Total Posts:94|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Eyes to See

janesix
Posts: 3,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2015 8:27:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Evolution has created eyes over 40 times independently. Scientists call this "convergent evolution", but this is only a label, with no real explanation for how it occures. It is said that convergent evolution happens when organisms are subject to the same type of environmental pressures, but in the case of eyes (as in many other cases) the environmental pressures are varied and totally different. Eyes are just one case showing that evolution is directed and goal oriented.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2015 8:47:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/20/2015 8:27:17 PM, janesix wrote:
Evolution has created eyes over 40 times independently. Scientists call this "convergent evolution", but this is only a label, with no real explanation for how it occures. It is said that convergent evolution happens when organisms are subject to the same type of environmental pressures, but in the case of eyes (as in many other cases) the environmental pressures are varied and totally different. Eyes are just one case showing that evolution is directed and goal oriented.

Vision is a high-value survival trait. Every complex species has them and they're different in mammals, insects, and many aquatic species. The basic function is the same based on the properties of light, i.e. that it can be refracted and focused to project an image which, in turn, is transmitted by the nervous system to the brain of the entity. There is every reason for it to develop in any evolutionary scenario as the species evolves and becomes more sophisticated. That does not mean it is directed or goal oriented save that it is guided by what a species needs to survive and thrive.
janesix
Posts: 3,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2015 9:03:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/20/2015 8:47:09 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 10/20/2015 8:27:17 PM, janesix wrote:
Evolution has created eyes over 40 times independently. Scientists call this "convergent evolution", but this is only a label, with no real explanation for how it occures. It is said that convergent evolution happens when organisms are subject to the same type of environmental pressures, but in the case of eyes (as in many other cases) the environmental pressures are varied and totally different. Eyes are just one case showing that evolution is directed and goal oriented.

Vision is a high-value survival trait. Every complex species has them and they're different in mammals, insects, and many aquatic species. The basic function is the same based on the properties of light, i.e. that it can be refracted and focused to project an image which, in turn, is transmitted by the nervous system to the brain of the entity. There is every reason for it to develop in any evolutionary scenario as the species evolves and becomes more sophisticated. That does not mean it is directed or goal oriented save that it is guided by what a species needs to survive and thrive.

Random mutations and natural selection can't account for repeated innovations in completely different environments. Only if the mutations are non-random is this possible.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2015 9:10:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/20/2015 9:03:16 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/20/2015 8:47:09 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 10/20/2015 8:27:17 PM, janesix wrote:
Evolution has created eyes over 40 times independently. Scientists call this "convergent evolution", but this is only a label, with no real explanation for how it occures. It is said that convergent evolution happens when organisms are subject to the same type of environmental pressures, but in the case of eyes (as in many other cases) the environmental pressures are varied and totally different. Eyes are just one case showing that evolution is directed and goal oriented.

Vision is a high-value survival trait. Every complex species has them and they're different in mammals, insects, and many aquatic species. The basic function is the same based on the properties of light, i.e. that it can be refracted and focused to project an image which, in turn, is transmitted by the nervous system to the brain of the entity. There is every reason for it to develop in any evolutionary scenario as the species evolves and becomes more sophisticated. That does not mean it is directed or goal oriented save that it is guided by what a species needs to survive and thrive.

Random mutations and natural selection can't account for repeated innovations in completely different environments. Only if the mutations are non-random is this possible.

Please provide me the methodology you used to confirm that assertion, the experiments you performed, and the data you acquired? I'd really like to know how you know.
janesix
Posts: 3,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2015 9:19:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/20/2015 9:10:26 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 10/20/2015 9:03:16 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/20/2015 8:47:09 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 10/20/2015 8:27:17 PM, janesix wrote:
Evolution has created eyes over 40 times independently. Scientists call this "convergent evolution", but this is only a label, with no real explanation for how it occures. It is said that convergent evolution happens when organisms are subject to the same type of environmental pressures, but in the case of eyes (as in many other cases) the environmental pressures are varied and totally different. Eyes are just one case showing that evolution is directed and goal oriented.

Vision is a high-value survival trait. Every complex species has them and they're different in mammals, insects, and many aquatic species. The basic function is the same based on the properties of light, i.e. that it can be refracted and focused to project an image which, in turn, is transmitted by the nervous system to the brain of the entity. There is every reason for it to develop in any evolutionary scenario as the species evolves and becomes more sophisticated. That does not mean it is directed or goal oriented save that it is guided by what a species needs to survive and thrive.

Random mutations and natural selection can't account for repeated innovations in completely different environments. Only if the mutations are non-random is this possible.

Please provide me the methodology you used to confirm that assertion, the experiments you performed, and the data you acquired? I'd really like to know how you know.

I assume you have done experiments proving mutations are random? How do you know? There is not one iota of evidence proving the mutations that drive evolution are random. Why do you believe they are? Is it something you read?

I can only go by what I see,and I see organisms fitting perfectly into their environments. It appears to be designed. Why should I assume otherwise?
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2015 9:27:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/20/2015 8:27:17 PM, janesix wrote:
Evolution has created eyes over 40 times independently. Scientists call this "convergent evolution", but this is only a label, with no real explanation for how it occurs.

Actually, convergent evolution isn't simply a label for an inexplicable phenomenon, but also a necessary consequence of natural selection among independent species.

Convergent evolution is what should happen when there are multiple, independent, but viable paths toward a similar beneficial function.

Eyes offer a huge functional benefit for motile species in any environment with light. So if there are multiple viable paths to develop eyes, then one would expect there eye structures with disparate developmental histories.

On the other hand, if there were multiple viable paths to develop eyes, but evidence that disparate species all developed the same kind of eye the same way, that would be evidence either that the other paths aren't as viable as one thought -- or that something was intervening to prefer a particular kind of eye.

That something could of course, be a designer.

