

---