Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8951 total)
540 online now:
DrJones*, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (3 members, 537 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 866,808 Year: 21,844/19,786 Month: 407/1,834 Week: 407/315 Day: 3/82 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   the schizochroal eye (of trilobites): evidence of design
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3811
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005


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 responded

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

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3235 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 32 of 55 (288653)
02-20-2006 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Omnivorous
02-20-2006 11:31 AM


Re: Close Reading
Thus, you have a number of assertions to support:

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?

To do that, you will have to explain why an adaptation that occurs due to random mutation

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Omnivorous, posted 02-20-2006 11:31 AM Omnivorous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Omnivorous, posted 02-20-2006 1:03 PM randman has responded

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3811
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005


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 responded

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

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3235 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 34 of 55 (288688)
02-20-2006 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Omnivorous
02-20-2006 1:03 PM


Re: Close Reading
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.

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.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/313.asp

Do you have anything to add? If you do not or cannot, then what is the purpose of your comments, Omni?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Omnivorous, posted 02-20-2006 1:03 PM Omnivorous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Omnivorous, posted 02-20-2006 3:11 PM randman has responded

  
sidelined
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 55 (288727)
02-20-2006 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by randman
02-18-2006 2:02 AM


Re: good evidence not "good" design
randman


To think in terms of good design posits one knows the intent of the Designer

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

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by randman, posted 02-20-2006 2:57 PM sidelined has responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3235 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 36 of 55 (288731)
02-20-2006 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by sidelined
02-20-2006 2:53 PM


Re: good evidence not "good" design
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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by sidelined, posted 02-20-2006 2:53 PM sidelined has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by sidelined, posted 02-20-2006 7:38 PM randman has not yet responded

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3811
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005


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 responded

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

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3235 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 38 of 55 (288744)
02-20-2006 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Omnivorous
02-20-2006 3:11 PM


Re: Close Reading
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Omnivorous, posted 02-20-2006 3:11 PM Omnivorous has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by AdminNWR, posted 02-20-2006 10:02 PM randman has not yet responded
 Message 46 by jar, posted 02-20-2006 10:15 PM randman has not yet responded

  
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3910
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 39 of 55 (288748)
02-20-2006 3:41 PM


Back in the bigging, we had what looked to be a good topic going
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.

Adminnemooseus

This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 02-20-2006 03:42 PM


New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum

Other useful links:

Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting


Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by randman, posted 02-20-2006 3:47 PM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3235 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 40 of 55 (288751)
02-20-2006 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Adminnemooseus
02-20-2006 3:41 PM


Re: Back in the bigging, we had what looked to be a good topic going
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Adminnemooseus, posted 02-20-2006 3:41 PM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Omnivorous, posted 02-20-2006 4:29 PM randman has not yet responded
 Message 42 by Modulous, posted 02-20-2006 4:32 PM randman has not yet responded
 Message 49 by mark24, posted 02-24-2006 2:12 PM randman has responded

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3811
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005


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 yet responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 440 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 42 of 55 (288770)
02-20-2006 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by randman
02-20-2006 3:47 PM


evidence of design etc
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by randman, posted 02-20-2006 3:47 PM randman has not yet responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 3531 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 43 of 55 (288790)
02-20-2006 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by randman
02-20-2006 10:47 AM


Re: Close Reading
randman,

It is interesting though how something as clear and factual as this can be dismissed by many evos.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by randman, posted 02-20-2006 10:47 AM randman has not yet responded

  
sidelined
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 55 (288863)
02-20-2006 7:38 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by randman
02-20-2006 2:57 PM


Re: good evidence not "good" design
randman

First you said.

randman writes:

To think in terms of good design posits one knows the intent of the Designer

Now you say

randman writes:

"good" refers to the design hypothesis being the best and only explanation.

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 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.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by randman, posted 02-20-2006 2:57 PM randman has not yet responded

  
AdminNWR
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 55 (288915)
02-20-2006 10:02 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by randman
02-20-2006 3:22 PM


randman suspended for 24 hours.
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


To comment on moderation procedures or respond to admin messages:
  • Discussion of moderation procedures
  • Comments on promotions of Proposed New Topics
  • Thread Reopen Requests
  • Great Debate proposals

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 38 by randman, posted 02-20-2006 3:22 PM randman has not yet responded

      
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.0 Beta
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019