But ask yourself the converse question: why would an intelligent designer use different designs for the same functional benefit? Why not just use the same developmental roadmap in different versions? Why keep reinventing the wheel?
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2015 9:28:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/20/2015 9:19:45 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/20/2015 9:10:26 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 10/20/2015 9:03:16 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/20/2015 8:47:09 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 10/20/2015 8:27:17 PM, janesix wrote:
Evolution has created eyes over 40 times independently. Scientists call this "convergent evolution", but this is only a label, with no real explanation for how it occures. It is said that convergent evolution happens when organisms are subject to the same type of environmental pressures, but in the case of eyes (as in many other cases) the environmental pressures are varied and totally different. Eyes are just one case showing that evolution is directed and goal oriented.

Vision is a high-value survival trait. Every complex species has them and they're different in mammals, insects, and many aquatic species. The basic function is the same based on the properties of light, i.e. that it can be refracted and focused to project an image which, in turn, is transmitted by the nervous system to the brain of the entity. There is every reason for it to develop in any evolutionary scenario as the species evolves and becomes more sophisticated. That does not mean it is directed or goal oriented save that it is guided by what a species needs to survive and thrive.

Random mutations and natural selection can't account for repeated innovations in completely different environments. Only if the mutations are non-random is this possible.

Please provide me the methodology you used to confirm that assertion, the experiments you performed, and the data you acquired? I'd really like to know how you know.

I assume you have done experiments proving mutations are random? How do you know? There is not one iota of evidence proving the mutations that drive evolution are random. Why do you believe they are? Is it something you read?

I can only go by what I see,and I see organisms fitting perfectly into their environments. It appears to be designed. Why should I assume otherwise?

It has been observed under numerous laboratory conditions with species of bacteria evolving a resistance to toxins and in nature with a bacteria evolving the ability to break up and consume long-chain polymer molecules that do not exist in nature. There are loads of evidence that evolution occurs in response to environmental pressures, not because they're 'directed'.

What you see is the water in the puddle, the water saying just how well the puddle fits so it must have been made just for the water. The truth is that the water fill the contours of the puddle just as life fills the contours and crevices of the environment, seeking its own level and moulding itself to fit the environment. It's illogical to substitute 'appearance' for knowledge.
janesix
Posts: 3,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2015 9:42:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/20/2015 9:27:51 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 10/20/2015 8:27:17 PM, janesix wrote:
Evolution has created eyes over 40 times independently. Scientists call this "convergent evolution", but this is only a label, with no real explanation for how it occurs.

Actually, convergent evolution isn't simply a label for an inexplicable phenomenon, but also a necessary consequence of natural selection among independent species.

Convergent evolution is what should happen when there are multiple, independent, but viable paths toward a similar beneficial function.

Look at your own language: "toward a similar beneficial function" and "huge functional benefit". If evolution is blind, then why talk of benefits? And the use of "towards" is extremely telling.

Eyes offer a huge functional benefit for motile species in any environment with light. So if there are multiple viable paths to develop eyes, then one would expect there eye structures with disparate developmental histories.

On the other hand, if there were multiple viable paths to develop eyes, but evidence that disparate species all developed the same kind of eye the same way, that would be evidence either that the other paths aren't as viable as one thought -- or that something was intervening to prefer a particular kind of eye.

That something could of course, be a designer.

But ask yourself the converse question: why would an intelligent designer use different designs for the same functional benefit? Why not just use the same developmental roadmap in different versions? Why keep reinventing the wheel?

I don't believe God reaches his hands in and designs each organism specifically. It looks to me more like the universe is an organism with self-correcting capabilities.
janesix
Posts: 3,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2015 9:43:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/20/2015 9:28:06 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 10/20/2015 9:19:45 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/20/2015 9:10:26 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 10/20/2015 9:03:16 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/20/2015 8:47:09 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 10/20/2015 8:27:17 PM, janesix wrote:
Evolution has created eyes over 40 times independently. Scientists call this "convergent evolution", but this is only a label, with no real explanation for how it occures. It is said that convergent evolution happens when organisms are subject to the same type of environmental pressures, but in the case of eyes (as in many other cases) the environmental pressures are varied and totally different. Eyes are just one case showing that evolution is directed and goal oriented.

Vision is a high-value survival trait. Every complex species has them and they're different in mammals, insects, and many aquatic species. The basic function is the same based on the properties of light, i.e. that it can be refracted and focused to project an image which, in turn, is transmitted by the nervous system to the brain of the entity. There is every reason for it to develop in any evolutionary scenario as the species evolves and becomes more sophisticated. That does not mean it is directed or goal oriented save that it is guided by what a species needs to survive and thrive.

Random mutations and natural selection can't account for repeated innovations in completely different environments. Only if the mutations are non-random is this possible.

Please provide me the methodology you used to confirm that assertion, the experiments you performed, and the data you acquired? I'd really like to know how you know.

I assume you have done experiments proving mutations are random? How do you know? There is not one iota of evidence proving the mutations that drive evolution are random. Why do you believe they are? Is it something you read?

I can only go by what I see,and I see organisms fitting perfectly into their environments. It appears to be designed. Why should I assume otherwise?

It has been observed under numerous laboratory conditions with species of bacteria evolving a resistance to toxins and in nature with a bacteria evolving the ability to break up and consume long-chain polymer molecules that do not exist in nature. There are loads of evidence that evolution occurs in response to environmental pressures, not because they're 'directed'.

What you see is the water in the puddle, the water saying just how well the puddle fits so it must have been made just for the water. The truth is that the water fill the contours of the puddle just as life fills the contours and crevices of the environment, seeking its own level and moulding itself to fit the environment. It's illogical to substitute 'appearance' for knowledge.

Exactly. Things evolve what they need to survive.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2015 9:51:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/20/2015 9:28:06 PM, dhardage wrote:
What you see is the water in the puddle, the water saying just how well the puddle fits so it must have been made just for the water. The truth is that the water fill the contours of the puddle just as life fills the contours and crevices of the environment, seeking its own level and moulding itself to fit the environment.

