Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   the schizochroal eye (of trilobites): evidence of design
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 8 of 55 (287840)
02-17-2006 6:32 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by randman
02-17-2006 5:29 PM


I'm confused, Rand (don't say you know that, no cheap shots this early on)...
So the presence of a very good optic system in a creature who doesn't need it is proof of intelligent design? I don't follow that logic.
First, let me note that the trilobite fossil records shows a common loss of eyes.
Secondly, let's see what a trilobite expert has to say; caution--he has feelings about IDers use of his pages, so it seems only fair to include this disclaimer:
* I use the term "design" as a lead-in to the parallels between the optic designs of humans and the remarkably evolved morphology of trilobites. Trilobites provide some superb examples of evolution in action (see "loss of eyes" below). Trilobites make it quite clear that evolution of eyes occurs, and that one does not need to evoke "intelligent design" by a creator to explain them. To do so detracts from the idea of an omniscient being. It would have God tinkering with many flawed and suboptimal "designs" and never developing a perfect one. Who would want to worship a god like that? I mention this because this page has been used (without my permission) by people espousing "intelligent design" to the public, and I want it to be clear that I do not share those opinions, nor need that flawed argument to underpin my faith. Evolution is a remarkable and well-documented process, and breakthroughs in our understanding of its intricacies occur every year. Evolution is not in conflict with religious belief. Ignorance and intolerance damage the benefits of faith.
Just so we know where all our sources stand.
Okay. So how does he think the schizochroal eye evolved?
How did schizochroal eyes evolve?
All early trilobites (Cambrian), had holochroal eyes and it would seem hard to evolve the distinctive phacopid schizochroal eye from this form. The answer is thought to lie in ontogenetic (developmental) processes on an evolutionary time scale. Paedomorphosis is the retention of ancestral juvenile characteristics into adulthood in the descendent. Paedomorphosis can occur three ways: Progenesis (early sexual maturation in an otherwise juvenile body), Neoteny (reduced rate of morphological development), and Post-displacement (delayed growth of certain structures relative to others). The development of schizochroal eyes in phacopid trilobites is a good example of post-displacement paedomorphosis. The eyes of immature holochroal Cambrian trilobites were basically miniature schizochroal eyes. In Phacopida, these were retained, via delayed growth of these immature structures (post-displacement), into the adult form.
That's just a quick pass. I'll be reading more on this site myself, but it seems that maybe Wise was not motivated to think of ways for the trilobite schizochroal eye to develop.
The Trilobite Eye

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by randman, posted 02-17-2006 5:29 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Chiroptera, posted 02-17-2006 6:38 PM Omnivorous has not replied
 Message 11 by randman, posted 02-17-2006 6:46 PM Omnivorous has replied
 Message 24 by Adminnemooseus, posted 02-19-2006 10:48 PM Omnivorous has not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 12 of 55 (287867)
02-17-2006 7:03 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by randman
02-17-2006 6:46 PM


Re: huge mistake....propaganda
Heh. Guess he pushed your automatic unthinking buttons, didn't he, Rand? Guess I could have read Wise's gooey homily on trilobites and offered you a similar rant, but I didn't.
So you don't think the elimination of a useless system that requires biological resources from the organism is evolution in action? Just when I think you might understand what evolution really means, you prove that you don't.
There's no reason to read on to the evidence and analysis if it's offered by someone who disagrees with you, Rand, no reason at all.

"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!
---------------------------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by randman, posted 02-17-2006 6:46 PM randman has not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 22 of 55 (288369)
02-19-2006 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by randman
02-18-2006 2:02 AM


You have misread the good Dr. Wise
randman writes:
What he is saying it is evidence of design because natural selection cannot explain it.
No, that isn't what he is saying.
Let's look at Dr. Wise's full concluding paragraph (emphasis added):
The design of the schizochroal eye makes it unique among eyes; perhaps even to the point of being the best optical system known in the biological world. This design, in fact, seems to far exceed the needs of the trilobite. The origin of the design of the schizochroal eye is not understood by means of any known natural cause. Rather, it is best understood as being due to an intelligent (design-creating) cause, through a process involving remarkably high manipulative ability. Among available hypotheses, creation by God is the most reasonable hypothesis for the origin of the complexity of the trilobite’s schizochroal eye.
”My favourite evidence for creation!’, Creation Ex Nihilo, Sept.-Nov. 1989, Vol. 11 No. 4, p. 29
Note the date: 1989
What he is actually saying is that he discards evolutionary explanations prima facie, not that the schizocroal eye provides a particular challenge, or that other scientists have not proposed explanations. They certainly have. If you follow the link on this page, you can read an interview where he advocates the abandonment of "evidential" based creationism in favor of "presuppositional" creationism. He also rebukes creationists for continuing to use bad data he himself has refuted:
Apart from evolution, Dr Wise says that one of the things that has really bothered him is finding creationists who fall into the trap of dismissing justified criticism. He said he has presented data to point out areas that some of them needed to change, and it was either fobbed off or was still being repeated next time he saw them.
'You know, there's no data that I ever ran into that bothered me as far as my creationist position went. But this issue did.'
Here is a nice summary of current evolutionary thought on the development of the schizocroal eye:
All early trilobites (Cambrian), had holochroal eyes and it would seem hard to evolve the distinctive phacopid schizochroal eye from this form. The answer is thought to lie in ontogenetic (developmental) processes on an evolutionary time scale. Paedomorphosis is the retention of ancestral juvenile characteristics into adulthood in the descendent. Paedomorphosis can occur three ways: Progenesis (early sexual maturation in an otherwise juvenile body), Neoteny (reduced rate of morphological development), and Post-displacement (delayed growth of certain structures relative to others). The development of schizochroal eyes in phacopid trilobites is a good example of post-displacement paedomorphosis. The eyes of immature holochroal Cambrian trilobites were basically miniature schizochroal eyes. In Phacopida, these were retained, via delayed growth of these immature structures (post-displacement), into the adult form.
The Trilobite Eye
When we examine the citations on The Trilobite Eye site, we see, among others:
Citations for this page:
Clarkson, E. N. K. 1975. The evolution of the eye in trilobites. Fossils and Strata 4:7-31.
Clarkson, E. N. K. & R. Levi-Setti. 1975. Trilobite eyes and the optics of Des Cartes and Huygens. Nature 254 (1975): 663-667.
Note the dates.
So we know that evolutionary hypotheses for the schizochroal eye date back at least to 1975.
Do we have a contradiction, then? Is it that Dr. Wise in 1989 says there are no hypotheses, even though Dr. Clarkson in 1975 published hypotheses? Is Dr. Wise a liar?
No. Wise is not lying, because he in fact rejects all evolutionary explanations out of hand. He does not say evolutionists cannot offer a mutational/natural selection explanation for the development of the schizocroal eye--he rejects all such evolutionary explanations: he is a Young Earth Creationist. He picks this eye as his favorite because of the "gee whiz" nature of a compound eye formed of single calcite crystals, not because it is intrinsically any harder to explain than any other evolved trait.
If you impute more to his remarks, you are misrepresenting him.
The retention of juvenile behavioral and morphological traits into the mature adult is a common phemonenon in pet breeding--it characterizes one of the primary differences between dogs and wolves, especially those cute little useless breeds that remain forever puppy-like.
Three points:
1. The acuity of the schizocroal eye has nothing to do with his argument. He has rejected evolutionary explanations a priori beause he is a scriptural, presuppositional creationist. I do not intend this as criticism: it is his own, self-professed belief, and he is quite aboveboard about it.
2. He states that the eye is best understood via intelligent design because that's what he believes about every aspect of every organism, not because this type of trilobite eye is a particular stumper for evolutionary biology.
3. You have misunderstood his position.
This message has been edited by Omnivorous, 02-19-2006 04:16 PM

"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!
---------------------------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by randman, posted 02-18-2006 2:02 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by randman, posted 02-20-2006 12:23 AM Omnivorous has replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 27 of 55 (288581)
02-20-2006 9:22 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by randman
02-20-2006 12:23 AM


