Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Happy Wonderer · 10-13-2002, 07:40 PM

You must admit that Vanderzyden is at least entertaining. If you can get him to sing and dance for you it can be quite a fun way to waste time. (The trick seems to be to insult him, which lets him get on his high horse and confirm everything evil that he thinks about scientists.)

Recall that this discussion is about good design. One of the arguments in Oolon's big list is that cave fish are an example of poor design because they live in a dark environment, yet develop (or start to develop) eyes. If there is no light, why do these creatures need eyes? Van's rebuttal:

Quote:

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

Very good debating tactic: answer a question by repeating it. We are obviously dealing with a pro here. Upon being shown that these creatures do in fact exist, he builds upon his previous argument:

Quote:

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.

The all caps indicates violent agreement with all participants in the debate: these creatures don't need light. This is such a good point that he repeats it. The rebuttal is so far:

Quote:

Blind salamanders live in caves where there is no light because they don't need light. Wny would they need eyes?

Somewhere in here, light begins to dawn. The point of the argument is that creatures who live in darkeness do not need eyes. We get a bit sidetracked when Scigirl asks if the embroyolgy of these guys shows that they start to develop eyes. Filo Quiggens responds with an article showing that if a lens is inserted into a certain type of cave-dweller, it will develop an eye. Vanderzyden's reasoned response to this bit of evidence:

Quote:

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.

This is an astonshingly good debating tactic: imply that ABC News would make up this research, the scientist's name, and the journal that the research was published in. Alas, it backfired when, well pretty much everybody found a reference to the article in that obscure journal known as Science.

However, now that he has the article he can go into his "speed reading without comprehension" mode. He does find a typo in the abstract, which is points to him but seems suprised that the audience doesn't think that this invalidates the actual research that went into the article. After some of the usual critiques about the writing style of the article, complaints that it isn't written for a nontechnical audience; complaints that it assumes that evolution is a fact (along with other related parts of biology) we get to a positive rebuttal:

Quote:

It may be argued that these developments are what is to be expected for a creature that can function without vision. An engineering analogy would be "software code stubs" or "disabled connectors" on common building blocks. Surely, this is not evidence of "poor" or "suboptimal" design. Rather it has all the marks of precise specification.

He then wins points by being completely confusing. He agrees with the experimental results (implanting the lens causes expression of eye structures in a fish that otherwise doesn't develop them) but denies that the implantation somehow signals the development of these eye structures. This is a brillant tactic that confuses the opposition.

A lot happens, which gives him the opportunity to skillfully evade any substantive defense of his rebuttal (including the fact that the computer analogy isn't even correct for computers!) Note that rebuttal has now changed slightly:

Quote:

The fact that there are creatures who live in darkness yet have 'code' to develop eyes proves that they were engineered (during a 48-hour all-nighter the day before the project was due.)

At this point he has gotten into a debate with PZ, who has the unfair advantage that the actually knows what he is talking about. After some clever ad-homs to distract the audience, he buttresses his argument about the fish by claiming that it couldn't exist because fish obviously need eyes to find food.

Quote:

Quite an amazing thing, I think: the creature functions without an eye. If it had "evolved" this way, we would not observe this fish. It would not exist. There would be no living specimens, since the first "eyeless" surface fish would die immediately. In the wild, an animal that requires sight in order to obtain food would die shortly after its vision degraded. If blind offspring are born to seeing parents, they will notsurvive long after birth. So, I find the suggestion of evolving blind fish to be wholly nonsensical. The Darwinist would do well to think through the likely scenarios before postulating such far-fetched schemes.

What makes this argument particulary brilliant is the way that it ties into the "BECAUSE THEY DON'T NEED LIGHT" second rebuttal. The argument is now:

Quote:

Blind fish would die in the dark because they couldn't find food, because a blind fish can't see in the dark, so the blind fish that now exist must not have evolved. The fact that the eye starts to develop and then stops has something to do with computer programs, engineering, or building the foundation of a house.

