Happy Wonderer

Just for grins, let's look again at how the eye fails to develop in Astyanax Mexicanus.

(From
<a href="http://genomebiology.com/2000/1/4/reports/0070/print" target="_blank">Here)</a>.)

So to carry DD's defective nav station analogy even further, what happens is that the workers start to build a nav station in place, do a lousy job, get frustrated, grab a sledgehammer and pound the useless junk back flush into the console. They then jam a faceplate over it and hope that nobody ever looks inside. They repeat this process for every car (of this model) that they build.

Does this really sound like intelligent design? (It may or may not sound like the way Ford Motors operates, however! ) I fail to see how an ID explanation of this would seem more logical than the evolutionary one: we are seeing the results of broken 'legacy' instructions for a function that the fish no longer needs.

HW

pz

Let's also note that Vanderzyden's analogy carries a significant implication: it's an admission of evolution. It's saying that there is a historical relationship between organisms, that there is an observable record of change within lineages, and that some features are not present for immediate functional utility, but are vestiges of past function.

Now that we have settled that, there are of course some differences in the mechanism behind evolution. He apparently wants to postulate some mysterious intelligent agent for which he has no evidence, against which we have demonstrated natural forces for which we have plenty of evidence, and which make his superstitious beliefs superfluous.

[ October 15, 2002: Message edited by: pz ]</p>

Clutch

Did we ever see a retraction of the "I don't see any dark spots that look like eyes" line?

Albion

For that matter, did we see any clarification of the "what makes you think the creator is incapable of..." line?

Camaban

On another note, I'd like to mention that the cheaper mass-production idea is faulty for one reason.

Not mass producing them, just altering the design.

Now, say you took the headlights out of a car for whatever reason, would you leave two holes in the design?

Would you leave two holes covered over by a sheet of metal in the design?

No, you'd just keep the body going as if the holes were never meant to be there.

And creatures also aren't mass-produced, each one has a considerable amount of effort put into it by another creature that isn't really in the business of creating other sighted creatures, so there's no point in using the similar components argument for that either. Think of the blind fish as hand-crafted instead of coming off a production line.

And again, if they were designed by someone, it's not that difficult to just wipe the eyes off altogether and just go on as if they were never there.

BTW, as for the "What do you suggest you put there argument" I find that quite amusing for one reason. a useless eye is still taking up more resources than blank real-estate...

Unless you're about to suggest that they're there for decoration.

Happy Wonderer

<img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> Heh heh, I hadn't thought of that. <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

HW

Camaban

I'm not sure I have to add anything to that part of V's post. (Apparently God isn't as all powerful as he's supposed to be )

[ October 15, 2002: Message edited by: Camaban ]</p>

Blinn

Vanderzyden,

What's your take on the grotto salamander?

Zetek

Vanderzyden

Indeed the eye is optional, if we consider the cave fish configuration to be an initial variant of the surface fish. That is, if the creator specifies, from the start, that one variant will not require eyes but remain otherwise the same, then the eye may be seen as an option. It's really quite simple, elegant, resourceful, and child's play for the One who brought the universe into existence in the first place.

OK, then substitute the NAV system for some other component, say headlights.

Remember, the eye is never installed. The "connectors" are still there, but there is no eye. Again, the analogy breaks down in comparing organic to inorganic components.

From the perspective of a Darwinist, yes, this is a defect, as you and I have previously agreed. However, the design theorist would insist that lack of vision is a detriment only to a fish who cannot function without them, and/or whose ancestors had sight. Being unable to see is not a defect for a fish who does not have eyes. Unformed eyes are, in fact, wholly irrelevant, if such a fish can function well from birth. The term blindness or sightless really doesn't apply to these fish, since they have never "known" what it is to see.

Vanderzyden

Nat

"From the perspective of a Darwinist, yes, this is a defect, as you and I have previously agreed. However, the design theorist would insist that lack of vision is a detriment only to a fish who cannot function without them, and/or whose ancestors had sight. Being unable to see is not a defect for a fish who does not have eyes. Unformed eyes are, in fact, wholly irrelevant, if such a fish can function well from birth. The term blindness or sightless really doesn't apply to these fish, since they have never "known" what it is to see. "

I do not believe that was DD's point. I believe he was referring to the fact that the undeveloped eyes represent a major vulnerability to the fish because they still retain the orbital sockets which are vulnerable to attack by predators and are close to the brain. The designer has created not only a fish that looks much like a sighted one with many of the eatures simply being in a state of arrested development, but he has created a fish that is vulnerable as well because of this arrested development.