He's simply saying that he understands how the layperson would think it absurd for something as complex as an eye to evolve.Quote by: xx_mortekai_xx
He said it, he meant it, and incredibly we still have people in the 21st century that find evolution absurd so his statement was even prophetic.
That Darwin understood that people would have a hard time understanding evolution is no argument against evolution IMO.
Religion is poison because it asks us to give up our most precious faculty, which is that of reason, and to believe things without evidence. It then asks us to respect this, which it calls faith. - Christopher Hitchens
A vast number of people seem to be into historical re-enactment. I suppose it saves the effort of engaging with real issues.
He also said that if an organ could be found which could be shown not to have evolved by gradual steps his theory would be finished. Fortunately we have never found such an organ. As Dawkins put it in his book The Blind Watchmaker, the contention that "5% of an eye is useless" is ridiculous. You might as well say that people who have to wear glasses might as well be blind. If other organisms have no eyes at all, then even the tiniest amount of light sensitivity will confer an advantage on the organism that evolves it.
But truth, Hajjaj was convinced, held many layers.
We havent found such an organ, but we have found vestigial organs that do more to confirm the idea of evolution.
And while we havent been able to knock that idea over, creationists try like hell with irreducible complexity.
Yes, the idea that 5% of an eye is useless IS utterly ridiculous, because its simply not true. Light sensing in an organism that exists in a world of light definitely has advantages. So much so, that the preponderance is overwhelmingly toward eyes (at least on the surface), with different levels of refinement. and most of those organisms that have no eyes are either not complex enough to support eyes (like bacteria), or live in an environment where it does not confer an advantage, such as low or no light conditions.
The mystery of life is completely solved by the concepts underlying evolution, which is what makes it such an amazing idea. There aren't many ideas that simply explain an entire field of science.
On the subject of irreducible complexity, Dawkins also has good ideas. He asks the reader to imagine electronic life, having supplanted biological (carbon-based) life, wondering how the hell it could have come into existence from the matter of the universe without some intermediate phase. Our situation now is similar--it is likely that no evidence remains of the original replicator(s), that existed before DNA and RNA first came into existence.
But truth, Hajjaj was convinced, held many layers.
I can't say much other than to assume this was taken out of context and he was more or less making a point as to how complex evolution truly is.
Dear Optimist, Pessimist and Realist, while you guys were arguing about the glass of water, I drank it! ~ Sincerely, the Opportunist.
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 degree. Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy...out_of_context
The real quote does.
You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. We won the mid-term elections, this is our due. : Dick Cheney
lol.....the missing "but"
Dear Optimist, Pessimist and Realist, while you guys were arguing about the glass of water, I drank it! ~ Sincerely, the Opportunist.
Way to make a complete "ass" of my point.
Whats funny is I googled the quote in the OP, it came up with the quote mining wiki link.
You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. We won the mid-term elections, this is our due. : Dick Cheney
Congratulations!
You sir, have mastered Google.
Ohhhhh...I see what you did there. "but"...."ass"...ohhh youWay to make a complete "ass" of my point.
Dear Optimist, Pessimist and Realist, while you guys were arguing about the glass of water, I drank it! ~ Sincerely, the Opportunist.
The idea that something exists rather than nothing is just as big a mystery. Deciding how it happened is just a roll of the dice, a wild guess or sometimes a leap of faith as far as I can see.
Ever since men broke free from the dark ages they have asked what it means to 'be'. I think the answer to that question is far more important than 'how' did it happen. We know it happened. We don't necessarily know what it means.
Does that mean I can have cake? Cake AND a medal. Why you are so kind.
*bows*Ohhhhh...I see what you did there. "but"...."ass"...ohhh you
You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. We won the mid-term elections, this is our due. : Dick Cheney
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks