First, a few words about the way I'm moderating this debate. When judging the merit of a rebuttal I plan to be circumspect about my reasons. I will refrain from any analysis or significant commentary on content, since to do so might provide assistance to one side or the other. I will often times not be specific about what part of an argument I found unconvincing or unpersuasive, because it is up to the debaters themselves, not me, to identify the weaknesses in each other's arguments.
Second, the way Joralex composed his response prompts me to request that he consider these questions:
- If each post contains all the text of all previous posts plus some additional text, what are the implications regarding clarity, reasonable length, etc?
- If you quote all text of previous messages, how will you distinguish between your old text, your new text, and your opponent's text.
This isn't to say you can't quote everything, only that there are some issues to consider.
I'm puzzled regarding Joralex's expressed concern about the length of Zhimbo's introductory post. While I'm sensitive to the issue of length of posts, it was Joralex who requested that Zhimbo begin the debate. Because the debate on this particular topic can only begin once the Creationist position is outlined, Zhimbo was forced to first state Joralex's position, then rebut it. That it was long seems only natural.
An attempted clarification: Joralex several times draws a distinction between eyes and the ability to see. Since for the purposes of this discussion it seems not only reasonable but imperative to consider that the organ that enables an organism to see is called an eye, no matter what structure and implementation that organ may have, that this is therefore merely an issue of individual preference regarding terminology.
Sometimes a mere reference is sufficient rebuttal, sometimes not. Just to assist the debaters in future posts, this to me is insufficient rebuttal:
Consider my POINT 1 and think about the complexity contained therein.
Unless something is really obvious, debaters should actually go through the trouble of constructing rebuttal arguments.
Zhimbo points summary:
- Eyes exist in nature across a broad range of complexity: +1
- The irreducible complexity argument of Behe has little merit: +1
- Joralex's four components are not all essential: +1
- Joralex rebuts that the issue of #1 above was never in dispute: -1
- Joralex rebuts the issue of #2 above by pointing out that just because an "indirect, circuitous route" is not ruled out does not mean it is a reasonable possibility: -1
- Joralex unsuccessfully rebuts a Zhimbo point I didn't previously note, that Behe's argument against indirect routes is one of personal incredulity, so I enter this point into the scoring by awarding Zhimbo a point: +1
- Joralex unsuccessfully rebuts another Zhimbo point I didn't previously note concerning evolution of a molecule affecting motility to be photosensitive, so I enter this point into the scoring by awarding Zhimbo a point: +1
Joralex points summary:
- There is no example in nature of a truly simple eye: +1
- Regarding irreducible complexity, co-option is not a viable possibility for the flagellum: +1
Score:
Reminder to everyone who isn't Zhimbo, Joralex or a moderator or administrator: please do not post to this thread. The thread for discussion of this debate is
Eye Evolution: Comments about the Great Debate.
--Percy
[Add reminder. --Percy]
[This message has been edited by Percipient, 11-22-2003]
™ Version 4.2
