How can people accept evolution when Darwin himself admitted that the eye is irreducibly complex...

How can people accept evolution when Darwin himself admitted that the eye is irreducibly complex? Evolution was a sham from the very start, and Darwin became a theist close to his death.

Other urls found in this thread:

m.youtube.com/watch?v=Nwew5gHoh3E
youtube.com/watch?v=GOFws_hhZs8
popularmechanics.com/science/health/interviews/a22430/different-dna-language/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Darwin is based. Don't let leftists make you think otherwise.

Watch me summarise your entire argument, ready?
Therefore a wizard did it!

> irreducible complexity actually supports the theory of evolution (evolutionary history)
> Darwin never became a theist, and even if he'd have, bears zero consequence of the validity of the theory (science evolves by theorys and controlled by tests)
> go shart in a mart before elect one of the twin heads of the apocalypse, burger

The eye in not irreducibly complex.

Actually eye is the best evidence there is no intelligent design in organisms at all. Optical tubes are inserted backwards into retina, with optical nerve protruding creating nice blind spot, and photosensitive cells being prone to peeling off thanks to this design. It is what egyptian engineer would be ashamed off.

Ready for a comfy trip down reducible complexity?

m.youtube.com/watch?v=Nwew5gHoh3E

Why is Jimmy Swaggart in here, the dirty little degenerate?

The eye is actually pretty flawed, clearly designed with aquatic life in mind (internal pressure from viscous fluid). If it were "perfect" for land mammals, the retina would be up front.

You an be a theist and also believe in evolution.
You can be a theist and not believe the bible verbatim.

>even Darwin himself

Implying a guy some hundred years ago with little means, knows more than todays scientist.

your existence is the best evidence for intelligent design.

Evolution is the best evidence for intelligent design

because you desu think humans aren't evolving? like we have some sort of control over the universe? no way man; evolution is going to kill us off

Do you know how complex rods and cones are? It's mind boggling. You should read up on it.

t. Bio major

>t. Bio major
women don't post on Sup Forums

why isnt this obvious to everyone?

>Darwin became a theist close to his death.

Absolutely false. Darwin died an agnostic

I was going to find this and post it but I'm glad to see it was posted this early on. Great watch even if you think Dawkins is a fedora lord.

No, evolution is what happen when fundamental rules of physics manifest themselves over time. The world is 100% deterministic and has no supernatural entities acting on it in any way. You can argue that those rules were created by Creator, but it's 1)merely speculations; 2)that hypothetical rule-creating entity is completely outside the manifested world, and has nothing to do with humans whatsoever. There is no abrahamic god aka god of humans which overseers correct beard lengths and punishes for fapping.

youtube.com/watch?v=GOFws_hhZs8

Kys nigger

So what do you believe in? Genesis?

Was he an agnostic theist, or an agnostic atheist? You can't simply be 'agnostic'. That would imply complete lack of conviction or any degree of thought applied to the subject.

Literally 'a' = without 'gnostic' = knowledge.

You're speaking about a mined quote, creatards will often pull it out however they never like to recite the entire thing, where Darwin admits to the stunning complexity of the eye but then goes on to explain how it could have evolved from a relatively simple structure with gradual changes over time to it's present more complex forms. Also, it is not an irreducibly complex organ, there are multiple different kinds of eyes some substantially less complex than ours which can still carry out the same basic function or a slightly different function. Irreducible complexity implies that removing parts will completely deprive the mechanism of its capacity to function, this is not true of the eye.
Darwin did not become a theist on his death bed, members of his family denounced the creationist liar multiple times because they were present at his death bed and recalled no such event or the creationist liar in question ever being present.

Why is it that you guys can only ever lie, quote mine, mischaracterize, and character assassinate to justify your continued refusal to recognize well documented natural processes? Why do you worship the words that fallible humans wrote when they are evidently not true, why do you value your own literalistic interpretation of the bible over verifiable reality? Do you not recognize that if God does turn out to be real you will have spent your whole life telling him that you know better than him how he went about the act of creation?
Incredulity does not prove design.

4 billion years is a ridiculously long time, especially for smaller lifeforms with shorter generations

>taking out of context half of a quote

try again americuck

atheists BTFO, good job OP

Sure you can, by not having the arrogance to think that your own opinion on the matter is likely to be complete and/or correct.

