Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Oolon Colluphid · 10-11-2002, 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vanderzyden:

It is a long list. Do you expect the reader to go most of the way through it to find a comprehensive examination of a particularly good example of "poor design"?

No, I suggested they be taken one at a time, or that the blind eyes of creatures that live in total darkness be taken as an exemplar. Off you go then...

Quote:

If that is your expectation here, then it is unreasonable.

How is either of those options unreasonable? Maybe you’d prefer Kevin had not re-posted (with such excellent refs and links <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> . I’ve never gotten around to doing that myself; this list started as a doc destined for hard copy.)

Quote:

I don't have time at the moment for a detailed reply.

Quote:

But let me say this, for now: I am not shifting the burden.

Fibber-dibber.

Quote:

You are the one presenting the list.

Yup. With, thanks to Kevin, links to show that the facts are correct. We could argue (as I’m sure you’d rather) for ever as to where the burden of proof lies. What this list amounts to is a single claim. Your replies amount to saying ‘no it isn’t’. I am therefore entitled to ask you to explain why not. I’m not about to just take your word for it!

Quote:

It is quite appropriate for your audience to require sufficient elucidation from you to indicate that time is worth spending on these supposed "difficulties".

What elucidation do you require?

Fact 1: There are creatures that live in caves in total darkness.

Inference 1: There is no light to see with, therefore eyes are not necessary.

Fact 2: These creatures have structures in the appropriate places and made of the sort of parts such that they would normally be called eyes. However, these ‘eyes’ are not functional because – depending on species – of things like lacking a retina, lens, reduced optic nerve, being covered over by skin, etc. These ‘eyes’ don’t work.

Comments / conclusions: Having eyes in total darkness is pointless. Having eyes that don’t work is plain silly. Having eyes that don’t work when you live in darkness makes sense under evolution. Therefore, creationists need to explain why the creator did this, if their claim is to remain respectable.

Quote:

There are many aspects to discuss concerning a "poor design", such as time

Huh?

Quote:

actual function

Huh? We know how eyes work, and these ones can’t. They lack important components.

Quote:

and correct observation.

Ah, so now you doubt the evidence? Try some of the links. Is everyone making this stuff up?

Quote:

However, I've been down this road before

So why the evasion? I’ve been down this road before too. Going down the road means that you’ve heard some of the counter-arguments. So surely you should be able to come up with something without vacillation...?

Quote:

and I will not invest much time until the best examples are explained sufficiently.

What more do you need? It’s all well and good to suspend judgement for lack of evidence. Tell us what crucial details are missing from this example, and we’ll try and find them for you.

But please: stop farting around. Tell us what else you need to know, or answer the fucking question.

TTFN, Oolon

Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ · 10-11-2002, 01:06 PM

[quote]Originally posted by Vanderzyden:
Magnificent? Hardly. At this point it is not quite intriguing.

Here's my suggestion: Infidels out to find someone with better qualifications to be a moderator. I have asked you this before and have yet to receive an answer:
[/quoute]
Better qualifications? You mean someone who will put up with your shit? Fuck off.

Quote:

Again, I wonder, do you teach your students to follow you in your insulting, degrading, acidic style? Do you encourage them to focus on fighting and mockery instead of formulating justified beliefs?

Well, he doesn't do that at all. SO keep LYING all you fucking want, troll.

Quote:

Note: If you want me to stop asking you such questions, then immediately cease your insults directed at me.

What, as if that ever worked?

Quote:

Since you are a moderator, you would also benefit the efficiency of these discussions by withholding you consistently peripheral, insustantial contributions.

You would benefit them by not responding. Immensely.

Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ · 10-11-2002, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vanderzyden:

It is a long list.

Not really. Unless you have trouble reading, that is.

Quote:

Do you expect the reader to go most of the way through it to find a comprehensive examination of a particularly good example of "poor design"?

What? How comprehensively do you need to examine whether or not giving a species that cannot see eyes is bad design? Are you fucking stupid?

Quote:

If that is your expectation here, then it is unreasonable.

Nevermind, you just answered my last question.

Quote:

I don't have time at the moment for a detailed reply. But let me say this, for now: I am not shifting the burden.

