Vanderzyden

Yes, monkenstick, I have been spending some time in preparation to address your thread.

Soon...


John

Doubting Didymus

Well, sure, as much as I would like to be able to say "no, there aren't", there are a few.

They generally bear no resemblance to the perceived problems, however, and they are certainly no larger than the 'problems' with the theory of gravity.


[ EDIT: the rest of my post was completely off topic, nearly the opposit, in fact.

I have started a new thread about theistic evolution, which I hope you will find interesting, vander. See you there.]

[ October 24, 2002: Message edited by: Doubting Didymus ]</p>

Albion

The skull exists to protect the brain. There are points of vulnerability in the skull that are caused by the presence of holes that allow organs such as eyes and noses to function. Presumably lifeforms are better off with the abilities to see, eat, and breathe than without those abilities, so that the disadvantage of having holes in the skull is outweighed by the advantage of having those other functions. But when one of the functions is disabled, such as in fish without functioning eyes, there's no advantage to having skin flaps without bone as the only protection of the brain.

Why would God be concerned with design economy? Unlike evolution, God can do anything and the amount of time required is irrelevant.

Jack the Bodiless

Vanderzyden:
And these problems are... ?

I note that you have also not supported your assertion that "evolution does not work, period". Therefore I will add both of these unsupported assertions to <a href="http://iidb.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=47&t=001228&p=" target="_blank">Vanderzyden's Overwhelming Evidence for the Existence of God</a>, unless you'd rather create an E/C forum thread to address them.

MrDarwin

Monkenstick, don't hold your breath. I'm still waiting for Vanderzyden to back up or explain the claims he made in the <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=001540" target="_blank">Suboptimal design: the fetal circulatory system</a> thread.

Baloo

Vanderzyden,

First, my apologies for the delay. Also, I've noticed you've begun signing your posts with "John" (or you've been doing it for awhile and I've simply begun noticing...) - would you prefer to be addressed as John?

Anyway, it seems we have a starting point: there exists in nature sightless fish with eye tissue (lets call these "SIFWET"s).

For the next point, I will make a contention. My contention is that there is no function (or set of functions) that eye tissue in SIFWETs fills which could not better be filled by a different type of SIFWET bodily tissue.

This is a simple negative claim - refutable with a single well-supported example on your part. Or do you accept the claim?

Oolon Colluphid

*Bump*

No comments on this thread, John?

Vanderzyden

Sorry, I forgot about this thread. Baloo needs to keep me on my toes.


Baloo,

Yes, John is fine. Who knows why I had been signing my posts with my last name?

I do not agree with your assertion, since you are loosely employing the term "eye tissue". Previously, I have argued that the tissue in the optic cup of the the sightless cave fish is not properly eye tissue. Certainly it is not a complete vestigal or malfunctional organ. The tissue in the optic cup is the remnants of early embryonic development. The eye never develops. In fact, the entire region remains empty and "flat" throughout development.

Secondly, you are implying that some other tissue would fill the the orbit better, since the "eye tissue" is useless. OK, what tissue would that be? And from an economic standpoint, why would the designer need to use other tissue when an extension of the developmental tissue is sufficient? As I explained to Doubting Didymus, the fish is no more vulnerable to attack or disease as it is now. Smoothing the empty eye orbit with bone or lining the orbit with different (non-eye) fleshy tissue would have afford no advantage.

John

Doubting Didymus

John, I think I mostly agree with you!

All organisms must be well designed for their habitat, else their species would dissapear. Thus: the eyeless fish has protection over its useless eyes.

Can we agree on one thing, then: that the design of this fish shows that it is adapted from a previous plan? Certainly, the eyed fish design must have come first, before the eyes can be adapted to life in the dark.

Having agreed with this, why are you so adament that god created the fish ex nihilo, rather than adapting the species from an already existing species of fish?

I am talking about theistic evolution of course, and I have a thread open for its discussion. I think that this issue is a very important one, and I really would like to hear your thoughts.

Vanderzyden

DD,

Yes, I have placed a lengthy reply in the <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=001588" target="_blank">theistic evolution thread</a>.

To briefly answer your question here, I would say that there is essentially no difference in diverging one body plan from another, EXCEPT that the eyeless fish would go extinct immediately. If I remember correctly, we have discussed this at length.


John