He expands on this:

Quote:

What incentive do sighted fish have for moving into an environment where they can't see to find food?

This isn't like the finch beak example, where adapted configurations provide more leverage in eating different food. Rather, your suggestion entails the virtual absence of food. Why would the sighted fish not return back to the light, if only to die attempting to find food that they can see?

Note: additional complications arise when we consider reproduction.

So the rebuttal so far is compelling, and I'm not sure that the combination of Ieptrich, SciGirl and PZ can even make a dent in its unassailable completeness:

Quote:

Blind fish couldn't have evolved. Their ancestors wouldn't have gone into the dark without returning back to the light, if only to die attempting to find food that they can see. If these dead sighted fish had given birth to a blind fish, it would have died because a dead blind fish can't see food in the dark (let alone have sex). The fact that blind fish develop eyes when a lens is implanted doesn't imply that the lens triggers the activation of legacy genetic code, instead it proves that the designer is a competent computer programmer, electrical engineer and builder all rolled in one because he does things in ways that humans can't make sense of. Blind fish are the way that they are BECAUSE THEY DON'T NEED LIGHT!

HW

[ October 13, 2002: Message edited by: Happy Wonderer to get quotes legible]

[ October 13, 2002: Message edited by: Happy Wonderer ]

Vanderzyden · 10-13-2002, 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Zetek:
How the caves came into existence is best deferred to someone with some geology knowledge, but using <a href="http://www.tmm.utexas.edu/sponsored_sites/tss/txcaves.htm" target="_blank">Texas caves</a> as my example, there are at least two scenarios. In some cases, as Coragyps suggests, populations of animals were forced into caves. In other cases, they may have had the option of leaving the cave, but nature abhors an empty niche. There can be advantages to living in caves, for example, predators have a harder time seeing you or there may be less competition for food resources there. By the way, perhaps you've stated this elsewhere, but are you a YEC or an OEC?

What are the reproductive complications?

If the sighted creatures are forced into caves where they can't see, they won't find food and they will die. Similarly, hiding in dark places from predators will also keep them from food.

It seems that there are reproductive difficulties for fish that depend upon sight and suddenly do not have sight. They cannot see what they could previously. Unless of course, they come back up to the light. However, its different for species that are completely sightless. These blind fish do not depend on sight for anything. All of their activities are conducted in the dark. This is how they are "programmed". In fact, it would seem that, according to the article, that other organs are distinctly different from the sighted surface fish.

Another problem: Suppose for a moment that the blind fish did evolve from sighted fish. This seems like evolution in reverse. Certainly, blindness is a deficiency. The acquistion of blindness is an utterly negative "selection" as it is called. There is a severe deficit for this "evolving" line.

Yet another difficulty: In the "evolved" blind fish, why doesn't the eye simply become dysfunctional? It seems odd that the eye does not form and a suitable skin flap covers the area. I would also be curious about the shape of the optic cup--is it smoother or otherwise distinctly different from the surface fish?

My general answer to your last question is that I don't like labels. However, you would probably call me an OEC/ID.

Vanderzyden

Doubting Didymus · 10-13-2002, 08:39 PM

Quote:

If the sighted creatures are forced into caves where they can't see, they won't find food and they will die. Similarly, hiding in dark places from predators will also keep them from food.

Fish have a good sense of smell.

Quote:

It seems that there are reproductive difficulties for fish that depend upon sight and suddenly do not have sight.

Evolution is gradual. The sight of the fish would have deteriorated over many generations and thousands of years. There is nothing sudden about it.

Quote:

They cannot see what they could previously. Unless of course, they come back up to the light. However, its different for species that are completely sightless. These blind fish do not depend on sight for anything. All of their activities are conducted in the dark. This is how they are "programmed".

This is exactly our point, if they do not depend on sight for anything, why do they need non-functional eye cups?

Quote:

Another problem: Suppose for a moment that the blind fish did evolve from sighted fish. This seems like evolution in reverse. Certainly, blindness is a deficiency. The acquistion of blindness is an utterly negative "selection" as it is called. There is a severe deficit for this "evolving" line.