Yes you are. You see, he presents the list, makes a case as to why these are bad designs (a species that categorically is blind having eyes is a prime example)--his end of the burden has been shown. These appear to be bad designs. Since you claim that they are GOOD designs, you must then demonstrate as to why they are. Mere assertion will not do.
[quote]
You are the one presenting the list. It is quite appropriate for your audience to require sufficient elucidation from you to indicate that time is worth spending on these supposed "difficulties".
[quote]
And more than enough has been presented. Most are self explanatory.

Quote:

There are many aspects to discuss concerning a "poor design", such as time, actual function, and correct observation. However, I've been down this road before, and I will not invest much time until the best examples are explained sufficiently.

Uh-huh. First of all, the best example has been explained fully. There is no room for your inane "time, function, and correct observation" bullshit--mainly since the function is known, time is meaningless and all observations are correct. Those fuckers are blind.
Secondly, your investiture of time is composed entirely of the following:
Saying that the evidence is false, and that there is not enough confirmation. Five, six, or even seven references aren't enough for you.
Denying the conclusions validity, despite your inability to understand anything scientific.
Claiming victory because of lack of evidence (despite the truckload piled at your feet).

Go away.

Camaban · 10-11-2002, 01:36 PM

wouldn't it being a long list make it easier to get out of the way?

I mean, no-one is expecting anyone to refute ALL the points

and with a long list, it's possible to simply find the weaker examples and harp on them to throw the list into doubt..

'course, there have to be enough examples available that are weak enough to do this to.

Vanderzyden · 10-11-2002, 03:08 PM

Oolon,

You have one remaining opportunity to establish fertile ground for a discussion of this matter. Please do read on.

Quote:

Originally posted by Oolon Colluphid:
Yup. With, thanks to Kevin, links to show that the facts are correct.

So far, no facts have been demonstrated or shown to have good references. Do you understand what is meant by a demonstration? I will not look through this list. When I consider the other topics I have discussed here, that is a prospect unlikely to provide a high rate of return. I already examined the first few, and found them wholly inadequate. Also, I provided an example of similar "contradictory" claims that have been touted in the BC&A forum.

Quote:

Originally posted by Oolon Colluphid:
Fact 1: There are creatures that live in caves in total darkness.

Inference 1: There is no light to see with, therefore eyes are not necessary.

Fact 2: These creatures have structures in the appropriate places and made of the sort of parts such that they would normally be called eyes. However, these �eyes� are not functional because � depending on species � of things like lacking a retina, lens, reduced optic nerve, being covered over by skin, etc. These �eyes� don�t work.

Which creatures? What caves? If there is no light, why do these creatures need a retina, lens, etc.? Do we have pictures?

As I have asked twice now: Point us to a link that spells everything out in detail.

Quote:

Originally posted by Oolon Colluphid:
But please: stop farting around. Tell us what else you need to know, or answer the f----- question.

Ah...I thought I remembered you as a "trash-mouth". You and your pal Kevin have given me trouble in the past with your antics. That is yet another reason why I will not yet put much time into this discussion. So far, you've done nothing to substantiate this list. You've not pointed me to a link containing a demonstration.

Note: If you post even one more epithet, the conversation is over. I will write your list off like I did the first time I glanced over it weeks ago.

Do I make myself clear?

Good day,

Vanderzyden

[ October 11, 2002: Message edited by: Vanderzyden ]

Dr Rick · 10-11-2002, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vanderzyden:
Do I make myself clear?

Yes, perfectly; you have no evidence to support your position, you have nothing to offer to counter the evidence that refutes your position, and so you have no intention of addressing the evidence.

Rick

Valentine Pontifex · 10-11-2002, 04:15 PM

Re: Oolon Colluphid list of suboptimal design.

Quote:

Originally posted by Doubting Didymus:
Talkorigins already has one.

That does not mean that T.O.'s <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/jury-rigged.html" target="_blank">Evidence for Jury-Rigged Design in Nature</a> could not use updating. Oolon Colluphid might consider contacting listed authors of the piece about adding his examples and Kevin's links to it. If he is really ambitious he might ask their blessings to do a rewrite and then submit it to the talk.origins newsgroup for review. Don't think of the T.O. FAQs as being absolutely set in stone.

rebelnerd · 10-11-2002, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vanderzyden:


You've not pointed me to a link containing a demonstration.

Quote:

Note: If you post even one more epithet, the conversation is over. I will write your list off like I did the first time I glanced over it weeks ago.

In other words: "I won't/can't answer your questions and if you're mean to me, I'll go away."