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. 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 certainly 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, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated; but I may remark that, as some of the lowest organisms, in which nerves cannot be detected, are capable of perceiving light, it does not seem impossible that certain sensitive elements in their sarcode should become aggregated and developed into nerves, endowed with this special sensibility.

cuck

So that begs the question,
Were the eyes developed in aquatic creatures?
And would that mean that we are descendants of said aquatic creatures?

PRAISE TITALIK, KEK'S COUSIN

Is the initial thing that there is no prior link to. Animal cells have no photo receptors or anything naturally. If anything, plants should have developed eyes. Photosensitivity in animal cells came from nothing.

>I can't believe this happened without magic
>thus it must've happened magically

There is nothing stunning about the eye, it's a shitty optical system which is basically designed to fail at some point. It has small patch of high res vision encircled by equivalent of shitty digital photo camera matrix from mid 90s.

Dumbass, photoreceptors are literally mutated skin cells which respond to light.

> Eye is the bestest thing ever, clearly evidence for g-d's power!

Except our eyes are designed shittily and are easily damaged.
I know I shouldn't feed the trolls, but this kind of mind numbing stupidity consistently baits me. Congratulations, you win. I'm angry, confused and mildly fearful as to the direction humanity is taking.

Why do Christfags and fedoralords fight about this?

Evolution may be the hand by which God creates, it's a more beautiful and fluid, logical system than just snapping things into existence. The idea of God and the provable fact of evolution do not contradict each other.

This post got me thinking, how much have humans evolved within the past few thousand years?

Perhaps not to us, but the people are Darwin's time didn't have as good an understanding of biology as we do, nor did they have comparable or even superior imaging technology.

Entire human races appeared within timeframe of last 5000 years or so

>Incredulity does not prove design.
Yeah. It's just random occurrence.

so what you're saying is that we were niggers

I'm saying that modern europeans are descendants of settlers from asia minor who evolved to lower sunlight conditions and winter exposure.

I don't have a problem with the idea of a Creator, but Christianity, Islam, Judaism, they all sound as plausible to me as for instance the Hellenistic or Norse religions... not very.
Also if the universe is so complex to require a creator then why is said creator able to exist without a creator of it's own?

I believe the gentleslav is saying that we were previously monarchs.

posting superior scientist rn

All ontological arguments for God always fall at the exact same point, there is no proof that your interpretation of God is the cause. Take prime mover, which as they go isn't a bad one. Everything is in motion, even the Big Bang can be used, therefore it stands to reason something set things in motion. Now we come to our problem 'what', was it the Christian God? Was it a wizard? Are we in a computer simulation? What set the mover off? Point is it's never ending, you can never 'know' how far back this process goes. So if you choose to believe then just do, you don't have to prove your faith, that's why it's faith. If you don't believe then that's fine to, the only time there is a problem is when you try to push your belief or disbelief on others, neither can be proven so just don't bother and be happy.

The eye is not irreducibly complex. Yes if you take the optic nerve from your own human eye you would be blind but would not a single light sensitive cell be better than nothing?

That's a lotta lies for one post. Here's a (you).

(((Evolution)))

I'm kind of in the same boat, the judeo-Christian god might even be the right one, but the teachings have been perverted to serve kings and man, so I do not believe in Christianity as it stands today (or any of the desert trilogy).

This reddit meme "axis" of agnosticism/Gnosticism is rejected by most people. It wasn't even a thing back then.

Why are you shitting all over something that came to be into existance though natural selection by comparing it to something that was designed intelligently? That's a strange way to try and make your point.

Random mutation influenced by environmental pressures is not simply random occurrence. The fact that you know less about evolution than most high school students does exactly nothing to change the fact that evolution occurs. Your refusal to understand or even attempt to comprehend reality has no effect on reality.

>doesn't have argument
>pretends he's naming the jew
Oh shut the fuck up

that's a pretty dumb argment to make
it's kike saying Newtonian Mechanics was the end of physics and Aristotle the end of lgic

dumbass

What your entire argument has to do with theory of evolution?

See
Condescension only shows the presence of a tiny brain. I guess you'll have to blame the environmental pressures for that.

Plants are photosensitive you dumbass.

lol why the fuck not become a theist when death is near and is staring you in the face.

you have nothing to lose in doing so, except your credibility. it's just a meme bro no-one actually believes in heaven & hell..covering your bases though, i can respect that

Huh. Charles Darwin. You know, I am from and live in the town where he was born, raised, and educated until he left for London to voyage on the Beagle. There's a nice, suitable statue of him in the town library's courtyard (which used to be an old school house where he was educated -- it had stood for centuries when Darwin was there).