Indeed, D.

Science requires analysis to be objective, Jane, which means to isolate from discussion our prejudices, emotions and expectations. If we fail to use our best diligence to do this, we may be philosophical, but we're not being scientific.

When we see life adapted to its environment, we can conjecture that either something adapted it through external intervention, or natural mechanisms adapted it. Scientifically, both conjectures begin as viable.

Evidence of natural adaptation requires mechanisms and predictions of further evidence that should not appear if life were adapted by external intervention. But adaptation by external intervention also requires mechanisms and predictions of further evidence that should not appear through natural adaptation.

Science has putative mechanisms for natural adaptation, and they work well for producing and improving new organs. Adaptation mechanisms have also been demonstrated clinically, both in the laboratory and through natural experiments. Speciation has been demonstrated too, and speciation itself exhibits the kind of taxonomic hierarchy one would expect of descent from common ancestry. Not only that, but independent disciplines using disparate evidence -- genetics, geology, paleontology, for example -- have converged to predict consistent and sometimes identical results.

But what are the mechanisms for external and non-natural intervention? How do they account for homologous protein structures, convergent evolution, continuous speciation, hierarchical species taxonomies? There is no coherent, falsifiable theory for external intervention, and the parties trying to produce it fail to meet basic scientific standards for objectivity, in that they cannot separate their dogma from the object being studied.

That failure produces pseudoscience, especially favoured by theologians, philosophers, and armchair science critics -- none of whom have sufficient science training to understand what objectivity and falsifiability mean in the first place.

Sadly, the flames of hope are also being fanned by a few dubious and/or tinfoil-hat wearing scientists. Often working outside their expertise, they're happy to print their ideas on Web-sites and in self-published books, but cannot get them into peer-reviewed science journals.

That's the state of play.
janesix
Posts: 3,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2015 10:42:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/20/2015 9:51:53 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 10/20/2015 9:28:06 PM, dhardage wrote:
What you see is the water in the puddle, the water saying just how well the puddle fits so it must have been made just for the water. The truth is that the water fill the contours of the puddle just as life fills the contours and crevices of the environment, seeking its own level and moulding itself to fit the environment.

Indeed, D.

Science requires analysis to be objective, Jane, which means to isolate from discussion our prejudices, emotions and expectations. If we fail to use our best diligence to do this, we may be philosophical, but we're not being scientific.

When we see life adapted to its environment, we can conjecture that either something adapted it through external intervention, or natural mechanisms adapted it. Scientifically, both conjectures begin as viable.

Evidence of natural adaptation requires mechanisms and predictions of further evidence that should not appear if life were adapted by external intervention. But adaptation by external intervention also requires mechanisms and predictions of further evidence that should not appear through natural adaptation.

Science has putative mechanisms for natural adaptation, and they work well for producing and improving new organs. Adaptation mechanisms have also been demonstrated clinically, both in the laboratory and through natural experiments. Speciation has been demonstrated too, and speciation itself exhibits the kind of taxonomic hierarchy one would expect of descent from common ancestry. Not only that, but independent disciplines using disparate evidence -- genetics, geology, paleontology, for example -- have converged to predict consistent and sometimes identical results.

But what are the mechanisms for external and non-natural intervention? How do they account for homologous protein structures, convergent evolution, continuous speciation, hierarchical species taxonomies? There is no coherent, falsifiable theory for external intervention, and the parties trying to produce it fail to meet basic scientific standards for objectivity, in that they cannot separate their dogma from the object being studied.

I have never suggested "external intervention". The mechanism is obviously an internal one. Thus mechanisms such as natural genetic engineering.

That failure produces pseudoscience, especially favoured by theologians, philosophers, and armchair science critics -- none of whom have sufficient science training to understand what objectivity and falsifiability mean in the first place.

Sadly, the flames of hope are also being fanned by a few dubious and/or tinfoil-hat wearing scientists. Often working outside their expertise, they're happy to print their ideas on Web-sites and in self-published books, but cannot get them into peer-reviewed science journals.

That's the state of play.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2015 11:51:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/20/2015 10:42:17 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/20/2015 9:51:53 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
What are the mechanisms for external and non-natural intervention? How do they account for homologous protein structures, convergent evolution, continuous speciation, hierarchical species taxonomies? There is no coherent, falsifiable theory for external intervention, and the parties trying to produce it fail to meet basic scientific standards for objectivity, in that they cannot separate their dogma from the object being studied.

I have never suggested "external intervention". The mechanism is obviously an internal one. Thus mechanisms such as natural genetic engineering.

What's 'natural' genetic engineering, Jane? How does it work?
nueron
Posts: 33
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2015 11:54:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/20/2015 8:27:17 PM, janesix wrote:
Evolution has created eyes over 40 times independently. Scientists call this "convergent evolution", but this is only a label, with no real explanation for how it occures. It is said that convergent evolution happens when organisms are subject to the same type of environmental pressures, but in the case of eyes (as in many other cases) the environmental pressures are varied and totally different. Eyes are just one case showing that evolution is directed and goal oriented. : :

A man born without eyes isn't concerned about evolution of the eyes. They can hear the Truth just fine.
nueron
Posts: 33
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2015 12:08:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/20/2015 9:27:51 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 10/20/2015 8:27:17 PM, janesix wrote:
Evolution has created eyes over 40 times independently. Scientists call this "convergent evolution", but this is only a label, with no real explanation for how it occurs.

Actually, convergent evolution isn't simply a label for an inexplicable phenomenon, but also a necessary consequence of natural selection among independent species.

Convergent evolution is what should happen when there are multiple, independent, but viable paths toward a similar beneficial function.

Eyes offer a huge functional benefit for motile species in any environment with light. So if there are multiple viable paths to develop eyes, then one would expect there eye structures with disparate developmental histories.

