The whole concept of each new fossil adding two more gaps in the record gave me the idea for a blog name – a new blog I think for an audience who thinks people like Steve, Phil, PZ etc are very clever and we get awesome info from – but we don’t have the relevant education – just a keen interest on the topic. Make people like us feel less humbled perhaps.

Don’t know myself, but has science found fossils or some evidence that crreatures had eyes in what we would consider odd places?

Also, just curious, do you have any thoughts on the origin of life?

I’ve seen qoutes from Mr. Dawkins book but have not read it. I agree with his following quote:

“The complexity of living organisms is matched by the elegant efficiency of their apparent design. If anyone doesn’t agree that this amount of complex design cries out for an explanation, I give up!” (1986, p. ix). We agree. Complex design in nature does indeed cry out for an explanation.”

Another qoute by him,
“The Necessity of Darwinism” that was published in New Scientist, April 15, 1982, pp. 130-132): “The more statistically improbable a thing is, the less we can believe that it just happened by blind chance. Superficially the obvious alternative to chance is an intelligent Designer.”

Of course he doesn’t go on to say there is an intelligent designer but I guess he can understand why some believe there is. Since evolution doesn’t and doesn’t claim to explain the origin of life, my search for what I believe is a ‘creator’ continues. I do believe evolution was a tool that was used by this creator however.

Q1: No, it doesn’t. Nor does it propose to. The theory is concerned with the change of species over time.

Q2: Organisms do indeed have a designer that got them to the level of complexity you see today – natural selection.

Our eyes are not at the bottom of our feet because any species who had this would be rendered extinct very quickly. If you can’t see a predator bearing down on you, you’re done for! So soon, that species gets all eaten, while the ones with eyes up top remain. They have children, their children have children, on and on, and all have eyes up high.

So no one “designed” the eyes to go up on the head, but because it provides a survival advantage, that’s the trait that lives on. Multiply that thinking over millions of years and the unique geographical pressures each part of the earth faces, and you’ve got the basics of evolution down.

I’d also like to counter your perception that we’re designed “intelligently.” Why do we have appendices we don’t need? Why do we have tailbones? Wingbones? Why is my breathing orafice the same as my eating orafice? That’s just asking to die by choking! There’s a lot of unnecessary junk in our bodies, and lots of places things could work a whole lot better.

And a closer look at the organs and cells reveal messy, messy design. The eye is an impressive piece of work, but the wiring of the optic nerve is an inefficient nightmare. If an electrical contractor designed your house that way, you’d fire him immediately!

But apply evolutionary theory to these questions, and they all make sense. We’re not brilliantly designed from scratch – we’re messily cobbled together over millions of years from the results of the survival needs of our ancestors.

You’re asking great questions – sounds like this book might be right up your alley (I plan to read it)! I’d also recommend “The Blind Watchmaker” (the book, not the above poster) as a great primer on evolution.

Again my questions are 1. Does evolution explain the origin of “life”? 2. Does it explain why life has “intelligence?

These are honest questions from someone seeking “truth” in order to make a more informed opinion on the matter. Please provide direct answers.

Comment by John — April 23, 2009 @ 5:12 am ”

This is the God of the Gaps argument. There will always be gaps. In fact, the number of gaps will double with each piece of evidence one fills a gap with. If a gap exists between A and Z, I may find evidence to link them. Let’s call this “P”. There now exists 2 “gaps” between A to P, and P to Z.

Congrats, you just made me face-palm.

Lately, Jerry Coyne has been really pounding away at nonsense on his blog.

Yesterday he posted an essay called: Truckling to the Faithful: A Spoonful of Jesus Helps Darwin Go Down. He really slams the accommodationist position of the National Center for Science Education, and others (including a blog today on the AAAS). He and others have pounded on Matt Nisbett also, and his accomodationist approach.

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2009/04/22/truckling-to-the-faithful-a-spoonful-of-jesus-helps-darwin-go-down/

Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers have commented on Jerry’s essay. Richard’s is interesting. He says he has moved away from any sympathy he’s had for the accomodationist approach of Eugenie Scott and the National Academy. He even mentions Michael Shermer, who is definitely an appeaser and defender of NOMA. Sounds like Richard, Jerry, PZ and many others are sick of the appeasement approach and favor slamming it.

There’s some interesting quotes from Richard Dawkins’ post:

“lately started to think that we need to go further: go beyond humorous ridicule, sharpen our barbs to a point where they really hurt.”

“And I think that they are likely to be swayed by a display of naked contempt. Nobody likes to be laughed at. Nobody wants to be the butt of contempt.”

“Is it gloves off time? Or should we continue to go along with the appeasers and be all nice and cuddly, like Eugenie and the National Academy?”

As you’ve probably already seen, Jerry slams Kenneth Miller pretty good, and like Dawkins and so many others, shows absolute disdain for NOMA.

http://www.tnr.com/story_print.html?id=1e3851a3-bdf7-438a-ac2a-a5e381a70472

Besides Shermer, it’s hard not to notice the other accomodationist and appeasers in the so-called skeptical movement. In fact in that, “What Do I Do Next” “skeptical activism” guide, they seem to bend over backward to be inclusive to the religious. Of course, Steve Novella, and his SGU interview with Kenneth Miller he shied away from tackling Miller’s religious claims – which interestingly was released around the time of Coyne’s review of Miller (becasue the SGU doesn’t want to talk religion, yea right, that’s why I hear them make fun of Scientology – might as well admit they’re playing it safe to be accomodationist). If PZ Myers has the guts to come out (on the most popular science blog around) to state flatly he’s anti-religious, then may a modicum of gumption can be shown by some of the “skeptics” here.

I wonder how far some of this will go. Michael Shermer seems not only to be an accomodationist, with questionable expertise to talk economics, but has revealed himself time and again as a reactionary “fiscal conservative.” Though, I question where in fact his conservative leanings end when we view his rational for his appeasements to the religious. I couldn’t be more pleased that Richard Dawkins has pulled him out for special mention since Michael has felt it necessary to question the rationality of Dawkins (quite laughable).