The Trilobite Eye--Marvelously Designed - Page 3 - PhillyBlog

peacemover · #21 (**permalink**) 07-14-2008, 08:25 PM

Look Humber, you have cited some selective writings to make a very weak case in support of intelligent design. Just because an evolutionary characteristic is complex does not necessarily mean it is/was an "irreducibly complex" creation of a divine designer.

Personally, I believe that evolution and creation are not in conflict. The creation accounts of Judeo-Christian scripture are myths (meaning deep, but unprovable truths) that are remarkably similar to early myths of the peoples of the fertile crescent region, who began to settle in that area about 10,000 years ago. The creation accounts are ancient accounts of how a specific ancient community gave meaning to their origins and existence- to try to mold science to fit these mythic accounts, as if they are some kind of a set of scientific treatises is ridiculous and does not make sense if one takes a few moments to think it through and put these writings in context.

Creation accounts, and all scripture for that matter, can be inspired, and even God's Word, without being made into some sort of literalistic pseudo science.

Quote:

Originally Posted by humber

The trilobite eye challenges the conventional “Geologic Time Scale.” Whenever a trilobite eye appears in the fossil record, it is super-complex. Riccardo Levi-Setti was professor of physics and director of the Enrico Fermi Institute at the University of Chicago. He was also a research associate at the Field Museum of Natural History. His beautiful book, Trilobites, published by The University of Chicago Press, contains these words: “Among the remains of early life on earth, the fossil record we find buried in ancient sedimentary rocks bears evidence of an extraordinary group of marine creature, the trilobites. The position of these invertebrates in the evolution of the animal kingdom is extraordinary because of their early ascent to a high level of functional complexity, described in fascinating detail by their persistent and ubiquitous fossil remains. Trilobites could see their immediate environment with amazingly sophisticated optical devices in the form of large composite eyes, the first use of optics coupled with sensory perception in nature. As a unique feat in the history of life, their eye lenses were shaped to correct for optical aberrations, with design identical to that proposed (quite independently of any knowledge of trilobites) by Descartes and Huygens. … When we humans construct optical elements, we some*times cement together two lenses that have different refrac*tive indices, as a means of correcting particular lens defects. In fact, this optical doublet is a device so typically associated with human invention that its discovery in trilobites comes as something of a shock. The realization that trilobites developed and used such devices half a billion years ago makes the shock even greater. And a final discovery--that the refracting interface between the two lens elements in a trilobite's eye was designed in accordance with optical constructions worked out by Descartes and Huygens in the mid-seventeenth century--borders on sheer science fiction.”

Continuing, “By comparing the shape of the aspheric lens exit sur*faces constructed by Huygens and Descartes with the two lens structures identified by Clarkson … little doubt remains that trilobites utilized the properties of Cartesian Ovals more than 400 million years before the seventeenth-century masters discovered the principle. ... The design of the trilobite's eye lens could well qualify for a patent disclosure.”

Some evolutionists probably would say, “That’s okay; trilobites evolved eyes from eyeless trilobites,” but this does not seem to take into account the following. In his book, Bringing Fossils to Life: An Introduction to Paleobiology (McGraw-Hill), Donald R. Prothero wrote: "Trilobites as a whole remained constructed on the same archetypal plan defined in the earliest Cambrian, and, especially after the Early Ordovician, changes of real significance remained surprising low." He also wrote, "Another common trend is the reduction and loss of eyes, which happened independently in several clades." Loss of eyes does not account for how the eyes got there to begin with.

It summary, super-complex trilobite eyes existed at the beginning of the so-called evolutionary process. There was “surprisingly low” change (Prothero), and what existed “borders on sheer science fiction” (Levi-Setti).

Here is evidence, therefore, that trilobites, assumed to be among the earliest of known fossils, typically had eyes of such complexity as to beg for an alternative explanation. Did they really evolve? Were they not instead designed by a marvelous Designer?

The geologic layers provide evidence for a global flood and that billions of trilobites, originally created by a wonderful Designer, were buried several thousand years ago in the very same world catastrophe. It came because of man's rebellion against God. Mercy has been extended so that people today can get right with their Creator (through the Gospel), but a future judgment is coming (2 Peter 3). This time it will be by fire.

jedi mind fart · #22 (**permalink**) 07-15-2008, 07:16 AM

Hey humber I'm still waitin on the other 49. Hello? You offered I'm waitin.

niel · #23 (**permalink**) 07-15-2008, 10:07 AM

Is the Christian god really so weak that he's incapable of creating a process as complex as evolution? Has he only been around a few thousand years? Why couldn't he have created the earth 4 billion years ago? Are you really limiting this supposedly all-powerful creator to *only* those capabilities attested to in *one* book? That's all he gets?

All I can say is that you must not expect much from your god.

peacemover · #24 (**permalink**) 07-15-2008, 10:38 AM

The earth is, as you observe, in all likelihood several billion years old- with very primitive lifeforms emerging early in that development. Humankind, as we exist now on earth (homo sapien sapiens), on the other hand, only go back about 200,000 years, with the dawn of civilization, as traced back to the fertile crescent region going back only about 10,000 years. The earliest known written history goes back just 5,000 years or so- with the Judeo-Christian scriptures going back about 3000-3300 years, and many of these accounts (the Creation story, the Flood accounts, etc) bear striking resemblances to earlier myths written more than 1000 years earlier.