Quote:

Do I make myself clear?

Good day,

Vanderzyden

No, you make yourself evasive.

Filo

Oolon Colluphid · 10-11-2002, 04:28 PM

Quote:

Unoriginally posted by Vanderzyden:

Oolon,
You have one remaining opportunity to establish fertile ground for a discussion of this matter.

Gee thanks. Let me know when you're going to discuss this matter.

Quote:

Please do read on.

Why, are you going to say anything to support your case?

Quote:

So far, no facts have been demonstrated or shown to have good references. Do you understand what is meant by a demonstration?

Yes. Do you? I’ve yet to see sign of such an understanding.

Quote:

I will not look through this list.

How do you know that the refs don’t pan out then? And anyway, for the third time: pick one. Actually, you asked me to, and I have. Respond to it.

Quote:

When I consider the other topics I have discussed here, that is a prospect unlikely to provide a high rate of return.

Huh?

Quote:

I already examined the first few, and found them wholly inadequate.

Care to share your reasoning?

Quote:

Also, I provided an example of similar "contradictory" claims that have been touted in the BC&A forum.

I don’t give a stuff about most of what goes on in BC&A. I rarely read it. And you provided no such example. You simply drew a parallel. Which is irrelevant. Answer the goddamned question.

Quote:

Which creatures?

From the OP:

Quote:

[...] fish (eg Astyanax mexicanus) to insects (eg the Hawaiian cave planthopper Oliarus polyphemus), spiders (eg Neoleptoneta myopica), salamanders (eg Typhlomolge rathbuni) and crayfish (eg Cambarus setosus)

How about those?

Quote:

What caves?

Varies from species to species, of course. See below.

Quote:

If there is no light, why do these creatures need a retina, lens, etc.?

Why do they need eye-type structure at all?

<a href="http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/accounts/typhlomolge/t._rathbuni$narrative.html" target="_blank">University of Michigan’s Animal Diversity Web</a>:

Quote:

The Texas Cave Salamander is limited to the San Marcos, Texas area [...]
The eyes are vestigial and lie beneath the animal's skin.

<a href="http://library.thinkquest.org/2878/tx_texas_blind_salamander.html" target="_blank"> Texas Blind Salamander – Typhlomolge Rathbuni </a>:

Quote:

A troglobitic (cave-dwelling) salamander that is white or pinkish with blood-red external gills and toothpick-like legs; translucent skin reveals internal organs. Head and snout are strongly flattened with two small black dots representing vetigial eyes under the skin.

<a href="http://www.zo.utexas.edu/research/txherps/salamanders/typhlomolge.rathbuni.html" target="_blank"> University of Texas: Herps of Texas - Salamanders</a>:

Quote:

Diagnostic Features:
 Size: 3 1/4-5 3/8 inches
 Color:
 White to pale pink with translucent skin
 Other:
 Large head with flattened snout
 Reduced, vestigial eyes beneath the surface of the skin

<a href="http://www.continuing-ed.swt.edu/aquarena/endangered.html" target="_blank"> Aquarena Centre, San Marcos</a>:

Quote:

Range: This salamander is only found in the city of San Marcos.

Morphology: The Texas Blind Salamander is smooth and unpigmented, appearing white. Their skin is translucent, and the larger organs are visible through the sides and belly. The head is large and broad, eyes are reduced, visible by two dark spots deep beneath the skin representing vestigial eyes under the skin, and their limbs are slender and long, with four toes occurring on the fore legs and 5 toes occurring on the hind legs.

<a href="http://www.caves.org/pub/journal/PDF/V33/v33n1-Brandon.htm" target="_blank"> Bulletin of the National Speleological Society, Volume 33 Number 1: 1-21 - January 1971 </a>:

Quote:

Seven of the eight known species of troglobitic salamanders are found in North America. Of these seven, all closely related within the family Plethodontidae, only Typhlotriton spelaeus normally undergoes metamorphosis. There is ample evidence that the others, Eurycea troglodytes, Gyrinophilus palleucus, Haideotriton wallacei, Typhlomolge rathbuni, Typhlomolge tridentifera, and probably Eurycea latitans, are paedogenetic and reproduce while retaining larval body morpology. Of the last six, only G. palleucus is known to undergo major metamorphic change readily in response to experimentally administered thyroxin. The most highly specialized species tend to have more rigid control of paedogenesis, increased numbers of teeth, fewer trunk vertebrae, more reduced eyes, more reduced integumentary pigmentation, broader heads, flatter snouts, and more elongateand attenuate limbs. All of these features, except number of trunk vertebrae, are considered selectively adventageous to salamanders living under cave conditions [...]