On the other hand, if there were multiple viable paths to develop eyes, but evidence that disparate species all developed the same kind of eye the same way, that would be evidence either that the other paths aren't as viable as one thought -- or that something was intervening to prefer a particular kind of eye.

That something could of course, be a designer.

But ask yourself the converse question: why would an intelligent designer use different designs for the same functional benefit? Why not just use the same developmental roadmap in different versions? Why keep reinventing the wheel? : :

All you have to do is ask the Lord and he will tell you why he made eyes, which aren't that important to learn why he made eyes that can't see.

Exodus 4:
10: But Moses said to the LORD, "Oh, my Lord, I am not eloquent, either heretofore or since thou hast spoken to thy servant; but I am slow of speech and of tongue."
11: Then the LORD said to him, "Who has made man's mouth? Who makes him dumb, or deaf, or seeing, or blind? Is it not I, the LORD?
12: Now therefore go, and I will be with your mouth and teach you what you shall speak."
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,954
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2015 12:30:37 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/20/2015 9:42:15 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/20/2015 9:27:51 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 10/20/2015 8:27:17 PM, janesix wrote:
Evolution has created eyes over 40 times independently. Scientists call this "convergent evolution", but this is only a label, with no real explanation for how it occurs.

Actually, convergent evolution isn't simply a label for an inexplicable phenomenon, but also a necessary consequence of natural selection among independent species.

Convergent evolution is what should happen when there are multiple, independent, but viable paths toward a similar beneficial function.

Look at your own language: "toward a similar beneficial function" and "huge functional benefit". If evolution is blind, then why talk of benefits? And the use of "towards" is extremely telling.

Well done.

Eyes offer a huge functional benefit for motile species in any environment with light. So if there are multiple viable paths to develop eyes, then one would expect there eye structures with disparate developmental histories.

On the other hand, if there were multiple viable paths to develop eyes, but evidence that disparate species all developed the same kind of eye the same way, that would be evidence either that the other paths aren't as viable as one thought -- or that something was intervening to prefer a particular kind of eye.

That something could of course, be a designer.

But ask yourself the converse question: why would an intelligent designer use different designs for the same functional benefit? Why not just use the same developmental roadmap in different versions? Why keep reinventing the wheel?

I don't believe God reaches his hands in and designs each organism specifically. It looks to me more like the universe is an organism with self-correcting capabilities.
janesix
Posts: 3,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2015 6:15:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/20/2015 11:51:54 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 10/20/2015 10:42:17 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/20/2015 9:51:53 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
What are the mechanisms for external and non-natural intervention? How do they account for homologous protein structures, convergent evolution, continuous speciation, hierarchical species taxonomies? There is no coherent, falsifiable theory for external intervention, and the parties trying to produce it fail to meet basic scientific standards for objectivity, in that they cannot separate their dogma from the object being studied.

I have never suggested "external intervention". The mechanism is obviously an internal one. Thus mechanisms such as natural genetic engineering.

What's 'natural' genetic engineering, Jane? How does it work?

The cells cut and splice,and restructure DNA. Basically, it's direct modification of DNA by the cell through various means.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2015 7:05:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/21/2015 12:30:37 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 10/20/2015 9:42:15 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/20/2015 9:27:51 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 10/20/2015 8:27:17 PM, janesix wrote:
Evolution has created eyes over 40 times independently. Scientists call this "convergent evolution", but this is only a label, with no real explanation for how it occurs.

Actually, convergent evolution isn't simply a label for an inexplicable phenomenon, but also a necessary consequence of natural selection among independent species.

Convergent evolution is what should happen when there are multiple, independent, but viable paths toward a similar beneficial function.

Look at your own language: "toward a similar beneficial function" and "huge functional benefit". If evolution is blind, then why talk of benefits? And the use of "towards" is extremely telling.

Well done.

The intended meaning of "beneficial" here is "increased probability of survival" which, in turn, leads to a higher probability of producing offspring containing the genetic information. The term "towards" is being used in correlation with the flow time: the developmental process over successive generation proceeds forward in time to the state of matters described. There is no "will" or "end" or "goal" implied here; just a description of the results of the natural processes. The use of these words is being misconstrued due to their effort to construct the concept with plain language.

I know Richard Dawkins was similarly criticized for using the word "purpose" in describing evolution, but it wasn't intended to mean a "willful purpose". He was just trying to convey the concept colloquially.
janesix
Posts: 3,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2015 7:38:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/21/2015 7:05:27 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 10/21/2015 12:30:37 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 10/20/2015 9:42:15 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/20/2015 9:27:51 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 10/20/2015 8:27:17 PM, janesix wrote:
Evolution has created eyes over 40 times independently. Scientists call this "convergent evolution", but this is only a label, with no real explanation for how it occurs.

Actually, convergent evolution isn't simply a label for an inexplicable phenomenon, but also a necessary consequence of natural selection among independent species.

Convergent evolution is what should happen when there are multiple, independent, but viable paths toward a similar beneficial function.

Look at your own language: "toward a similar beneficial function" and "huge functional benefit". If evolution is blind, then why talk of benefits? And the use of "towards" is extremely telling.

Well done.

The intended meaning of "beneficial" here is "increased probability of survival" which, in turn, leads to a higher probability of producing offspring containing the genetic information. The term "towards" is being used in correlation with the flow time: the developmental process over successive generation proceeds forward in time to the state of matters described. There is no "will" or "end" or "goal" implied here; just a description of the results of the natural processes. The use of these words is being misconstrued due to their effort to construct the concept with plain language.

I know Richard Dawkins was similarly criticized for using the word "purpose" in describing evolution, but it wasn't intended to mean a "willful purpose". He was just trying to convey the concept colloquially.

It is hard not to use teleological language when talking about evolution because it describes it so well. Why is that?
Chaosism
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2015 7:55:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/21/2015 7:38:34 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/21/2015 7:05:27 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 10/21/2015 12:30:37 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 10/20/2015 9:42:15 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/20/2015 9:27:51 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 10/20/2015 8:27:17 PM, janesix wrote:
Evolution has created eyes over 40 times independently. Scientists call this "convergent evolution", but this is only a label, with no real explanation for how it occurs.

