kinda like give a monkey a typewriter and infinite time and eventually he will randomly type out the entire dictionary. How did eyes develop if they didn't know there was something to see? I don't buy your post.
Ok, let's explain the eye. Let's agree that there needs to be a stepwise process; From something stupidly simple, to something profoundly complex. It has to be stepwise, it can't just be "well, light sensitive cells exist, and a inverted curved lensed organ is better" because goddamn it, you need to go from 'a' to 'B C D E F' before you get to 'G'.
If you hate that, here's a modern TED explanation, but Dawkins honestly does a better job.
It all starts with light sensitive cells.
Unsurprising, and not just because it's a thing that exists, but photons interact with electron distribution across complex molecules and a protein whose confirmation is altered slightly by photon interaction is going to be a regular occurrence and all it takes is one which is very sensitive to this effect to imagine basic utility arising from it. Photosynthesis is based on protein interaction with light and it's a few small step from light = food to light = an eye.
These light sensitive proteins fire off I'm getting close to food, and when they aren't, I'm moving away from food. Why? Well I don't know that, but it's true. I don't know that more light means easier photosynthesis, which is good for me because I photosynthesize (or maybe because I eat photosynthesizes)
So next I group these proteins in strategic locations - more light towards my front, less light in my back, now I understand direction
And then I curve it inward so I can identify precise direction
Then it curves so much that it starts to close in on itself, which ought to be terrible, but actually I'm getting closer and closer to a pin hole lens
But now I have this cavity and I want to keep gunk from getting in so I close it off with a transparent cover
But covers don't have to be uniform, oops, mine has different thicknesses at different parts -- actually, one version of that is a lens, wow that's awesome.
But that lens is only good for one direction. Oh well, I'll just use these structural cells to hold it precisely in place... oh wait, what it those structural cells flex and alter the shape of my lens, now I can focus at distance.
Except that yes, it absolutely is enough time. And not just because "well obviously, look around here we are so it must be so", but because billions of years is a metric fuck ton of time, and evolution doesn't rally take as much time as many think. It just requires things to get shaken up now and then so that new toolsets be given the opportunity to thrive against an environment without optimized dead ends competing out new lines of change.
Gave you an upper for your thoughtful comment but am going to remind you that objectivity only holds for superficial circumstances - for superficial conditions.
What does that mean?
Just this: Objectification necessarily leaves a residuum (that which objectifies).
The objectifier (that which objectifies) is necessarily "more intimate" than what it objectifies.
Thus the ultimate objectifier is always "self" (than which NOTHING is more intimate).
Because of this, "self" cannot be objectified and since it is required to have a residuum (that which objectifies) to have ANY object - there are no objects.
Thus we find that objectivity fails.
This paradox is the fundamental condition of nature. It cannot be resolved. Nature is not objective. We are nature.
kinda like give a monkey a typewriter and infinite time and eventually he will randomly type out the entire dictionary. How did eyes develop if they didn't know there was something to see? I don't buy your post.
Ok, let's explain the eye. Let's agree that there needs to be a stepwise process; From something stupidly simple, to something profoundly complex. It has to be stepwise, it can't just be "well, light sensitive cells exist, and a inverted curved lensed organ is better" because goddamn it, you need to go from 'a' to 'B C D E F' before you get to 'G'.
So let's do that.
I know Richard Dawkins is an ass, but here he is as a much younger self explaining just that, long before he became a jaded asshat filled with malice.
If you hate that, here's a modern TED explanation, but Dawkins honestly does a better job.
It all starts with light sensitive cells.
Unsurprising, and not just because it's a thing that exists, but photons interact with electron distribution across complex molecules and a protein whose confirmation is altered slightly by photon interaction is going to be a regular occurrence and all it takes is one which is very sensitive to this effect to imagine basic utility arising from it. Photosynthesis is based on protein interaction with light and it's a few small step from light = food to light = an eye.
These light sensitive proteins fire off I'm getting close to food, and when they aren't, I'm moving away from food. Why? Well I don't know that, but it's true. I don't know that more light means easier photosynthesis, which is good for me because I photosynthesize (or maybe because I eat photosynthesizes)
So next I group these proteins in strategic locations - more light towards my front, less light in my back, now I understand direction
And then I curve it inward so I can identify precise direction
Then it curves so much that it starts to close in on itself, which ought to be terrible, but actually I'm getting closer and closer to a pin hole lens
But now I have this cavity and I want to keep gunk from getting in so I close it off with a transparent cover
But covers don't have to be uniform, oops, mine has different thicknesses at different parts -- actually, one version of that is a lens, wow that's awesome.
But that lens is only good for one direction. Oh well, I'll just use these structural cells to hold it precisely in place... oh wait, what it those structural cells flex and alter the shape of my lens, now I can focus at distance.
Oh my, I have an eye.
Billions of years are not enough time to create not just us, but our perfect placement in the universe.
Except that yes, it absolutely is enough time. And not just because "well obviously, look around here we are so it must be so", but because billions of years is a metric fuck ton of time, and evolution doesn't rally take as much time as many think. It just requires things to get shaken up now and then so that new toolsets be given the opportunity to thrive against an environment without optimized dead ends competing out new lines of change.
Gave you an upper for your thoughtful comment but am going to remind you that objectivity only holds for superficial circumstances - for superficial conditions.
What does that mean?
Just this: Objectification necessarily leaves a residuum (that which objectifies).
The objectifier (that which objectifies) is necessarily "more intimate" than what it objectifies.
Thus the ultimate objectifier is always "self" (than which NOTHING is more intimate).
Because of this, "self" cannot be objectified and since it is required to have a residuum (that which objectifies) to have ANY object - there are no objects.
Thus we find that objectivity fails.
This paradox is the fundamental condition of nature. It cannot be resolved. Nature is not objective. We are nature.
Reality does not require an observer to be objective
...and every other key is fatal to the monkey.