Freethought & Rationalism Archive

scigirl · 10-12-2002, 08:47 AM

Quote:

Here in the E/C forum, the (1) disposition and (2) willingness to dialogue of many of the participants (and some of the moderators!) are hardly attractive.

Yep, especially in these threads - nope, no interesting scientific dialogue to see here!

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=001489" target="_blank">How do we know 99% of all species are now extinct? </a>

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=001492" target="_blank">Seminar about transposons and human evolution </a>

And my personal favorite (a thread in which you are noticably absent) here:

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=001356" target="_blank">new challenge for vanderzyden </a>

Ok I was trying really hard not to make fun of you, Vander, but then you go and post the following:

Quote:

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

Ok then Oolon posts this link
<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2274129.stm" target="_blank">here</a>.

Vanderzyden, you replied:

Quote:

One more thing: Is this link that you provided supposed to be a joke? Or was it a mistake?

Oh hahahaha!

Read this sentence slowly: Yes, that was meant to be a joke.. A demonstration, get it? Sheesh, it's pretty bad when you can't even tell an obvious joke!

To Oolon or anyone else - does anyone know much about the embryological development of these vestigal eyes? That would be pretty convincing evidence - IMHO - if, say, eyes started to develop in these critters, then atrophied away (like our tails) before hatching.

scigirl

Wyz_sub10 · 10-12-2002, 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vanderzyden:
In a recent post, someone wrote that I should "stand by my convictions". What does that mean? What does anyone here know about my convictions?

We know you are convinced that evolution did not happen. Beyond that it's hard to say because you always have an excuse why you can not or will not elaborate on the statements you make.

Quote:

Also, I see that several people are very frustrated. Well, I can't do anything about that. These folks should observe that no other opponents are responding to this list.

That was me again. Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining. In the past, you've asked for challenges, been given them, yet refuse to answer. In this case, instead of addressing Oolon's points, you wanted to take the thread in another direction (a direction you *still* choose not to follow up on - and it was YOU who set it!)

Quote:

Another complaint is that I am "evading" this issue. But how can this be? Here I am.

Again, with nothing to add other than to say you're being wronged and the information presented makes no sense to you. You do not address anything specific. Simply posting "here I am" is not enough.

Quote:

Some problems I see:
-- The pictures (even the large one) do not show the small "black spots".
-- None of the content in any of the links specifically elaborates upon the presence of vestigial eyes
--Some of the links indicate "reduced eyes" instead of "black spots" or "vestigial eyes". Which is it?
Most importantly, it seems that these salamanders live in caves, where there is no light. Why is that? Why don't they live in the light? Perhaps it is because THEY DON'T NEED LIGHT.
Please address them. Otherwise, we may consider the matter closed.
Vanderzyden

All of your points have been addressed. The fact that you cover your eyes and say "I'm not looking" doesn't mean they aren't there.

NO ONE has argued that salamanders should live in the light. The question is why do they have eyes if they do not live in the light.

Your questions have been answered. You insist, as always, in answering questions with more questions.

If you'd like to consider the matter closed, admit that you are not knowledgeable enough in these matters to address the issues and, yes, do move on to something you are more comfortable with.

[ October 12, 2002: Message edited by: Wyz_sub10 ]

rebelnerd · 10-12-2002, 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by scigirl:

To Oolon or anyone else - does anyone know much about the embryological development of these vestigal eyes? That would be pretty convincing evidence - IMHO - if, say, eyes started to develop in these critters, then atrophied away (like our tails) before hatching.

scigirl

<a href="http://abcnews.go.com/sections/science/DailyNews/cavefish_000728.html" target="_blank">This</a> mentions it in reference to re-growing the eyes.

Filo

[ October 12, 2002: Message edited by: Filo Quiggens ]

missus_gumby · 10-12-2002, 09:12 AM

Filo, nice link!

Coragyps · 10-12-2002, 10:04 AM

My copy of R.Conant's A Field Guide to Reptiles and Amphibians of Eastern and Central North America, National Audabon Society, (1975) also speaks of the Grotto Salamander, Typhlotriton spelaeus, which has functional eyes as a surface-dwelling larva, but they atrophy as the creature matures, become "dark spots," and the eyelids grow shut over them. A "transitional form?" Surely not! Those don't exist, do they?