Actually, convergent evolution isn't simply a label for an inexplicable phenomenon, but also a necessary consequence of natural selection among independent species.

Convergent evolution is what should happen when there are multiple, independent, but viable paths toward a similar beneficial function.

Look at your own language: "toward a similar beneficial function" and "huge functional benefit". If evolution is blind, then why talk of benefits? And the use of "towards" is extremely telling.

Well done.

The intended meaning of "beneficial" here is "increased probability of survival" which, in turn, leads to a higher probability of producing offspring containing the genetic information. The term "towards" is being used in correlation with the flow time: the developmental process over successive generation proceeds forward in time to the state of matters described. There is no "will" or "end" or "goal" implied here; just a description of the results of the natural processes. The use of these words is being misconstrued due to their effort to construct the concept with plain language.

I know Richard Dawkins was similarly criticized for using the word "purpose" in describing evolution, but it wasn't intended to mean a "willful purpose". He was just trying to convey the concept colloquially.

It is hard not to use teleological language when talking about evolution because it describes it so well. Why is that?

We use language very casually and use words in a intuitive sense. It's part of our nature to think in terms of purpose and meaning, because that's how we operate as sentient beings. Have you ever heard something explained to a child in terms of an inanimate object "wanting" to do something as an explanation? This appeal generally makes it easier for a concept to be understood.

Usually when we use basic language like this, there are no issues. When the details of the concepts become important, problems arise, and more specificity is required, hence scientific terminology. A good example of this is when we tend to use the word "weight" in regards to physics where "mass" is more appropriate. We tend to use "weight" because of familiarity and frequency. It usually doesn't matter unless the difference becomes relevant.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2015 8:05:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/21/2015 6:15:05 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/20/2015 11:51:54 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 10/20/2015 10:42:17 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/20/2015 9:51:53 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
What are the mechanisms for external and non-natural intervention? How do they account for homologous protein structures, convergent evolution, continuous speciation, hierarchical species taxonomies? There is no coherent, falsifiable theory for external intervention, and the parties trying to produce it fail to meet basic scientific standards for objectivity, in that they cannot separate their dogma from the object being studied.

I have never suggested "external intervention". The mechanism is obviously an internal one. Thus mechanisms such as natural genetic engineering.

What's 'natural' genetic engineering, Jane? How does it work?

The cells cut and splice, and restructure DNA. Basically, it's direct modification of DNA by the cell through various means.

I presume you mean, as scientists do in laboratories today -- by manipulating the nucleii of single cells -- but not with a lab, but with cells somehow doing it themselves for a while, though a magic that has never been seen, and cannot be physically detected or explained.

But if the process were intelligently guided, why would fossils show that it took a very long time to develop a spinal chord, and relatively little time to develop diverse animals after that?

And why wouldn't intelligent guidance reuse what it had already learned? Why wouldn't it splice in whole sequences to create fully-formed organs? Why repeat the whole process and independently redevelop eyes?

And if that process occurred at all, wouldn't it be at a single site, since there'd be no life anywhere else? Why then isn't there some continent with an example of every species, and why are there major variations between species on islands with similar environments?

If genes develop by inteligent purpose, then shouldn't gene-size follow biological complexity and sophistication? Why then are there so many species -- e.g. fish, amphibians and flowering plants -- with 5, 10 or 100 times more genetic base pairs than humans? [https://en.wikipedia.org...]

If species were created only by intelligent purpose, then why are more than 99% of species extinct -- including many species that had survived for hundreds of millions of years? And if they died by unexpected catastrophe, why weren't they replaced with the same species?
Chaosism
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2015 8:14:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Pardon the grammatical errors in my previous post. I typically have to type quickly.

To expand on this, "purpose" is a concept that is created by us humans. One may be tempted to say that the heart has a purpose. Well, purpose, in the sense that we typically use it, implies an intent or goal. Really, though, the heart and its function are the result of unthinking processes, not the intention. Such can also be erroneously drawn from the term "natural selection" due to the latter word. The natural processes of evolution have resulted in the organ that we call the heart.

Its kind of like having a funnel and dropping a handful of different sized marbles into it. The smaller marbles passing through is not the intent of the funnel, but the results of it. Now, when we say that there is a purpose to the funnel, it is because we associate the process to a goal that we aim to achieve. The process, itself, is devoid of purpose.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2015 8:21:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/20/2015 9:42:15 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/20/2015 9:27:51 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 10/20/2015 8:27:17 PM, janesix wrote:
Evolution has created eyes over 40 times independently. Scientists call this "convergent evolution", but this is only a label, with no real explanation for how it occurs.

Actually, convergent evolution isn't simply a label for an inexplicable phenomenon, but also a necessary consequence of natural selection among independent species.

Convergent evolution is what should happen when there are multiple, independent, but viable paths toward a similar beneficial function.

Look at your own language: "toward a similar beneficial function" and "huge functional benefit". If evolution is blind, then why talk of benefits? And the use of "towards" is extremely telling.
Jane, apologies for missing this earlier post. The notifications got spammed.

Rain generally benefits plants, doesn't it? But does that mean a particular rainshower was designed for the plants it falls on? If I've been soaking clothes in a bucket of water, and toss the water off my back porch and it lands on a daisy, did I design that incident for the daisy's benefit?

But also, isn't it true that no matter how or when I dispose of the water, it'll likely benefit something eventually? Suppose I flip a coin to decide whether to toss it off the back or front porch, then roll a die to decide where on the porch I'll throw it from. That's a random process nevertheless likely to produce a benefit for something, isn't it?

So, is it possible that the biology for light-sensitive skin, coupled with biology for skin changes, can meet at times and produce a new biology, for eyes? (That's a rhetorical question. Here's how it can occur: [https://en.wikipedia.org...]) And once eyes produce benefit in helping keep an animal alive, then won't better eyes become selected?
janesix
Posts: 3,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2015 8:57:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/21/2015 8:05:45 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 10/21/2015 6:15:05 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/20/2015 11:51:54 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 10/20/2015 10:42:17 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/20/2015 9:51:53 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
What are the mechanisms for external and non-natural intervention? How do they account for homologous protein structures, convergent evolution, continuous speciation, hierarchical species taxonomies? There is no coherent, falsifiable theory for external intervention, and the parties trying to produce it fail to meet basic scientific standards for objectivity, in that they cannot separate their dogma from the object being studied.

I have never suggested "external intervention". The mechanism is obviously an internal one. Thus mechanisms such as natural genetic engineering.

What's 'natural' genetic engineering, Jane? How does it work?

The cells cut and splice, and restructure DNA. Basically, it's direct modification of DNA by the cell through various means.

I presume you mean, as scientists do in laboratories today -- by manipulating the nucleii of single cells -- but not with a lab, but with cells somehow doing it themselves for a while, though a magic that has never been seen, and cannot be physically detected or explained.

Natural genetic engineering mechanisms are well-documented in James Shapiro's book, Evolution, a View From the 21st Century

http://ptgmedia.pearsoncmg.com...

But if the process were intelligently guided, why would fossils show that it took a very long time to develop a spinal chord, and relatively little time to develop diverse animals after that?

Spinal cords were developed in the Cambrian. There is no saying how long that took, as they show up suddenly in the fossil record, along with the other types of body plans.

And why wouldn't intelligent guidance reuse what it had already learned? Why wouldn't it splice in whole sequences to create fully-formed organs? Why repeat the whole process and independently redevelop eyes?

Different eyes are formed to best suit the environment. I would assume other organs are made to best take advantage of specific needs and environment.

And if that process occurred at all, wouldn't it be at a single site, since there'd be no life anywhere else? Why then isn't there some continent with an example of every species, and why are there major variations between species on islands with similar environments?

The Cambrian explosion occurred all over the Earth at the same time, and diversified from that over time. How does random mutations and natural selection explain that? A natural progressive evolution with a purpose explains it better. If life has an order, it makes sense to me that the body plans would have been thought of first, and then a slower progression towards the goal of organisms with larger brains and thinking capabilities. Life is "evolving" like an embryo, with a definite goal in mind. Organisms can make minor changes to themselves and their offspring to deal with environmental factors.

If genes develop by inteligent purpose, then shouldn't gene-size follow biological complexity and sophistication? Why then are there so many species -- e.g. fish, amphibians and flowering plants -- with 5, 10 or 100 times more genetic base pairs than humans? [https://en.wikipedia.org...]

I don't know.

If species were created only by intelligent purpose, then why are more than 99% of species extinct -- including many species that had survived for hundreds of millions of years? And if they died by unexpected catastrophe, why weren't they replaced with the same species?

We don't know enough about mass extinctions to really determine how they happened. It would depend on if they were caused by catastrophy, or if it is just part of the natural stages of evolution to higher organisms.
janesix
Posts: 3,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2015 9:10:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/21/2015 8:21:25 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 10/20/2015 9:42:15 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/20/2015 9:27:51 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 10/20/2015 8:27:17 PM, janesix wrote:
Evolution has created eyes over 40 times independently. Scientists call this "convergent evolution", but this is only a label, with no real explanation for how it occurs.

Actually, convergent evolution isn't simply a label for an inexplicable phenomenon, but also a necessary consequence of natural selection among independent species.

Convergent evolution is what should happen when there are multiple, independent, but viable paths toward a similar beneficial function.

Look at your own language: "toward a similar beneficial function" and "huge functional benefit". If evolution is blind, then why talk of benefits? And the use of "towards" is extremely telling.
Jane, apologies for missing this earlier post. The notifications got spammed.

Rain generally benefits plants, doesn't it? But does that mean a particular rainshower was designed for the plants it falls on? If I've been soaking clothes in a bucket of water, and toss the water off my back porch and it lands on a daisy, did I design that incident for the daisy's benefit?

But also, isn't it true that no matter how or when I dispose of the water, it'll likely benefit something eventually? Suppose I flip a coin to decide whether to toss it off the back or front porch, then roll a die to decide where on the porch I'll throw it from. That's a random process nevertheless likely to produce a benefit for something, isn't it?

So, is it possible that the biology for light-sensitive skin, coupled with biology for skin changes, can meet at times and produce a new biology, for eyes? (That's a rhetorical question. Here's how it can occur: [https://en.wikipedia.org...]) And once eyes produce benefit in helping keep an animal alive, then won't better eyes become selected?

You say "better eyes". Yet that involves many mutations to get better.Mutations to form all of the different parts of the eye, and a nervous structure connecting it to the brain so that it's useful as a sense organ. And all of these mutations have to happen accidentally. I can't imagine this happening once, let alone dozens of times.
janesix
Posts: 3,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2015 9:14:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/21/2015 8:14:28 PM, Chaosism wrote:
Pardon the grammatical errors in my previous post. I typically have to type quickly.

To expand on this, "purpose" is a concept that is created by us humans. One may be tempted to say that the heart has a purpose. Well, purpose, in the sense that we typically use it, implies an intent or goal. Really, though, the heart and its function are the result of unthinking processes, not the intention. Such can also be erroneously drawn from the term "natural selection" due to the latter word. The natural processes of evolution have resulted in the organ that we call the heart.

Its kind of like having a funnel and dropping a handful of different sized marbles into it. The smaller marbles passing through is not the intent of the funnel, but the results of it. Now, when we say that there is a purpose to the funnel, it is because we associate the process to a goal that we aim to achieve. The process, itself, is devoid of purpose.

It is only an assertion that life doesn't have purpose. You say it doesn't, I say it does.

There is no evidence that random mutations drive evolution. If you would like to provide some real evidence, I'd be happy to see it. So far, I haven't seen any, and I assure you, I've looked.
Hitchian
Posts: 764
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2015 9:19:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/21/2015 9:10:25 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/21/2015 8:21:25 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 10/20/2015 9:42:15 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/20/2015 9:27:51 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 10/20/2015 8:27:17 PM, janesix wrote:
Evolution has created eyes over 40 times independently. Scientists call this "convergent evolution", but this is only a label, with no real explanation for how it occurs.

Actually, convergent evolution isn't simply a label for an inexplicable phenomenon, but also a necessary consequence of natural selection among independent species.

Convergent evolution is what should happen when there are multiple, independent, but viable paths toward a similar beneficial function.

Look at your own language: "toward a similar beneficial function" and "huge functional benefit". If evolution is blind, then why talk of benefits? And the use of "towards" is extremely telling.
Jane, apologies for missing this earlier post. The notifications got spammed.

Rain generally benefits plants, doesn't it? But does that mean a particular rainshower was designed for the plants it falls on? If I've been soaking clothes in a bucket of water, and toss the water off my back porch and it lands on a daisy, did I design that incident for the daisy's benefit?

But also, isn't it true that no matter how or when I dispose of the water, it'll likely benefit something eventually? Suppose I flip a coin to decide whether to toss it off the back or front porch, then roll a die to decide where on the porch I'll throw it from. That's a random process nevertheless likely to produce a benefit for something, isn't it?

So, is it possible that the biology for light-sensitive skin, coupled with biology for skin changes, can meet at times and produce a new biology, for eyes? (That's a rhetorical question. Here's how it can occur: [https://en.wikipedia.org...]) And once eyes produce benefit in helping keep an animal alive, then won't better eyes become selected?

You say "better eyes". Yet that involves many mutations to get better.Mutations to form all of the different parts of the eye, and a nervous structure connecting it to the brain so that it's useful as a sense organ. And all of these mutations have to happen accidentally. I can't imagine this happening once, let alone dozens of times.

And here we get to the bottom of this.

You do not believe in the theory of Evolution by Natural selection. Fine. Your prerogative. If you really want to get a proper answer, even if you're likely going to distrust it, but an expert answer nonetheless, I don't think an internet forum is the best place to start.

Why don 't you read an up-to-date book on the subject? Better yet, why don't you email a college professor on Evolutionary Biology and arrange for a brief meeting where you'll be able to ask the questions that seem to be troubling you?

As I see it, the current situation will never provide a satisfactory answer. I don't think there are that many evolutionary biologists hanging around.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2015 12:37:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/21/2015 9:14:35 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/21/2015 8:14:28 PM, Chaosism wrote:
Pardon the grammatical errors in my previous post. I typically have to type quickly.

To expand on this, "purpose" is a concept that is created by us humans. One may be tempted to say that the heart has a purpose. Well, purpose, in the sense that we typically use it, implies an intent or goal. Really, though, the heart and its function are the result of unthinking processes, not the intention. Such can also be erroneously drawn from the term "natural selection" due to the latter word. The natural processes of evolution have resulted in the organ that we call the heart.

Its kind of like having a funnel and dropping a handful of different sized marbles into it. The smaller marbles passing through is not the intent of the funnel, but the results of it. Now, when we say that there is a purpose to the funnel, it is because we associate the process to a goal that we aim to achieve. The process, itself, is devoid of purpose.

It is only an assertion that life doesn't have purpose. You say it doesn't, I say it does.

That's fine; no argument. Just for clarification, science doesn't make claims pertaining to purpose, in this sense. This reason I explained this in the way I did was so that the intuitive tendency to perceive purpose could be recognized. The Theory of Evolution does not have any teleological or theological components, in of and itself, so it makes no claims for or against purpose or gods or anything outside the explanation of the body of facts.

There is no evidence that random mutations drive evolution. If you would like to provide some real evidence, I'd be happy to see it. So far, I haven't seen any, and I assure you, I've looked.

What exactly would qualify as evidence to you? If you've looked extensively, surely your criteria is defined to decent degree if everything has failed to meet it, thus far.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2015 1:42:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/20/2015 9:43:59 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/20/2015 9:28:06 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 10/20/2015 9:19:45 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/20/2015 9:10:26 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 10/20/2015 9:03:16 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/20/2015 8:47:09 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 10/20/2015 8:27:17 PM, janesix wrote:
Evolution has created eyes over 40 times independently. Scientists call this "convergent evolution", but this is only a label, with no real explanation for how it occures. It is said that convergent evolution happens when organisms are subject to the same type of environmental pressures, but in the case of eyes (as in many other cases) the environmental pressures are varied and totally different. Eyes are just one case showing that evolution is directed and goal oriented.

Vision is a high-value survival trait. Every complex species has them and they're different in mammals, insects, and many aquatic species. The basic function is the same based on the properties of light, i.e. that it can be refracted and focused to project an image which, in turn, is transmitted by the nervous system to the brain of the entity. There is every reason for it to develop in any evolutionary scenario as the species evolves and becomes more sophisticated. That does not mean it is directed or goal oriented save that it is guided by what a species needs to survive and thrive.

Random mutations and natural selection can't account for repeated innovations in completely different environments. Only if the mutations are non-random is this possible.

Please provide me the methodology you used to confirm that assertion, the experiments you performed, and the data you acquired? I'd really like to know how you know.

I assume you have done experiments proving mutations are random? How do you know? There is not one iota of evidence proving the mutations that drive evolution are random. Why do you believe they are? Is it something you read?

I can only go by what I see,and I see organisms fitting perfectly into their environments. It appears to be designed. Why should I assume otherwise?

It has been observed under numerous laboratory conditions with species of bacteria evolving a resistance to toxins and in nature with a bacteria evolving the ability to break up and consume long-chain polymer molecules that do not exist in nature. There are loads of evidence that evolution occurs in response to environmental pressures, not because they're 'directed'.

