Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   the schizochroal eye (of trilobites): evidence of design
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 55 (287839)
02-17-2006 6:31 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by randman
02-17-2006 5:29 PM


This design, in fact, seems to far exceed the needs of the trilobite.
Um, what were the needs of the trilobite, and in what way were there eyes excessive?
By the way, trilobites composed a rather large group of animals that occupied a lot of different marine environments, and so had a large range of visual "needs". And a large range of eyes to meet those needs, including eye-less trilobites that lived in deep, lightless parts of the ocean.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by randman, posted 02-17-2006 5:29 PM randman has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 55 (287846)
02-17-2006 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Omnivorous
02-17-2006 6:32 PM


quote:
So the presence of a very good optic system in a creature who doesn't need it is proof of intelligent design?
Well, to be fair, it is known that one potential falsification for evolution by natural selection would be a feature or trait that can be shown to be impossible to arrive at through small, incremental steps of increasingly "better" stages. If an eye was "better" than the animal needs in order to survive, then there would be no way for natural selection to produce it.
Of course, I don't know what would be "better" than needed. It would seem that if sight is useful at all for a creature, then better sight would always be more useful. In theory, there should be no limit as to how good a creature's eye sight is.
In real life, every animal's eyesight is very limited. Either because the design itself ends up in some sort of "dead-end" where it would be impossible for an incrementally better feature to arise, or because the metabolic cost of developing and maintaining the organ would weigh more than the benefits of a better organ.

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Omnivorous, posted 02-17-2006 6:32 PM Omnivorous has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024