Evolution of the Eye (3 of 6)
Think
Eddie Snipes
In Richard Dawkins' article, 'Where'd You get those Peepers', he attempts to explain how the eye could have evolved 40 - 60 times independently of each previous evolution. In the evolution model, the chains of life branch off making it impossible for species to share information. Therefore, if evolution is true, by Dawkins admission, the eye had to be re-invented a minimum of 40 times and could be as many as 60 times. Gradual evolution does not allow for enough time for a complex eye to develop in a 3 billion year time span. Therefore, evolution needed a new explanation that simplifies the evolution of the eye. Dawkins praises two scientists named Nilsson and Pelger for solving this problem. They created a computer model that showed the evolution of the eye in a relatively short time span that would fit the evolution model.
Nilsson and Pelger followed the same pattern that all evolution science follows. Dawkins did not use direct quotes so we can't examine the psychology of their argument here. One of the primary tactics of arguing for evolution is to hide the astronomical odds against it by leading people to believe time and chance is a simple process. We are to believe that it happens all the time and is a small miracle at best. Richard Dawkins is the master of simplistic reasoning. In Dawkins argument, he subtly guides the reader into believing the evolution of the eye is simple. If we see the enormous complexity that challenges this test, we will be alarmed at the evasion used to prove this experiment. However, Dawkins does admit "Nilsson and Pelger made no attempts to simulate the inner workings of cells." He also says, "They started their story after the invention of a single light-sensitive cell" and "They worked at the level of tissues. . .rather than the level of individual cells.
From the onset, we can see that the experiment is being staged like tinker toys. To prove the eye evolved, we are not ...
Think
Eddie Snipes
In Richard Dawkins' article, 'Where'd You get those Peepers', he attempts to explain how the eye could have evolved 40 - 60 times independently of each previous evolution. In the evolution model, the chains of life branch off making it impossible for species to share information. Therefore, if evolution is true, by Dawkins admission, the eye had to be re-invented a minimum of 40 times and could be as many as 60 times. Gradual evolution does not allow for enough time for a complex eye to develop in a 3 billion year time span. Therefore, evolution needed a new explanation that simplifies the evolution of the eye. Dawkins praises two scientists named Nilsson and Pelger for solving this problem. They created a computer model that showed the evolution of the eye in a relatively short time span that would fit the evolution model.
Nilsson and Pelger followed the same pattern that all evolution science follows. Dawkins did not use direct quotes so we can't examine the psychology of their argument here. One of the primary tactics of arguing for evolution is to hide the astronomical odds against it by leading people to believe time and chance is a simple process. We are to believe that it happens all the time and is a small miracle at best. Richard Dawkins is the master of simplistic reasoning. In Dawkins argument, he subtly guides the reader into believing the evolution of the eye is simple. If we see the enormous complexity that challenges this test, we will be alarmed at the evasion used to prove this experiment. However, Dawkins does admit "Nilsson and Pelger made no attempts to simulate the inner workings of cells." He also says, "They started their story after the invention of a single light-sensitive cell" and "They worked at the level of tissues. . .rather than the level of individual cells.
From the onset, we can see that the experiment is being staged like tinker toys. To prove the eye evolved, we are not ...
There are 9353 characters in the full content. This excerpt only shows a 2000 character sample of the full content.
Price: $5.99 or 1 credit
