Well, evolution doesn't look like design of any sort, much less "intelligent" design.
Take the old eye example. Why are so many types of eyes present? Both reflectors and refractors exist, and refractors exist in lots of variations. Compound eyes of several types exist. A designer would try out designs and variations until he/she/it/them found the best one (for some notion of "best") and then plop that best eye subsystem in every new animal.
That generalizes: "the best" whatever subsystem would show up everywhere after testing variations. Variations would disappear, and never repeat themselves.
We don't see that happening. At all. Not in the fossil record (and there's a pretty good one for vetebrate eye evolution) and not in extent species.
Also, some pretty flawed subsystems seem to be preserved. Back to the eye example: vetebrate eyes have a "fovea". Cephalopod eyes do not. All vetebrates have a blind spot.
I've always wondered this. I understand the theory of evolution, but I also believe that there's much we don't understand. Sometimes things almost seem too perfect at times and too balanced.
2 comments
[ 2.6 ms ] story [ 14.0 ms ] threadTake the old eye example. Why are so many types of eyes present? Both reflectors and refractors exist, and refractors exist in lots of variations. Compound eyes of several types exist. A designer would try out designs and variations until he/she/it/them found the best one (for some notion of "best") and then plop that best eye subsystem in every new animal.
That generalizes: "the best" whatever subsystem would show up everywhere after testing variations. Variations would disappear, and never repeat themselves.
We don't see that happening. At all. Not in the fossil record (and there's a pretty good one for vetebrate eye evolution) and not in extent species.
Also, some pretty flawed subsystems seem to be preserved. Back to the eye example: vetebrate eyes have a "fovea". Cephalopod eyes do not. All vetebrates have a blind spot.