Macroevolution vs Microevolution
24th July 2008 - By Aaron
I recently read an article called How Blind Salamanders Make Nonsense of Creationists’ Claims. While raising an interesting question, the author took quite a leap to the conclusion. In short, evolution went in reverse and salamanders lost their eyes. Therefore God doesn’t exist.
Macroevolution and microevolution are very different beasts. The development of the eye would be macroevolution, while the loss of the eye sight would be microevolution.
A salamander is in a cave in the dark and it’s eyes are completely useless. It’s very possible that random chance would allow a deformed blind salamander to be the producer of the population, and all would be blind henceforth. The same probabilities do not exist for the evolution of the eye.
The very notion that the eye could evolve is absolutely ridiculous. The eye is made of up many different parts, all working in harmony to produce sight. By and large, if any one of these intricate parts were missing or damaged or even slightly altered then the eye would be completely non-functional. The very notion that the eye evolved at once is so statistically improbable that to consider it as inevitable is just naive. In an alternative theory, which is more probable but still naive, the author quotes that the development of the eye started with some light sensitive cells. They just happened to be equally spaced and positioned on the creature, and these light sensitive cells just happened to be connected to the brain in a way that the light sensitivity could be registered, and that creature happened to be the one who lived and fathered all other creatures, and those children creatures happened to somehow gain eyesight out of light sensitive cells?
I call bull. Any idiot can make an argument based on infinity. Here’s one for you. Given as space is infinite and at least one habitable planet exists, it is assured that there is another habitable planet out there. As it is assured that there is at least one other habitable planet and space is infinite, then it is assured there are actually an infinite number of habitable planets. Given that there are an infinite number of habitable planets, then it is assured that there is at least one habitable planet very close to the earth in terms of atmosphere, temperature, etc. It follows that there are an infinite number of planets very close to the earth, an infinite number of planets exactly like the earth, an infinite number of those planets supporting life, and infinite number of those life forms exactly like us, an infinite number of those life forms that have followed the same evolutionary paths, made the same decisions, and as such are exact replicas of us today. In other words, using the infinite argument suggests that there are an infinite number of earth “clones” floating around in space. This does not even address the earths that are more advanced or less advanced than us by a few billion years, nor the other species that are slightly or vastly different than us. It’s kind of amazing we’ve never met any of them.
The probabilities against this sort of thing are so vast that only an argument of infinity can satisfy them. I guess the question is whether you believe space is infinite. If you do then get excited, because an infinite number of you “clones” are reading this same article and thinking this same thought right now!
If you found this interesting, or you are curious about the probabilities, you should go read The Mathematics of Monkeys and Shakespeare.
August 1st, 2008 at 8:28 am
I attempted to locate the section of the article that you referenced wherein the author concludes that “God” does not exist, but I was unable to locate it. Can you please cite the relevant excerpt?
Additionally, declaring that “the very notion that the eye could evolve is ridiculous” is not a logical argument. You are appealing to incredulity, which is a logical fallacy. That you refuse to study biology does not negate biological findings. Additionally, declaring that “the probabilities against” such an event is not actually evidence that such an event did not occur, especially when you provide no actualy statistical probability, nor even justification of the alleged improbability.
August 4th, 2008 at 10:44 am
Point taken on the quote about God does not exist. I have removed the quote marks from it, however I believe it still does summerize the article correctly, as the subtitle of the article itself is “How blind salamanders make nonsense of creationists’ claims.” That says because salamanders are blind God doesn’t exist.
On your second point. I see that I did not provide enough detail on my argument about the eye. I have added “The eye is made of up many different parts, all working in harmony to produce sight. By and large, if any one of these intricate parts were missing or damaged or even slightly altered then the eye would be completely non-functional. The very notion that the eye evolved at once is so statistically improbable that to consider it as inevitable is just naive. In an alternative theory, which is more probable but still naive, the author quotes …”
On your third point, I do provide a reference article to probabilities. I have clarified my intent in including a link to this site. The Mathematics of Monkeys and Shakespeare.
August 7th, 2008 at 5:21 pm
If you are unable to demonstrate that the author is arguing that the existence of a specific variant of salamanders demonstrates the nonexistence of any specific deity, then you should not make the claim.
The website that you referenced makes no statistical calculation regarding the evolution of the eye. Moreover, the probability calculations provided within the article are not justified; the author does not relate the calculations that he makes to the emergence of any biological system. Finally, your “explanation” of your appeal to incredulity does not alter the fact that it is an appeal to incredulity. That you do not comprehend how the biological structure of a mammalian eye emerged over subsequent generations does not mean that such an event is impossible.