You are under a small misconception. Evolution does not neccesarily progress 'upwards', that is, toward more complex or perfect forms. Natural selection only selects for the most benificial mutations in the creatures own environment.

Furthermore, natural selection very often maintains an equilibrium by screening out negative mutations. There is a 'use it or lose it' aspect to mutation. In this case, if a sighted fish who was living in darkness were to have a mutation that ruined its eyesight, natural selection wouldn't even notice, as the creatures net fitness would remain the same.

Quote:

Anoher difficulty: In the "evolved" bind fish, why doesn't the eye simply become dysfunctional? It seems odd that the eye does not form and a suitable skin flap covers the area.

Actually, that is exactly to be expected if the blind fish evolved from a sighted fish. The eye, functional or not, is a sensitive and vulnerable area. Once the fish is no longer using the eyes, any mutation that caused protective skin to grow over the eye would give the fish an advantage over its unprotected competitors.

I think this latest post proves that vander is, in fact, quite capable of constructive conversation. If the conversation continues at this level, we may get somewhere constructive after all.

Happy Wonderer · 10-13-2002, 08:50 PM

Vanderzyden, you are the Man! You slay me! <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> I haven't laughed this hard for months!

Quote:

Originally posted by Vanderzyden:

If the sighted creatures are forced into caves where they can't see, they won't find food and they will die. Similarly, hiding in dark places from predators will also keep them from food.

Brilliantly ignoring the post by Zetek that most fishes rely on sight only partially, if at all, in locating food. You have to rebut that claim if you want to persist in beliving that sighted fish won't find food in the dark.

But that isn't the funny part. Here is a science lesson:

Quote:

It seems that there are reproductive difficulties for fish that depend upon sight and suddenly do not have sight. They cannot see what they could previously. Unless of course, they come back up to the light. However, its different for species that are completely sightless. These blind fish do not depend on sight for anything. All of their activities are conducted in the dark.

Are you sure that these blind fish don't rely on sight for something? :big grin: By the way, do you actually know how fish reproduce?

Quote:

This is how they are "programmed". In fact, it would seem that, according to the article, that other organs are distinctly different from the sighted surface fish.

Right, they are programmed to be blind, what an amazing coincidence for a fish that lives in the dark! What other organs in the article in this thread are distinctly different from surface fish and what does that have to do with the argument?

Quote:

Another problem: Suppose for a moment that the blind fish did evolve from sighted fish. This seems like evolution in reverse. Certainly, blindness is a deficiency. The acquistion of blindness is an utterly negative "selection" as it is called. There is a severe deficit for this "evolving" line.

Stop! I can't take anymore! I'm laughing so hard I'm going to drop the laptop! Years ago I used to think I could write funny articles, but I'm not in the same universe.

Permit me to rephrase you:

Quote:

Blindness is a severe deficit for an "evolving" line of fish that live in the dark.

Quote:

Yet another difficulty: In the "evolved" blind fish, why doesn't the eye simply become dysfunctional? It seems odd that the eye does not form and a suitable skin flap covers the area. I would also be curious about the shape of the optic cup--is it smoother or otherwise distinctly different from the surface fish?

One more time:

Quote:

It seems odd that evolved blind fish don't have eyes.

Yes, the optic cup is smaller than normal in this particular cave dwelling fish. A quick google search on "optic cup cave dwelling fish" brings up an abstract of the article referenced earlier. The question was whether it was the diminished optic cup or apoptosis of the lens cells that prevent the eye from forming. The fact that lens transplants worked (in the diminished lens cup) indicate that it is apoptosis rather than lens cup size that is to "blame." What does this have to do with anything?

Quote:

My general answer to your last question is that I don't like labels. However, you would probably call me an OEC/ID.

Vanderzyden

To quote the library of Congress' radio commercial: "Albert Einstein, you are one funny guy!"

