To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree. (Darwin 1872)
To the thread title.
He didn't know then that the Earth, and life itself, are billions of years old. The eye has evolved over that time, a time so long that we can't ponder it, just measure it. That's plenty of time in which something as complex as an eye can develop. I'm sure that, if he were alive today, he wouldn't find it absurd, as we (hopefully) don't.
I would have to say you are incorrect in your assessment. There is a very simple reason why, I just dont really want to spoil it.Quote by: crimethinker
I find the central nervous system to be far more mysterious than the eye.
Sonar, utilized by many other creatures to see, is quite a puzzling development.
It seems to me that vision is just another sense that started so rudimentary and evolved into something so wondrously complex.
Dear Optimist, Pessimist and Realist, while you guys were arguing about the glass of water, I drank it! ~ Sincerely, the Opportunist.
very much so, but is the quote accurate to the man?
No, it doesn't provide an accurate picture of Darwin (either the man himself, or the theories he came up with)... for two reasons. First, Darwin is not a modern source (a modern source would be better for the current state of understanding the evolution of complex structures). Second and more importantly, the quote is partial and taken out of context.
More on the quote here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/3/part8.htmlTo suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of Spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certain the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.
Pro scientia et humanitate.
well, he may not be a modern source, but what I was asking was whether or not the quote was accurate of darwin's view. The fact that he is not a modern source is irrelevant to that point. Actually, its counter to the point, as darwin would be the best source for the views of darwin.
However, your point is correct, if we are speaking on the science of evolution.
MANY times, I have seen it presented as I did at the beginning of this thread, as if it were a point in favor of dismissing evolution.
I do not think it does represent his ultimate conclusion. He believed natural selection could account for the diversity of life but he didn't know just how. So it seemed absurd but that's not the same as saying it is an absurd idea.
"The trouble with people is not so much with their ignorance as it is with their knowing so many things that are not so." ~ William Alanson White
Right, except for the entire second point of my post - that the quote is inaccurately taken out of context. Darwin never said the eye was too complex to have been developed via natural selection - only that he personally didn't know how, and that an individual's gut reaction to whether or not something is reasonable (such as the idea that the earth is flat, or that the sun revolves around the earth - both ideas that, intuitively seem correct but are, in fact, incorrect) cannot be trusted.
Pro scientia et humanitate.
The quote being out of context is kinda the whole point of the thread. Its a common argument that I have seen offered up as a rebuttal to evolution, and simply wished to highlight it, so you have no argument from me there. I just kinda took that for granted, given that it was also my point.
He obviously DID say those words, but i agree that its inaccurate to his view when taken out of context.
Evidence persuaded against the obviousness of absurdity.
If the terrain and the map do not agree, follow the terrain.
When motherhood becomes the fruit of a deep yearning, not the result of ignorance or accident, its children will become a new race.
Anyone can say the same.
!! Going to my destruction !!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks