Evolution of the eye? The myth goes on...

quote:

---

Don't you know that by the introduction of unlimited ad hoc hypotheses it is possible to support ANY scenario, regardless of how preposterous it may be?

​

This is why Goldschmidt's 'Hopeful Monster' idea never caught on ..., etc.

---

If one of those assumptions goes against known physical law or is contradicted by the evidence, then you can't support that scenario. The "hopeful monster" idea is untenable in light of what we know about genetics (Gould's famous and often misinterpreted essay on Goldschmidt talks about how some limited flavor of Goldschmidt's idea is tenable).Since you're making an argument about what is possible in principle, ad hoc hypotheses are actually just fine, unless you can point out how the assumptions violate natural law . If you can't, then you must abandon your general argument about what is possible in principle.I keep italicizing "in principle" so that you remember your own argument.[This message has been edited by Zhimbo, 10-03-2003]

quote:

---

Are you really this ignorant about these matters? Don't you know that by the introduction of unlimited ad hoc hypotheses it is possible to support ANY scenario, regardless of how preposterous it may be?

---

The eye scenario wasn't to support evolution. That's been done fine on its own. Only to show that your impossibility was nothing of the kind.Your refutation regarding the eye only works if it really is impossible for it to have happened. If that's the case, then no matter how much evidence there is for evolution, the evidence must be false, because it leads to an impossibility. However, if your impossibility is shown to be possible, even if it's only under certain circumstances (such as, say, the laws of physics are the same in China as they are here) then there is nothing to suggest that the evidence is false. Therefore, the initial evidence continues to support the theory.Imagine two policemen are looking for a murderer. One points out that the ballistics evidence shows that the killer must have fired from across the street, at night. The other one says, "That's impossible. He would have to have been an expert marksman to make that shot." The first one say, "Yep. Looks like we're looking for an expert marksman."Is the first cop espousing a religion? Of course not.Let's see now... insult, insult, insult... yeesh, someone's getting pissy... Oh, here's something...

quote:

---

you've touched upon a serious question in physics and philosophy of science, namely, what allows us to extend the applicability of our scientific laws to realms that we have not tested them in?

​

Did you know that, in a strict sense, this is an assumption and must be so?

---

So, if we can be clear... given your statements above on evolution, you are in fact saying that gravity is a religion.After all... it's based on assumption.If this isn't what you're saying, what lets gravity off the hook, but not evolution?

It might help you to know more about Joralex' beliefs.To get some idea of the nuttiness of Presuppositionalism you can check out this thread on II. Theophilus Vs. Darwin

C'mon, Dan, don't goad him. Simply keep pushing him back to having to answer the hard questions about the actual development that he doesn't want to address. ------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

But I like goading.

Now, Dan - do I have to put pressure on the admins to have your goading permissions revoked? Goading bans can be quite painful, you know.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

If one of those assumptions goes against known physical law or is contradicted by the evidence, then you can't support that scenario. The "hopeful monster" idea is untenable in light of what we know about genetics (Gould's famous and often misinterpreted essay on Goldschmidt talks about how some limited flavor of Goldschmidt's idea is tenable).Since you're making an argument about what is possible in principle, ad hoc hypotheses are actually just fine, unless you can point out how the assumptions violate natural law . If you can't, then you must abandon your general argument about what is possible in principle.I keep italicizing "in principle" so that you remember your own argument. I appreciate (honestly) you emphasizing the 'in principle' point but I assure you that it's not necessary to do so - I am sufficiently versed in logical argumentation.

​

I don't think you realize, however, that if you are going to push 'in principle' as far as you can milk it, then 'in principle' you must also accept God and creationism.

​

What is your criteria for not doing so? Because it "vilolates natural law"? Nonsense! Does anyone on planet Earth know all of the natural laws - their extensions and limitations? Absolutely not. So, 'in principle' it is possible that natural laws exist, as yet undiscovered, that allow for God and creationism. You can't have it both ways, Zhimbo - 'in principle' cuts in all directions.

​

This being the case, why do you opt to exclude creationism when 'in principle' it is as viable as Naturalism?

​

BTW, if you think I'm dodging your point, don't! I know well about 'in principle', but I also know that 'possibility' is not synonymous with 'probability'. Think about it.

​

Joralex

If this isn't what you're saying, what lets gravity off the hook, but not evolution? You appear to be another one of those that doesn't have the first clue about the fundamental foundations of science (no insult intended).

​

There is one key difference between 'gravity' and 'evolution' (i.e., the 'evolutionary paradigm' in a general sense). This difference is that 'gravity' doesn't make any metaphysical statements regarding man's origin, purpose and final destiny whereas the 'evolutionary paradigm' most certainly does. Therein lies the rub, Dan, and that is why one is 'on the hook' while the other is not.

​

Think you were able to get that?

​

Joralex

Maybe you could quote some "metaphysical statements" from a biology or evolutionary biology textbook. None have ever appeared in any text that I am familiar with. "Man's destiny" or whatever is not referenced in any part of evolutionary biology as far as I'm familiar with; maybe you could show me my error? (Of course, creationist strawmen don't count, don't you agree?)But statements about origins don't become metaphysical automatically, because the origin of human life may very well be a physical phenomenon.

Again, I'm awaiting a response: I would like either a rebuttal or an acceptance of the ability - or more to the point, the high probability - for a preexisting cell with a sensor rhodopsin mechanism to become light sensitive in an advantageous way through simple scientific means.http://EvC Forum: Evolution of the eye? The myth goes on... -->EvC Forum: Evolution of the eye? The myth goes on...------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Maybe you could quote some "metaphysical statements" from a biology or evolutionary biology textbook. None have ever appeared in any text that I am familiar with. "Man's destiny" or whatever is not referenced in any part of evolutionary biology as far as I'm familiar with; maybe you could show me my error? (Of course, creationist strawmen don't count, don't you agree?)But statements about origins don't become metaphysical automatically, because the origin of human life may very well be a physical phenomenon. I was born during the day but it wasn't yesterday, Frog.

​

If you are unaware of the metaphysical foundations of your pet theory then just let it go.

​

Joralex

Joralex, Educate me.Mark------------------
"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."

Again, I'm awaiting a response: I would like either a rebuttal or an acceptance of the ability - or more to the point, the high probability - for a preexisting cell with a sensor rhodopsin mechanism to become light sensitive in an advantageous way through simple scientific means. (sigh...) Exactly just how do you think that this request of yours - whichever way it is answered - adds any credence to the Naturalistic, materialistic worldview?

​

You're barking up the wrong tree, Rei.

​

Joralex

Educate me.Mark You're kidding, right?

​

Do you have any idea of the time/effort that it would take? This is amplified further considering that you appear to have an attitude of 'invincible ignorance' - i.e., "I dare you to show me what I know isn't so." (I perceived that from your Kent Hovind quote).

​

Sorry, Mark - I'm not that good a teacher.

​

But I won't let you go empty-handed : read 'Evolution as Dogma : The Establishment of Naturalism', by Phillip Johnson, published by the Foundation for Thought and Ethics under The Haughton Publishing Company, 1990.

​

Joralex

Hi Joralex,You never posted the reply you promised to my Message 19. I think the points raised there are still pertinent. Until the particulars of your objections are discussed to the point where they're understood to be valid by the evolutionists, no one will be working to develop the "new answers" you believe are necessary. Refusing to answer questions is not very often a successful form of persuasion.--Percy