Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Darwin’s Sunday School papers?

Denyse O'Leary
June 26, 2011
Culture, Darwinism
Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

In an act of touching faith, Darryl Cunningham tries his hand at cartooning Darwin’s pious legends here.

No really, he believes every one of them.

Hat tip: Pos-Darwinista

Comments
dear "news": please re-post this one as a contest to find issues with the cartoon. Thanks!es58
June 26, 2011
June
06
Jun
26
26
2011
10:03 PM
10
10
03
PM
PDT
I think that the recent article which was mentioned here at UD restricted itself to the physical eye itself, not to vision. I'm not sure how that could be realistic.Mung
June 26, 2011
June
06
Jun
26
26
2011
04:49 PM
4
04
49
PM
PDT
But information of directional information needs a brain to process doesn’t it? Not only has the eye evolved many times according to evo theory but also the brain has to evolve to process the information. Which I would have thought is difficult. Do you really think it’s all that plausible for the eye to come about unguided so many times, liz?
Yes, an eye needs to evolve in tandem with some neural mechanism that connects with action. But then that is true of all sensory organs. Given a mechanism for that (and I can only guess at them) I don't see why the eye shouldn't evolve a few times, given its usefulness. But I think any evolutionary theory has to postulate that the coupling of sensory input with motor output had to evolve together.Elizabeth Liddle
June 26, 2011
June
06
Jun
26
26
2011
02:33 PM
2
02
33
PM
PDT
They may well be fairly complex, I don't know, after all,they are in modern living animals. I'll try and find some sources.Elizabeth Liddle
June 26, 2011
June
06
Jun
26
26
2011
02:28 PM
2
02
28
PM
PDT
Dr. Liddle, First, I always appreciate your posts. Second, how rudimentary are those eyes over at waxingapocalypic.com really? To a half bright layman like me they seem pretty complex.lpadron
June 26, 2011
June
06
Jun
26
26
2011
02:26 PM
2
02
26
PM
PDT
But information of directional information needs a brain to process doesn't it? Not only has the eye evolved many times according to evo theory but also the brain has to evolve to process the information. Which I would have thought is difficult. Do you really think it's all that plausible for the eye to come about unguided so many times, liz?ute
June 26, 2011
June
06
Jun
26
26
2011
02:25 PM
2
02
25
PM
PDT
There are some examples on this page: http://waxingapocalyptic.com/2010/09/30/the-evolution-of-the-eye/ Personally, I think the evidence is good that an eye can evolve gradually, although remember that with the examples on that page, these are all eyes of currently living creatures. What they do demonstrate though, is that really quite rudimentary eyes can be useful enough to be selectable. And, it seems, useful enough to have taken divergent evolutionary paths. I don't think it's that surprising though, when you consider that photosensitivity is a fairly widespread property of cells (skin cells especially), so if you get a patch that is especially sensitive, or perhaps in a depression that gives the potential for directional information, then you are on the way to some kind of eye, even if that's all it ever gets to.Elizabeth Liddle
June 26, 2011
June
06
Jun
26
26
2011
01:08 PM
1
01
08
PM
PDT
In the comic strip it says that scientists have come up with intermediary forms of the eye(an argument I have seen before and seen refutations of). They also say there are animals out there that possess eyes from the various stages of the hypothetical intermediary forms. (an argument i have not seen before) If this is true (and can someone give some examples, if it is) then doesn't this bolster the claim that a complex eye can evolve gradually. (Though, I find it unlikely that eyes could have evolved 40 times independantly and therefore always had reservations about darwinian claims)ute
June 26, 2011
June
06
Jun
26
26
2011
12:46 PM
12
12
46
PM
PDT

Leave a Reply