Comment on Off the Rails
Eq0@literature.cafe 1 week agoI haven’t heard of since there was a clear explanation of how the eye evolved - since that one was a specific example they were referring to
Comment on Off the Rails
Eq0@literature.cafe 1 week agoI haven’t heard of since there was a clear explanation of how the eye evolved - since that one was a specific example they were referring to
Taldan@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Considering the human eye is basically backwards, I always found it funny people would try to use it as an example of an intelligent creator
Like we seriously have all the working bits in the path of light, permanently blocking our vision in spots. We just hide it with some post-production brain magic, and I’m supposed to believe that’s evidence of an intelligent creator?
Kepion@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 week ago
‘We’ll fix it in post’ has been plaguing us longer than expected.
SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 week ago
While you’re right, it’s also funny to say that god was a software developer under deadline pressure
Rhaedas@fedia.io 1 week ago
Dawkins' book "Climbing Mount Improbable" is a great and easy read to introduce the idea of making something complex and seemingly designed for its purpose a much more probable thing to happen if broken into small changes over huge amounts of time. And it's like 30 years old, so probably outdated with more and better evidence now.
There is an old Youtube video by cdk007 (that's still up!) that tackles a related fallacy, where finding a watch on the beach implies a watchmaker because nothing complex can evolve. He created a simulation using watch parts and evolutionary rules to show complexity does arise with the right conditions and enough time. Image