HW

[ October 13, 2002: Message edited by: Happy Wonderer ]

rebelnerd · 10-13-2002, 09:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vanderzyden:


If the sighted creatures are forced into caves where they can't see, they won't find food and they will die. Similarly, hiding in dark places from predators will also keep them from food.

This:

" These ghostly, pale fish live only in dark caves, depend on an acute sense of smell to find food and are not a target for predators, which are rarely present in caves."

Is from <a href="http://www.inform.umd.edu/newsdesk/releases/2000/00102r.html" target="_blank">here.</a>

Nothing to eat in caves? What about <a href="http://www.nps.gov/maca/cavelife.htm" target="_blank"> this?</a>

Or <a href="http://endangered.fws.gov/i/k/sak04.html" target="_blank">this?</a>

Filo

[ October 13, 2002: Message edited by: Filo Quiggens ]

Camaban · 10-13-2002, 09:01 PM

ok, Vander...

Do you admit that there is absolutely no point to a covered up eye?

Now. surviveability at first in dark places, breeding, etc is a moot point, be it god that put them there or evolution, they're there. end of story.

What the question is is:

WHY IS THERE ANY TRACE OF EYE AT ALL IF IT'S NOT USED AND HAS BEEN MADE THIS USELESS EVEN IF IT COULD BE USED(if light were to come into the caves, the eyes would still be useless. covered over)?

Camaban · 10-13-2002, 09:03 PM

I mean, this isn't like the Appendix, you can't claim it aids in digestion or anything like that.

a useless eye is a useless eye.

Why is there any trace of eye at all? It's a useless organ as far as those fish are concerned.

rebelnerd · 10-13-2002, 09:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lizard:


This technique is so common, I wonder if there's a name for it. Creationist posts unsupported nonsense and/or questions scientific knowledge that has been validated for years/decades/centuries. Knowledgeable person refutes creationist, providing tons of backup in the form of references. Creationist says s/he won't read the references, since the poster obviously is a bad person, up to no good, [insert ad homs here].

Therefore, creationist will never deal with actual evidence, never acknowledge s/he is wrong and has been shown wrong in front of the whole world.

If there isn't already a term, I would like to humbly propose: "Vandering"

As in: "Don't pay attention to him/her, they're just Vandering.

Filo

trientalis · 10-13-2002, 09:23 PM

Does the appendix aid in digestion? I had the impression it was just there to become inflamed and burst at inconvenient moments.
Do tell me more.

rebelnerd · 10-13-2002, 09:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vanderzyden:

Another problem: Suppose for a moment that the blind fish did evolve from sighted fish. This seems like evolution in reverse. Certainly, blindness is a deficiency. The acquistion of blindness is an utterly negative "selection" as it is called. There is a severe deficit for this "evolving" line.

Well Vander, I have to give credit where credit is due. I found support for your statment above <a href="http://www.discoverymagazine.com/articles/d2001/d0105f.htm" target="_blank">here.</a>
I found it at <a href="http://www.discoverymagazine.com/index.html" target="_blank">this site.</a>

Filo

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

10-13-2002, 09:01 PM	#146
Camaban Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Australia Posts: 473	ok, Vander... Do you admit that there is absolutely no point to a covered up eye? Now. surviveability at first in dark places, breeding, etc is a moot point, be it god that put them there or evolution, they're there. end of story. What the question is is: WHY IS THERE ANY TRACE OF EYE AT ALL IF IT'S NOT USED AND HAS BEEN MADE THIS USELESS EVEN IF IT COULD BE USED(if light were to come into the caves, the eyes would still be useless. covered over)?

10-13-2002, 09:03 PM	#147
Camaban Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Australia Posts: 473	I mean, this isn't like the Appendix, you can't claim it aids in digestion or anything like that. a useless eye is a useless eye. Why is there any trace of eye at all? It's a useless organ as far as those fish are concerned.

10-13-2002, 09:23 PM	#149
trientalis Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Washington state Posts: 848	Does the appendix aid in digestion? I had the impression it was just there to become inflamed and burst at inconvenient moments. Do tell me more.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.