<a href="http://www.edwardsaquifer.net/species.html" target="_blank"> Endangered Species of the Edwards Aquifer System </a>:

Quote:

The Texas blind salamander is a sightless, cave-dwelling salamander that reaches a mature length of about 13 centimeters (5 inches). It is a slender, frail-legged amphibian, white or pinkish in color with a fringe of blood-red, external gills. The head and snout are flattened. Two small black eyespots mark the location of vestigial eyes.

<a href="http://www.sanmarcosriver.org/endanger.htm#1" target="_blank"> San Marcos River Foundation </a>:

Quote:

Description:
3 1/4 to 5 3/8 inches head-body length at maturity. This salamander is a ghostly white to pink, with an iridescent appearance. The skin is translucent, and the larger organs are visible through the sides and belly. It has deep-red external gills. The head is large, with a strongly flattened snout and small black dots representing vestigial eyes under the skin. The body is slender, and the tail is about the same length as the head and body, tapering at the tip. The legs are quite long and spindly. The front feet have 4 toes and the back feet 5. There are 12 costal grooves.

Range:

Found in the Balcones Escarpment of the Edwards Plateau, mostly underneath the city of San Marcos. It is on federal and state endangered species lists, and the only entrance to its habitat, Ezell's Cave, is now a nature preserve.

Habitat:

It lives in the perpetual darkness of underground streams and caves in the Purgatory Creek system.

Quote:

Do we have pictures?

[Edited to remove one excellent, but page-distorting, picture. It can be found <a href="http://www.continuing-ed.swt.edu/aquarena/images/salamander4.jpg" target="_blank">here</a>.

Did you seriously think I couldn’t back it up??

Quote:

As I have asked twice now: Point us to a link that spells everything out in detail.

As I have asked twice now: Point out what further detail you require.

Quote:

Ah...I thought I remembered you as a "trash-mouth".

Ah...I certainly remembered you as an "evasive non-answerer of questions".

Quote:

You and your pal Kevin have given me trouble in the past with your antics.

What, like asking questions you can’t answer?

Quote:

That is yet another reason why I will not yet put much time into this discussion.

Quote:

So far, you've done nothing to substantiate this list. You've not pointed me to a link containing a demonstration.

Quote:

Note: If you post even one more epithet, the conversation is over. I will write your list off like I did the first time I glanced over it weeks ago.
Do I make myself clear?

Very convenient.

Note: If you post even one more load of evasion, the conversation is over. I will write you off as an equally long list of epithets.
Do I makemyself clear?

TTFN, Oolon

[ October 11, 2002: Message edited by: Oolon Colluphid ]

Kevin Dorner · 10-11-2002, 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vanderzyden:
You and your pal Kevin have given me trouble in the past with your antics.

Huh? What "antics"?

Oh, yeah... I totally refuted your offhanded statement that "there is no physical evidence that contradicts anything in the Bible" without slandering yourself or even referring to you at all, completely civilly, by posting a list of Biblical conflicts with reality, followed by the quotes to back them up with, and for that you subtlely invoked Pascal's Wager on me, so the thread got moved.

You've never gotten a four-letter word or an ad hominem from me, and you never will. That's not my style. I suggest you post an URL to these "antics" if they are not what I have just described, if there is anything to them, or refrain from baseless accusations. Thank you.

So if my "antics" consist of countering apologetics that you post half-expecting them to slip by unnoticed, without insulting you personally, then you will be seeing many more of them, I am sure, and certainly not just from me.

To all others: please, if you cannot reply civilly to Vanderzyden, just ignore him. I spent several days working on the O.P. of this thread, and I am still considering closing it. Sigh...

To those with positive responses, thank you.

[ October 11, 2002: Message edited by: Kevin Dorner ]

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-11-2002, 01:36 PM	#44
Camaban Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Australia Posts: 473	wouldn't it being a long list make it easier to get out of the way? I mean, no-one is expecting anyone to refute ALL the points and with a long list, it's possible to simply find the weaker examples and harp on them to throw the list into doubt.. 'course, there have to be enough examples available that are weak enough to do this to.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.