the schizochroal eye (of trilobites): evidence of design

No, randman, I am just trying to hold you to what Dr. Wise actually said. So far as I can see, I'm the only one doing that, so I'm not sure how you came up with "many evos" and "many of you."But I am content that I have done that.So, as you wish, let's move the debate forward on the basis of what you claim he is saying.Thus, you have a number of assertions to support:Assertion #1.
The schizocroal eye "exceeds the needs" of the trilobite.To do that, you will need to define what those needs were as well as how the eye exceeded them.Assertion #2.
Evolutionary theory cannot explain an adaptation that seems to exceed the needs of the organism that has it.To do that, you will have to explain why an adaptation that occurs due to random mutation--one which confers a great benefit, one beyond the threshold of species survival--cannot occur. To my understanding, the ToE does not posit that adaptations will only barely meet and never exceed some "bare survival" threshold.Assertion #3.
How does intelligent design give a more scientific explanation than the ToE for a bare-survival surpassing adaptation?To do that, you will have to explicate the evolutionary explanation and the ID explanation, and then demonstrate how the former is deficient in comparison to the latter.I will be happy to move forward with the debate.

---

"Dost thou think because thou art virtuous there shall be no more cakes and ale?"
-Sir Toby Belch, Twelfth Night Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

Uh, no I don't. It would be nice if Dr Wise' article was longer so we could hear further elaboration. As for me, in the OP, I admit I have to take his word basically that the eyes exceed the need since I don't know much about trilobites.How about you support your position?Can you show where the trilobite's eyes here do not far exceed it's needs? Back up there a minute. Who says mutations are random? You guys throw that out all the time, but it is not defined or poorly defined. What sort of metric can we use to establish a mutation is random? What is random? If mutations are predictable, are they "random" in the sense you are using the term?In answer to your more complete question, isn't it true that a mutation that does not confer a selective advantage is not likely to predominate?This message has been edited by randman, 02-20-2006 11:41 AM

If you refuse to support your assertions, there can be no debate. Why begin the discussion if you were not prepared to support your position beyond asking me to prove a negative?As to the rest of your post, I see no reason to begin an off-topic discussion of the meaning of random until you have at least made some sort of attempt to support your position.We have already gotten past your ad hominem attack against all "evos" who disagree with you. I see no reason to chase your "meaning of random" red herrings until you at least offer some support for the assertions you have already made: that fish is already flopping around elsewhere.That's the way debate works. You made assertions. I asked for supporting evidence. Telling me I should prove you wrong is not how things work, Rand, and you know it.You say Wise's remarks about the schizocroal eye being far in excess of the trilobite's comprise a scientific argument. Scientific arguments require evidence. He is your champion, not mine, and you brought his text here to discuss. What are the trilobite's basic needs? How do we determine whether the eye meets or exceeds them--or, indeed, if the eye failed to meet them, since after all they are extinct?In other words, explicate that claim beyond bare assertion. It is not incumbent upon me in a debate to disprove my opponent's bare assertions, merely to point out their nakedness; once they are clothed in evidentiary claims, then I can accept or counter that evidence.If you cannot or will not do that, there isn't much left to say.

---

"Dost thou think because thou art virtuous there shall be no more cakes and ale?"
-Sir Toby Belch, Twelfth Night Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

I suggest you reread the OP and choose to either respond with integrity and intellectual honesty or not. Here it is again:The Harvard-trained palaeontologist Kurt Wise who studied under Gould interestingly makes the following claim that the schizochroal eye is good evidence for design because it exceeds the needs of the trilobite. Although I am inclined to assume he is correct, I do not know much about trilobites, and as a layman, I would think a better optical system is always better, but maybe there is no selective pressure in the trilobite's environment to explain this, as Wise claims. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/313.aspDo you have anything to add? If you do not or cannot, then what is the purpose of your comments, Omni?

randman Then how should an eye that exceeds its needs {what are the needs of a trilobite?} be evidence of design?.Why are there then animals whose eyes are less than that necessary for their enviroment? Rhinos for instance? Or blind cave fish who possess eyes?This message has been edited by sidelined, Mon, 2006-02-20 12:54 PM

---

Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so.
Douglas Adams

Sidelined, the point is "good" refers to the design hypothesis being the best and only explanation. It does not infer value to "good" as utilitarian.Do you see the difference?