Various shitty "modern art" monuments of him exist all over the town. Pic related is just one such piece of shit. When you look at this do you think of Darwin? No. You look at it and think "what the fuck is that eyesore?"

It fucking blows my mind that a guy like Darwin came from a sleepy little nothing town like this. I think greatness really is inborn. Who the fuck have we had since? Nobody, that's who. It's a nice town but nothing happens here. And most people don't even know about the Darwin history. Even tourists. It's fucking sad.

>Condescension only shows the presence of a tiny brain
wew lad

That's exactly what I said. Animal cells are not though.

The basics of evolution have been widely available for consumption by the general public for decades, any adult who has a few hours of spare time and also wants to debate evolution should at least be willing to put in the bare minimum of effort needed to understand how evolution works. If a creatard can't even be asked to know what evolution is, they deserve to be condescended to.
>Modern """art""".

I have no argument. I haven't found either sides arguments to be compelling enough to be 100% sold either way. I just thought that comparing something whose development isn't entirely clear (the human eye), and comparing it to something that we know was designed intelligently (camera optics) is a strange way to make an argument for natural selection being solely responsible for the development of the former (human eye).

if they where educated they wouldnt have anything to argue with.

...

Do you know how much that fucking piece of shit cost the town? £1m. Over, in fact. Over one fucking million Great British pounds of our tax money was WASTED on that piece of shit. Have any idea what it's used for now? It's used by pot-smoking teens who hang around on it after hours; it's also a functional toilet for our pigeon community. It also stands silent guard over geriatrics who feed the swans and ducks on the river.

You know the Angel of the North, right? Fairly famous UK sculpture? That cost £800k. Eight hundred thousand fucking pounds. Pic related. Yeah, you recognize that shit? Guess which fucking sculpture is more iconic? If I showed you the Angel, and then I showed you the Quantum Leap, which one would you think cost more?

What a fucking tragedy. Darwin deserved better. The town's history deserved (deserves!) more respect than this.

You failed again. I'm beginning to question your reading comprehension skills. No where did I say I'm a "creatard". I merely pointed to the user above, that the eye is indeed complex. That's it.

No wew, newfriend. It is the truth.

>More modern """"art""""
Please stop.
Take your own advice, I never called you a creationist, I was commenting on why I think it's OK to condescend to people who want to debate evolution but refuse to even read an up to date definition or understand the basics of the theory even though documents containing those things are readily available to anyone with access to the internet or for that matter a high school textbook or library. Sure the eye is complex, we agree on that.

Here's another fucking "Darwin" related monument (or as I call it, a public fucking travesty) that our competent and aesthetically shrewd local councillors erected to celebrate the town's most famous son.

Look at this FUCKING SHIT. You know what that is? That's the Darwin Gate, that is, and apparently Darwin had a lot do with gates, I suppose, because he must -- right? When you look at this -- what do you think? You think "Jesus Christ, when will this asshole shut up about awful public architecture," right? Probably the absolute LAST thing on your mind when you see this superfluous piece of fucking trash is "Oh. Charles Darwin. Huh, yeah... I wonder why there's a Charles Darwin monument here?"

Well anyway, if it's any God damn consolation, it lights up at night.

Anyways, don't talk to me about that Darwin, he's a fucking waste of money.

Alright, alright last post. Look at this one. What do you think when you see this one? You think "that's nice, I wonder what a stuffy old man like Darwin did to have been afforded a statue like this here, of all places?"

And then you fuck off to find out.

And you know what? That's all we need.

popularmechanics.com/science/health/interviews/a22430/different-dna-language/

>2.5 billion yo Eukaryotic life develops.
>100,000 yo organisms worth having a conversation with develop.
>scientists discover dna
>less than 100 years later actual intelligence produces life thats not riddled with useless dna, or dead viruses, thats immune to disease, and uses more amino acids than occur naturally.

science is predictive

the "theory" of evolution can only predict in weak, general and non-quantifiable ways. It is therefore not very scientific.

Evolution was always meant (like Freudian psychology) as a secular replacement for religion and nothing else.

you idiots will get nowhere with intelligent design
the debate is rigged against you

Evolution is as predictive as anything in geology. Thats why they've been screaming about antibiotic resistant bacteria for decades but nobody cares because people are just smart enough to pass on their genes. Which means they're only as smart as society requires them to be.

I actually really feel for you and agree but fuck man your sheer level of rage about is fucking funny.