What you see is the water in the puddle, the water saying just how well the puddle fits so it must have been made just for the water. The truth is that the water fill the contours of the puddle just as life fills the contours and crevices of the environment, seeking its own level and moulding itself to fit the environment. It's illogical to substitute 'appearance' for knowledge.

Exactly. Things evolve what they need to survive.

And sight exponentially increases the chances for survival. In any environment with light, sight will almost certainly develop in any number of ways, from simple light sensitive groups of cells to specialized organs that focus light into an image that a more advanced brain can interpret.
janesix
Posts: 3,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2015 6:25:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/22/2015 1:42:36 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 10/20/2015 9:43:59 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/20/2015 9:28:06 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 10/20/2015 9:19:45 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/20/2015 9:10:26 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 10/20/2015 9:03:16 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/20/2015 8:47:09 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 10/20/2015 8:27:17 PM, janesix wrote:
Evolution has created eyes over 40 times independently. Scientists call this "convergent evolution", but this is only a label, with no real explanation for how it occures. It is said that convergent evolution happens when organisms are subject to the same type of environmental pressures, but in the case of eyes (as in many other cases) the environmental pressures are varied and totally different. Eyes are just one case showing that evolution is directed and goal oriented.

Vision is a high-value survival trait. Every complex species has them and they're different in mammals, insects, and many aquatic species. The basic function is the same based on the properties of light, i.e. that it can be refracted and focused to project an image which, in turn, is transmitted by the nervous system to the brain of the entity. There is every reason for it to develop in any evolutionary scenario as the species evolves and becomes more sophisticated. That does not mean it is directed or goal oriented save that it is guided by what a species needs to survive and thrive.

Random mutations and natural selection can't account for repeated innovations in completely different environments. Only if the mutations are non-random is this possible.

Please provide me the methodology you used to confirm that assertion, the experiments you performed, and the data you acquired? I'd really like to know how you know.

I assume you have done experiments proving mutations are random? How do you know? There is not one iota of evidence proving the mutations that drive evolution are random. Why do you believe they are? Is it something you read?

I can only go by what I see,and I see organisms fitting perfectly into their environments. It appears to be designed. Why should I assume otherwise?

It has been observed under numerous laboratory conditions with species of bacteria evolving a resistance to toxins and in nature with a bacteria evolving the ability to break up and consume long-chain polymer molecules that do not exist in nature. There are loads of evidence that evolution occurs in response to environmental pressures, not because they're 'directed'.

What you see is the water in the puddle, the water saying just how well the puddle fits so it must have been made just for the water. The truth is that the water fill the contours of the puddle just as life fills the contours and crevices of the environment, seeking its own level and moulding itself to fit the environment. It's illogical to substitute 'appearance' for knowledge.

Exactly. Things evolve what they need to survive.

And sight exponentially increases the chances for survival. In any environment with light, sight will almost certainly develop in any number of ways, from simple light sensitive groups of cells to specialized organs that focus light into an image that a more advanced brain can interpret.

Why would eyes "almost certainly" arise if mutations are completely random?
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2015 6:53:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/22/2015 6:25:25 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/22/2015 1:42:36 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 10/20/2015 9:43:59 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/20/2015 9:28:06 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 10/20/2015 9:19:45 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/20/2015 9:10:26 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 10/20/2015 9:03:16 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/20/2015 8:47:09 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 10/20/2015 8:27:17 PM, janesix wrote:
Evolution has created eyes over 40 times independently. Scientists call this "convergent evolution", but this is only a label, with no real explanation for how it occures. It is said that convergent evolution happens when organisms are subject to the same type of environmental pressures, but in the case of eyes (as in many other cases) the environmental pressures are varied and totally different. Eyes are just one case showing that evolution is directed and goal oriented.

Vision is a high-value survival trait. Every complex species has them and they're different in mammals, insects, and many aquatic species. The basic function is the same based on the properties of light, i.e. that it can be refracted and focused to project an image which, in turn, is transmitted by the nervous system to the brain of the entity. There is every reason for it to develop in any evolutionary scenario as the species evolves and becomes more sophisticated. That does not mean it is directed or goal oriented save that it is guided by what a species needs to survive and thrive.

Random mutations and natural selection can't account for repeated innovations in completely different environments. Only if the mutations are non-random is this possible.

Please provide me the methodology you used to confirm that assertion, the experiments you performed, and the data you acquired? I'd really like to know how you know.

I assume you have done experiments proving mutations are random? How do you know? There is not one iota of evidence proving the mutations that drive evolution are random. Why do you believe they are? Is it something you read?

I can only go by what I see,and I see organisms fitting perfectly into their environments. It appears to be designed. Why should I assume otherwise?

It has been observed under numerous laboratory conditions with species of bacteria evolving a resistance to toxins and in nature with a bacteria evolving the ability to break up and consume long-chain polymer molecules that do not exist in nature. There are loads of evidence that evolution occurs in response to environmental pressures, not because they're 'directed'.

What you see is the water in the puddle, the water saying just how well the puddle fits so it must have been made just for the water. The truth is that the water fill the contours of the puddle just as life fills the contours and crevices of the environment, seeking its own level and moulding itself to fit the environment. It's illogical to substitute 'appearance' for knowledge.

Exactly. Things evolve what they need to survive.

And sight exponentially increases the chances for survival. In any environment with light, sight will almost certainly develop in any number of ways, from simple light sensitive groups of cells to specialized organs that focus light into an image that a more advanced brain can interpret.

Why would eyes "almost certainly" arise if mutations are completely random?

Because, as noted, it's a highly functional method of surviving. When a random mutation occurred that allowed one member of a species to sense light and darkness, that member was much more likely to survive and pass on that advantageous change. This keeps occurring over billions of years until complex eyes such those of an insect, a giant squid, and a human being, are ubiquitous among species who live in a lighted environment. It's not a difficult proposition, it's natural selection allowing those most suited to their environment to survive and procreate.