the schizochroal eye (of trilobites): evidence of design

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.asp {Added the "(of trilobites)" part to the topic title. - Adminnemooseus}This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 02-19-2006 10:10 PM

I was thinking of it as a Bio Evo topic.

So you and crash basically have a theological objection to the idea, not a scientific one, right?

When i see something like the following, I immediately think of the writer as a propagandist and would not recommend anyone assume even basic facts he relates are correct. For an educated person to claim loss of eyes due to natural selection is "evolution in action" is laughable, but typical of many evos insistence on using false logic to make their claims. Since they resort to such clear overstatements and sophistry, I really question the intellecual honesty and strength of their argument.Here is another very poor and deceptive argument. How often do many evos insist on inserting theology to back evolution? It really amazes me, and then if someone brings up better theology to answer them, they cry foul. Perhaps if he feels so strongly on this, he should spend as much effort denouncing men like Wilson and Watson as he does creationists. I suspect Wise is dead on accurate then. Most evos I read take even a hint something may be and go on to describe it as given fact. The very fact he expresses some doubt, in context of the typical dogmatism of evos, suggests to me that Wise is correct.

An eye becoming vestigal is evidence of microevolution/variation, but not macroevolution. That's the issue. The constant claim that microevolution is evolution in action is deceptive because on that basis, one could say having a baby is evolution in action, or that Indians dying from small pox is evolution in action.But those things are not really evolution in action since they are not examples of macroevolution, and there are no real examples of that and won't be because the nature of the theory is that it takes too long for these things to occur.Regardless of the claim microevolution equals macroevolution, it's still a claim, a theory. Microevolution does not equal macroevolution.

To think in terms of good design posits one knows the intent of the Designer. That's not what he is talking about. Good is not defined as more or less utilitarian.What he is saying it is evidence of design because natural selection cannot explain it.

Wrong, and imo deception in your thinking. I never ever once admit that the claim is true. "Evolution" in context refers to the Theory of Evolution which includes common descent and macroevolution. Heck, I could just say I passed some gas, and hey, that could well be evolution in action as this was an acquired trait or some such BS. No, it's not. If the topic is macroevolution, then to claim it is evolution in action is wrong. Moreover, we could just as easily say then it is creationism in action since creationism acknowledges heritable change. You evos need to stick with an intellectually honest definition of evolution and argue for or against that and quit resorting to bait and switch by using more than one definition for the term. Yes, it can, and I just did. So you are proven wrong. In fact, no one I know of whether creationists, IDers, theistic evos or atheist evos says such forms of "evolution" do not occur. So what? Natural selection is not equal to universal common descent, and you guys need to quit saying that just showing natural selection demonstrates "evolution in action" since clearly you refer to the Theory of Evolution which is a proposition and not something observed. Who says? It is part of the evolutionary process, and it is observed, same as with microevolution. So under your logic, it can rightly be considered evolution in action.

That's not what he is saying at all. He specifically states: He specifically states that he feels the eye is his favorite hard evidence for design in the context of admitting there is evidence in other areas against his views. So he really is stating here the exact opposite of what you claim. He is stating the facts fit design here, not that they fit because of automatically dismissing evolutionary explanations. He is saying the evolutionary explanations are not better suited from a scientific perspective than the design hypothesis. That may well be, although I would characterize it differently, but he is not doing that here. He states he is not. In fact, he deplores making bogus factual claims, stating something factually supports design when it does not, and you admit that. So when he says the data on this particular eye cannot be explained adequately by evolution, it is all the more credible since he is so willing to admit to other areas that can be explained by evo models. In no way is he dismissing the alternative evo hypothesis out of hand as you suggest, but is clearly stating the evo model doesn't work for the development of this eye because it exceeds the need of the trilobite; the implication being it could not arise from natural selection. Wise does not say there is no possible evolutionary hypothesis. He just says they are inadequate. You are grossly misreading his claim. If that is the case, if he indeed feels it is perfectly OK to argue that the only reasonable hypothesis from a scientific view is that of design, even when an evo explanation makes more sense, then why in the world would he just have bashed creationists for doing that exact same thing. He may dismiss evolution out of hand, but he does not dismiss evo science out of hand, and knows a heck of a lot about it, having studied under Gould at Harvard. No, he does not try to argue an evo explanation does not make sense factually, unless he really thinks that is the case, and puts forth this example because he thinks from a science perspective, not a faith one, that the evo explanations do not work. No, I haven't. You have completely ignored his lead-in point that the trilobite eye is far more advanced that it's need. The obvious implication is without some need, there is no selective advantage, and no reason for it to arise via natural selection.

It's abundantly clear to any reasonable reading of his words that he emphasizes the fact the trilobite's eyes' here "far exceed" it's needs as part of the reason he considers it evidence of design rather than evolution. If you cannot see that, that's your problem.It is interesting though how something as clear and factual as this can be dismissed by many evos. It's as if many of you just don't want to accept any basic fact, even of what a claim is, if it could somehow be persuasive against your theories.

I don't know. I brought up Dr Wise's claims for discussion here readily admitting I don't know much about trilobites. Unfortunately, as usual, some evos refuse to even admit to the same basic facts, like what he was saying, and so the discussion has stalled.Perhaps there is someone here that knows why Dr Wise thinks it's fairly obvious, it seems, to someone in that field why the eyes "far exceed" it's needs?

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

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?

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?

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.

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.