Vanderzyden · 10-12-2002, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Filo Quiggens:
<a href="http://abcnews.go.com/sections/science/DailyNews/cavefish_000728.html" target="_blank">This</a> mentions it in reference to re-growing the eyes.

What, in this link, is persuasive?

Three short sections discuss the outrageous claim that eyes grow as a result of the insertion of the lens (!) Perhaps the summary statement is most incredible: "Apparently, the lens seemed to send out signals that instructed the eyes in the blind cave fish to grow". Sending out signals?! What "signals"?

Oh, we also read "Millions of years ago it had eyes". But what leads us to that conclusion? I will guess: absolutely nothing.

I wonder, to which "Journal Science" does this article refer? I can't find it on Google. Well, I guess I shouldn't be too surprised when I consider the organization publishing the article: ABCNews. Their credibility in such matters is very low.

No, my concerns have not been addressed.
The argument for "sub-optimal" design remains very weak, at least the way it is presented here.

Vanderzyden

[ October 12, 2002: Message edited by: Vanderzyden ]

missus_gumby · 10-12-2002, 10:19 AM

Vanderzyden, the article was originally from Reuters, reporting on the findings of biology professors from the University of Maryland in the Journal Science, and reproduced by ABCNews.com.

[ October 12, 2002: Message edited by: missus_gumby ]

lpetrich · 10-12-2002, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Vanderzyden:
Three short sections discuss the outrageous claim that eyes grow as a result of the insertion of the lens (!) Perhaps the summary statement is most incredible: "Apparently, the lens seemed to send out signals that instructed the eyes in the blind cave fish to grow". Sending out signals?! What "signals"?

There is abundant evidence of chemical signaling at work during development. Vanderzyden, why don't you study the developmental-biology literature some time?

Quote:

VZ:
Oh, we also read "Millions of years ago it had eyes". But what leads us to that conclusion? I will guess: absolutely nothing.

It is closely related to a fish with fully-developed eyes.

Quote:

VZ:
I wonder, to which "Journal Science" does this article refer? I can't find it on Google. Well, I guess I shouldn't be too surprised when I consider the organization publishing the article: ABCNews. Their credibility in such matters is very low.

<a href="http://www.sciencemag.org" target="_blank">http://www.sciencemag.org</a> -- a very prestigious journal.

Quote:

VZ:
No, my concerns have not been addressed.
The argument for "sub-optimal" design remains very weak, at least the way it is presented here.

More likely because you have closed your mind to the evidence.

Clutch · 10-12-2002, 10:29 AM

Vandervasion's current argument: As long as I insist that there is no evidence, even when it is spoonfed to me, then... ummm, I can say that I don't see any evidence.

Keep up the good work! You are pounding nails into creationism's coffin with every risible dodge.

Wyz_sub10 · 10-12-2002, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Clutch:
Vandervasion's current argument: As long as I insist that there is no evidence, even when it is spoonfed to me, then... ummm, I can say that I don't see any evidence.

I agree. VDZ, feel free to pick any other "fallacy" regarding poor design if you feel you cannot grasp this example.

10-12-2002, 10:19 AM	#77
missus_gumby Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: UK Posts: 1,898	Vanderzyden, the article was originally from Reuters, reporting on the findings of biology professors from the University of Maryland in the Journal Science, and reproduced by ABCNews.com. [ October 12, 2002: Message edited by: missus_gumby ]</p>

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

10-12-2002, 09:12 AM	#74
missus_gumby Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: UK Posts: 1,898	Filo, nice link!

10-12-2002, 10:04 AM	#75
Coragyps Veteran Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Snyder,Texas,USA Posts: 4,411	My copy of R.Conant's A Field Guide to Reptiles and Amphibians of Eastern and Central North America, National Audabon Society, (1975) also speaks of the Grotto Salamander, Typhlotriton spelaeus, which has functional eyes as a surface-dwelling larva, but they atrophy as the creature matures, become "dark spots," and the eyelids grow shut over them. A "transitional form?" Surely not! Those don't exist, do they?

10-12-2002, 10:29 AM	#79
Clutch Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Canada Posts: 3,751	Vandervasion's current argument: As long as I insist that there is no evidence, even when it is spoonfed to me, then... ummm, I can say that I don't see any evidence. Keep up the good work! You are pounding nails into creationism's coffin with every risible dodge.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.