It always ends here with you, Rand, with charges of dishonesty and a lack of integrity against those who disagree with you.You have said a great deal more than what you repeat here from your OP, and you have refused to support your assertions. As I said in my prior message, if you cannot or will not provide support for those assertions, there is nothing to debate.You are inclined to presume he is correct, but I am not. I am not even inclined to presume you accurately read his remarks, but I was willing to set that aside and move on. As you recall, my reading of Wise's article was that he was not making the strong claims that you insist he was, but we are supposedly trying to move forward on the assumption that he was, indeed, stating the strong, trilobite-eye specific case you saw there.If you are inclined to believe he is right, then you must be inclined to believe he has some evidence. I don't believe he does, because I think his remarks were carefully calibrated and merely reflected his established, scripture-based belief in young earth creationism.What were the trilobite's visual needs? How did the schizocroal eye exceed them? Why is ID a better explanation than evolution?Find Wise's evidence. Show me.

---

"Dost thou think because thou art virtuous there shall be no more cakes and ale?"
-Sir Toby Belch, Twelfth Night Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

Omni, what is your problem? I clearly ask for input on others concerning trilobites. You act like I am making a personal, factual claim on trilobites and so suggest something is wrong when I cannot discuss trilobites.Take the stick out of your butt and read the OP. I state I am inclined to take this Harvard educated scientist's word, and openly confess I don't know much about trilobites and openly ask the forum here for input.If you have no more input, don't mask that by railing at me because I don't know much about trilobites either. Seems like we are both in the same boat here, but you seem to take great offense and hurl all sorts of insults and demands towards me for basically being like you, not knowing a lot about trilobites.

To Randman and/or Omni -I have been considering giving your messages 1 and 8 joint admin mode POTM nominations as being a good start to a good topic. Of course, the topic seems to have "gone to hell" since then.To Randman - My impressions are that Omni is a pretty damn reasonable to deal with person. As you may have noticed, I actually did earlier somewhat condemn the messages of some of the other evos.In the ever glorious hindsight, this topic looks like it might have been a good "Great Debate" between Rand and Omni. But we seem to be stuck with what we have.AdminnemooseusThis message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 02-20-2006 03:42 PM

---

Part of the problem is omni seems to think I am asserting more personal knowledge here than I am. I think the topic is a good one, but I cannot defend Wise's views on the trilobite eye in question except as far as what he says thus far in terms of meaning what he says (that it is a scientific claim), but I readily confess I don't know much about trilobites.If omni doesn't either, then we should just wait for someone to weigh in that does, as far as whether the eye does far exceed it's needs.

Nice.Rand, I took no offense at all until you accused me of lacking intellectual honesty and integrity.I'll bow out of this thread. I invite anyone curious enough to suffer through it to read the entire sorry affair. I think the question of who resorted to umbrage and personal insult will be clear.

---

"Dost thou think because thou art virtuous there shall be no more cakes and ale?"
-Sir Toby Belch, Twelfth Night Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

Rand,
Did you post a debate topic, wanting only to tell us that some guy things some thing about some subject?Or did you post a debate topic with the intention of actually debating the issue raised? How can anyone debate the topic if you don't present anything to debate. The only options are to agree or disagree.

---

You do know the rule about backing up assertions that you make? It sounds like you are conceeding that you don't know whether or not this is evidence of design or not.

randman, Oh, for crying out loud! So "clear & factual" that I have to ask the same question three times?For the THIRD time:"What about the schizochroal eye exceeds the needs of the trilobites? What about the schizochroal eye evolution is harder to explain than mammalian eye evolution, for example?"Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

randmanFirst you said. Now you say Substituting the latter definition into the former statement makes no sense. Perhaps you can clarify?Regardless, we are discussing this statement are we not? The word "good" is not present here. My question remains pertainent to this quote. Despite the fact that there are expalnations that involve natural causes the difficulty remains. When we purport the existence of a designer, whose existence is questionable and who's intent is murky beyond this, can the statement that it is the result of an intelligent design be considered "understood"?This message has been edited by sidelined, Tue, 2006-02-21 07:24 AM

---

Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so.
Douglas Adams

Message 38 is a clear violation of rule 10.Your posting in this thread appears to be a complete and total violation of rule 4.This is not acceptable.This message has been edited by AdminNWR, 02-20-2006 09:02 PM

---