Close Reading
randman writes:
Omnivorous writes:
What he is actually saying is that he discards evolutionary explanations prima facie, not that the schizocroal eye provides a particular challenge, or that other scientists have not proposed explanations.
That's not what he is saying at all. He specifically states:
This design, in fact, seems to far exceed the needs of the trilobite.
Indeed, he does say that it seems to exceed the trilobite's needs, an observation he does not connect to the rest of his comments with a thus, therefore, or consequently. Let me repeat: Dr. Wise rejects ALL evolutionary explanations. He does NOT say this eye presents a unique challenge to evolutionary theory--he merely cites it as his favorite example. He writes quite precisely and carefully, not linking his explication of the schizocroal eye to any specific argumentation.
Wise writes:
The evidence from Scripture is by far the best evidence for creation. No better evidence can be imagined than that provided from Him who is not only the only eyewitness observer, but who also is the embodiment of all truth. All Christians should be content in His claims for creation.
Since ID posits that any generic eye is irreducibly complex, what would be the point of making such an assertion? He makes a string of observations about the trilobite eye but does not construct from them the argument that you claim arises from the context. You are hearing what you want to hear, and you are manufacturing an argument from the context you bring to the passage. He does not use the words "evolution" or "natural selection" anywhere in the passage.
randman writes:
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.
You are mistaken. Could you point me to the passage in which he spefically "admits there is evidence in other areas against his views"? He doesn't.
randman writes:
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.
In fact, he addresses no data other than the fact that the trilobite had a good eye. When he states, "The origin of the design of the schizocroal eye is not understood by means of any known natural cause," he is rejecting ALL scientific explanations. Far from declaring that there is data to support design, he addresses no data and dismisses naturalistic explanations. The scientific baby went out with the naturalistic bath water.
Omnivorous writes:
If you follow the link on this page, you can read an interview where he advocates the abandonment of "evidential" based creationism in favor of "presuppositional" creationism.
randman writes:
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.
What would you characterize differently about him saying that he favors presuppositional creationism over evidential creationism? That is exactly what he said. Here is a link to that interview so that others can verify this more readily.
When you say, "but he is not doing that here," I assume you mean in his commentary on the eye. His deploring of bogus data is in the same passage as his declaration in favor of presuppositional creationism in the other arrticle, not in the piece on the eye. But when you say, "He states he is not [doing that here]," where is that?
Omnivorous writes:
He also rebukes creationists for continuing to use bad data he himself has refuted
randman writes:
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.
Again you are putting your interpretation into his mouth. He does NOT say the evolutionary "model doesn't work for the development of this eye." He observes that the eyes seemed to exceed the trilobite's needs, but he makes no argument of it. You have constructed that argument, not Dr. Wise. Again, why sense would it make for him to make a special pleading of this one structure when he holds the position that NO organismal structure is "best explained" by evolution?
Further, where does he show that he is willing to "admit to other areas that can be explained by evo models"? That is made of entirely whole cloth. He says that nowhere in either article. You seem to be claiming that he does sometimes agree that natural selection is a better explanation--can you support that assertion? I don't believe you can, because I don't think he holds anything like that position. At any rate, he does not make that admission here.
randman writes:
Wise does not say there is no possible evolutionary hypothesis. He just says they are inadequate. You are grossly misreading his claim.
No, randman, you are grossly misreading me. I did not say Dr. Wise said there were no possible evolutionary hypotheses--that was your claim:
randman writes:
What he is saying it is evidence of design because natural selection cannot explain it.
In addition, when I write:
Omnivorous writes:
Is it that Dr. Wise in 1989 says there are no hypotheses, even though Dr. Clarkson in 1975 published hypotheses? Is Dr. Wise a liar?
My question draws attention to your misreading; it does not impute that stance to Dr. Wise. In fact, I conclude:
Omnivorous writes:
No. Wise is not lying, because he in fact rejects all evolutionary explanations...
Here is another textual claim you make with no support in the passage at hand:
randman writes:
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 doesn't. He criticizes creationists for using bad data--I suspect that he means things like fake fossil footprints and hammers fraudlently placed in older strata. But, in any case, nowhere in that linked article did he say that any evolutionary explanation makes more sense than design. You are a very creative reader.
Omnivorous writes:
You have misunderstood his position.
randman writes:
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.
I think Dr. Wise is far too intelligent to say that according to evolutionary theory characteristics arise in response to need. Again, you are imputing to the gentleman something he is far too knowledgable to say.
At any rate, the question is not whether Dr. Wise might argue this or that; the question is whether he made the specific assertions and arguments in this piece that you asserted he did. I have clearly demonstrated that he did not, and you are grasping at contextual straws.

"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!
---------------------------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by randman, posted 02-20-2006 12:23 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by randman, posted 02-20-2006 10:47 AM Omnivorous has replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 31 of 55 (288648)
02-20-2006 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by randman
02-20-2006 10:47 AM


Re: Close Reading
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.
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!
---------------------------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by randman, posted 02-20-2006 10:47 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by randman, posted 02-20-2006 11:40 AM Omnivorous has replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 33 of 55 (288681)
02-20-2006 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by randman
02-20-2006 11:40 AM


Re: Close Reading
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?
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!
---------------------------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by randman, posted 02-20-2006 11:40 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by randman, posted 02-20-2006 1:22 PM Omnivorous has replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 37 of 55 (288739)
02-20-2006 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by randman
02-20-2006 1:22 PM


Re: Close Reading
I suggest you reread the OP and choose to either respond with integrity and intellectual honesty or not.
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!
---------------------------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by randman, posted 02-20-2006 1:22 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by randman, posted 02-20-2006 3:22 PM Omnivorous has not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 41 of 55 (288768)
02-20-2006 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by randman
02-20-2006 3:47 PM


"Take the stick out of your butt"?
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!
---------------------------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by randman, posted 02-20-2006 3:47 PM randman 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