@ApoloJedi_ The whole "machines don't reproduce!" line actually cracks me up. It just shows that the person has completely missed the point of the analogy. We hear it all too often.

@DivinelyDesined @ApoloJedi_ The analogy is flawed from the beginning. You can’t possibly be this stupid to realize you have missed the point and called it a win.

@IMACedarWaxwing @ApoloJedi_ Please, explain the flaw in the analogy. Be specific.

@DivinelyDesined @ApoloJedi_ The assertion is the modern eye, must be designed because without any one of the parts, it no longer functions. Irreducible complexity. The evolution of the eye was explained, and you moved the goalposts to assert every stage of the eyes evolution was irreducibly complex.

@IMACedarWaxwing @ApoloJedi_ None of that has anything to do with the analogy. And furthermore - the post was about the SIMPLEST eyes - not modern eyes. And a speculative story based entirely on imagination is not an explanation - it's a fairy tale.

@DivinelyDesined @IMACedarWaxwing @ApoloJedi_ The vision system is so reducibly complex that you can remove the eye altogether. Simple photoreceptors are precursors to all forms of vision. Opsins are proteins that change shape when struck by photons, used by single-celled organisms to orient themselves towards light.

@modalsurrealist @IMACedarWaxwing @ApoloJedi_ If you remove the eye completely...can you still see?

@DivinelyDesined @IMACedarWaxwing @ApoloJedi_ Yes, in a sense. That's the thing you don't seem to understand about functional complexity. What humans label a function is an abstract artifact of how we model the world. It is not a 'thing' out there in the world. 'Using photons to navigate the world' is the function of the