Vanderzyden

Baloo,

I thought the issue was closed, but you apparently have more to say. Please tell me, then:

From where do you get "90% of the tissue necessary for a functional eye"?

Vanderzyden

Baloo

Vanderzyden - I looked back through the thread, and I realized two things. First, the picture that I based my 90% estimate on was actually a surface fish with a fully functional eye (my mistake), so I am going to drop that figure altogether.

The second thing I realize is that the 90% figure was by and large moot: my argument hinges on the mere existence of eye tissue in fish incapable of sight. Can we start from this point?

(I remind you of your own words...)

pz

Especially since it is such a gross underestimate. Since the experiments reveal that it is a single gene defect that leads to the loss of the eye out of the thousands of genes still functional, it is more like the animals have 99.9% of the processes to assemble an eye left intact.

Vanderzyden

Yes, go on.

John

Doubting Didymus

Baloos point is this:

Eye tissue exists which the fish does not need.

The fish would be better off, both defensively and with respect to economy of design, if the eye tissue was not present.

A designer could have improved the design by simply removing the eye tissue and constructing the fish head without orbits.

Therefore, there is a deficiency in the fish's design, IF the fish was designed WITHOUT HISTORICAL CONSTRAINT.

If you accept historical constraint in gods designs, then you should have no problems accepting evolution as gods means of design, as the vast majority of educated religious persons do worldwide.

Vanderzyden

DD,

I think we have already been over this...

The eye did not form. Development of the embryonic eye was arrested in its earliest stages. The remaining tissue covers the orbits, sealing and insulating the bone. The skin is seamlessly contoured over the small indentation that remains.

You have not demonstrated the increased vulnerability of a fish which has two indentations where eyes could have been. Actually, now that I think about it more, it does seem that the skin-covered area is less vulnerable than an exposed eye. The fish is not "better off".

Again, you have not shown what benefit would be gained by "filling in" or "smoothing over" the orbit with bone. You also over look the design economy of developing to distinct types of fish from the same "plan".


John

[ October 23, 2002: Message edited by: Vanderzyden ]</p>

Doubting Didymus

I think we agree on many points about the design of this fish. I think we both agree that, overall, the fish is well off.

Although I still think it is a waste of materials to even start an eye, rather than leaving it off entirely, I am willing to concede that the fish at least has its basic needs fulfilled.

My suggestion that covering the orbit with bone would be an improvement is just common sense. Useless eye material is not as good a defence, nor is it as economical (requiring specialised tissues) as bone would be. However, this does not really constitute 'bad' design, just a (relatively small) lack of efficiency. The foetal development thread is a better example of poor design.

This (relatively) good design is precisely what evolution by natural selection is expected to produce. Good design, exhibiting constraint by previous plans. Evolution by natural selection is a perfect explanation for the fish. Most religious people accept that, in fact, God designs and fulfills his plan via evolution. It does not directly contradict the design hypothesis.

Vanderzyden

DD,

Evolution could be an explanation. But you know that there are many problems with Darwinism. Sure, God could have employed evolutionary processes, but what would that say about his intentions? It seems unlikely that a purposeful Creator, who demonstrates design and purpose in the non-biological phenomena, would make an exception in the most amazing aspect of physical creation: life.

Incidentally, I'm not a "religious person". Not that way that I think you intend this meaning.

Let me ask:

1. How can a mindless process design anything?

2. I don't know if you are a theist. However, if, for the sake of argument, you would allow that God can create life from non-life, then why is it so fantastical that he would create individual species? The latter is mere "child's play" by comparison.


John

[ October 23, 2002: Message edited by: Vanderzyden ]</p>

monkenstick

*cough* urate oxidase thread

Camaban

Simply put? Trial and error with natural selection to filter out the bad and keep only the good.