Who were these scriptures written by? Primitive humans who believed the earth was flat, believed the stars were on some sort of a vault that was like a ceiling over the earth, and thought that the mediterranean region was the extent of the world.

Were these scriptures divinely inspired or could they have been? Of course! I personally believe they can be- particularly to persons of that faith tradition.

Are ancient scriptures still relevant to people of faith today as inspirational? Of course- they can be! The beliefs and traditions of faith can transcend generations and cultural milieus, as the propagation of all the great religious traditions of the world show.

Are ancient scriptures accurate as historical accounts? Perhaps as very biased, ethnocentric accounts of and for a specific ancient community- they tell us what these ancient peoples thought about themselves basically.

Are they accurate scientifically by modern standards? Based on the above-mentioned worldview of the peoples that wrote them, I hardly think so- nor were they ever intended as such.

The point, as I see it, that both ends of the spectrum seem to be missing or forgetting is that scripture can be a source of deep truth WITHOUT having to be viewed as literal historical or scientific accounts. Judeo-Christian scripture, for instance, is a very diverse collection of various types of writings collected and assembled over more than 1000 years- handed down from oral accounts and traditions. There are deep primeval truths there, but not literally accurate history in most cases, and certainly not anything that could properly be considered scientific.

This movement of trying to shape science to fit ancient scriptures is a relatively recent development- within the last 50-60 years or so, going back to several "young earth" creationists, who in the 1950's claimed (ridiculously of course) that the earth must only be about 6000 or so years old, because that is how far they traced back all the generations mentioned in the biblical genaeologies to Eve.

Literalism without accurate and thorough knowledge, is a dangerous combination- that breeds intolerant, and mis-informed fundamentalism...

Quote:

Originally Posted by niel

Is the Christian god really so weak that he's incapable of creating a process as complex as evolution? Has he only been around a few thousand years? Why couldn't he have created the earth 4 billion years ago? Are you really limiting this supposedly all-powerful creator to *only* those capabilities attested to in *one* book? That's all he gets?

All I can say is that you must not expect much from your god.

Ezra · #25 (**permalink**) 07-15-2008, 11:45 AM

Another of life's BIG questions... why, if God wrote a fabulous NY Times Best Seller... did he never write another book?

Ezra · #26 (**permalink**) 07-15-2008, 11:53 AM

Whilst thinking about Humber and his flat earth level science... I looked up references to the Sun revolving around the Earth. A fact that the Church was willing to kill to protect.

Examples of biblical references to a stationary earth:

Thou, Lord, in the beginning didst lay the foundation of the earth." (Heb. 1:10)

The sun, moon, and stars were created after the firm "foundation of the earth" was laid. (Gen. 1:9-18)

"He established the earth upon its foundations, so that it will not totter, forever and ever." (Ps. 104:5)

"The world is firmly established, it will not be moved." (Ps. 93:1 & 1 Chron. 16:30)

"For the pillars of the earth are the Lord's, and he set the world on them." (I Sam. 2:8)

"It is I who have firmly set its pillars." (Ps. 75:3)

"Who stretched out the heavens...and established the world." (Jer. 10:12)

The Bible never depicts the earth as moving, just "shaken," as in an "earthquake":

"The earth quaked, the foundations of heaven were trembling."

"The earth quakes, the heavens tremble." (Joel 2:10)

"I shall make the heavens tremble, and the earth will be shaken from its place." (Isa. 13:13)

"There was a great earthquake...and the stars of the sky fell...as if shaken from a tree." (Rev. 6:12,13)

Luther and Calvin agreed that the Bible states the earth does not move, and also that the sun does move:

"He (God) can command the sun not to rise." (Job 9:7) Rather than, "He can command the earth to stop (moving/spinning)." That God would direct such a command at the sun rather than the earth, implies an unmistakably geocentric perspective. Likewise, Martin Luther pointed out that "Joshua commanded the sun to stand still and not the earth," since the earth was presumed to be at rest at all times. (Josh. 10:12)

jedi mind fart · #27 (**permalink**) 07-15-2008, 12:44 PM

Why can God create the world but not cure amputee's ? Or fix a flat for that matter.

Towelie · #28 (**permalink**) 07-15-2008, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jedi mind fart

Why can God create the world but not cure amputee's ? Or fix a flat for that matter.

Hes too busy appearing in omelettes and water stains. And a bacon strip that went for thousands on ebay.

Ezra · #29 (**permalink**) 07-15-2008, 01:26 PM

God may not love amputees enough but he does love sports and will gladly help your team win for the right price.

Towelie · #30 (**permalink**) 07-15-2008, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ezra

God may not love amputees enough but he does love sports and will gladly help your team win for the right price.

We probably should have made a deal with God instead of Satan for T.O.