Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   the schizochroal eye (of trilobites): evidence of design
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 16 of 55 (287988)
02-18-2006 2:02 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by sidelined
02-18-2006 1:46 AM


good evidence not "good" design
To think in terms of good design posits one knows the intent of the Designer. That's not what he is talking about. Good is not defined as more or less utilitarian.
What he is saying it is evidence of design because natural selection cannot explain it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by sidelined, posted 02-18-2006 1:46 AM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by nator, posted 02-19-2006 8:12 AM randman has not replied
 Message 22 by Omnivorous, posted 02-19-2006 4:14 PM randman has replied
 Message 35 by sidelined, posted 02-20-2006 2:53 PM randman has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 17 of 55 (288000)
02-18-2006 3:00 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by randman
02-17-2006 11:19 PM


Re: huge mistake....propaganda
From Message 11
quote:
For an educated person to claim loss of eyes due to natural selection is "evolution in action" is laughable, but typical of many evos insistence on using false logic to make their claims. Since they resort to such clear overstatements and sophistry, I really question the intellecual honesty and strength of their argument.
From Message 14
quote:
An eye becoming vestigal is evidence of microevolution/variation, but not macroevolution. That's the issue. The constant claim that microevolution is evolution in action is deceptive because on that basis, one could say having a baby is evolution in action, or that Indians dying from small pox is evolution in action.
In the first quote it is denied that it is evolution at all, with all sorts of nastiness. In the second it is admitted that the claim is true but fallacious arguments are introduced to back up more false accusations.
Firstly a demonstration of microevolution occurring clearly is evolution in action. Thus the original accusations are completely baseless and false.
Secondly the loss of eyes is a significant enough morphological change that it cannot simply be dismissed as "microevolution". Argument is needed to support such an assertion.
Thirdly simply having a baby is not an example of microevolutionary change and thus we have a definite example of faulty logic - but from the objections to the site not the site itself.
It is clear who is producing propaganda here..

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by randman, posted 02-17-2006 11:19 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by randman, posted 02-18-2006 6:42 PM PaulK has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 18 of 55 (288194)
02-18-2006 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by PaulK
02-18-2006 3:00 AM


Re: huge mistake....propaganda
In the first quote it is denied that it is evolution at all, with all sorts of nastiness. In the second it is admitted that the claim is true but fallacious arguments are introduced to back up more false accusations.
Wrong, and imo deception in your thinking. I never ever once admit that the claim is true. "Evolution" in context refers to the Theory of Evolution which includes common descent and macroevolution. Heck, I could just say I passed some gas, and hey, that could well be evolution in action as this was an acquired trait or some such BS.
Firstly a demonstration of microevolution occurring clearly is evolution in action.
No, it's not. If the topic is macroevolution, then to claim it is evolution in action is wrong. Moreover, we could just as easily say then it is creationism in action since creationism acknowledges heritable change. You evos need to stick with an intellectually honest definition of evolution and argue for or against that and quit resorting to bait and switch by using more than one definition for the term.
Secondly the loss of eyes is a significant enough morphological change that it cannot simply be dismissed as "microevolution".
Yes, it can, and I just did. So you are proven wrong. In fact, no one I know of whether creationists, IDers, theistic evos or atheist evos says such forms of "evolution" do not occur. So what? Natural selection is not equal to universal common descent, and you guys need to quit saying that just showing natural selection demonstrates "evolution in action" since clearly you refer to the Theory of Evolution which is a proposition and not something observed.
Thirdly simply having a baby is not an example of microevolutionary change
Who says? It is part of the evolutionary process, and it is observed, same as with microevolution. So under your logic, it can rightly be considered evolution in action.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by PaulK, posted 02-18-2006 3:00 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by PaulK, posted 02-19-2006 5:21 AM randman has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 19 of 55 (288301)
02-19-2006 5:21 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by randman
02-18-2006 6:42 PM


Re: huge mistake....propaganda
You admitted that the loss of eyes was evolution by calling it microevolution. If you wish to claim that the webpage meant something ewlse it is up to you to demonstrate it and show that what it meant was actually wrong. If you cannot do that then you are the one switching definitions - and doing so in a most dishonest way.
Secondly your assertion that you could call it creationism in action is absurd. What that would actually mean is that you had evidence that the species in question were individually created. I really don't know why you refuse to admit that evolution accepted by creationists is STILL EVOLUTION.
I note that you offer no reason why the loss of eayes should be accepted as microevolution as the term is used within biology. If you wish to simply use "microevolution" to indicate evolution accepted by some ID supporters and Creationists then you need to make that clear - otherwise you are playing games with definitions as you accuse others of doing.
Having a baby is not in itself a good example of microevolution because it is such a small part of microevolution that - excpet in very special circumstances nobody in their right mind would use it to argue for even miocroevolution. The comparison is therefore simply an attempt to use an inappropriate comparison to ridicule an opponents position - i.e. you are using propaganda.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by randman, posted 02-18-2006 6:42 PM randman has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 20 of 55 (288309)
02-19-2006 6:30 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by randman
02-17-2006 6:46 PM


Re: huge mistake....propaganda
randman,
I suspect Wise is dead on accurate then.
I suspect he is inaccurate.
What about the schizochroal eye exceeds the needs of the trilobites? What about the schizochroal eye evolution is harder to explain than mammalian eye evolution?
Mark
This message has been edited by mark24, 02-19-2006 06:31 AM

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by randman, posted 02-17-2006 6:46 PM randman has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 21 of 55 (288316)
02-19-2006 8:12 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by randman
02-18-2006 2:02 AM


Re: good evidence not "good" design
quote:
What he is saying it is evidence of design because natural selection cannot explain it.
How do you know that we just haven't thought of the explanation yet?
Or, how do you know that there isn't a naturalistic explanation but that we limited humans will never, ever manage to figure it out?
Just because we haven't or will never figure out a naturalistic explanation for something doesn't mean a naturalistic explanation doesn't exist.
Yet again, this is the God (IDer) of the Gaps.
"We don't have perfect knowledge of everything in nature right now, so God (IDer) Didit!"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by randman, posted 02-18-2006 2:02 AM randman has not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 22 of 55 (288369)
02-19-2006 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by randman
02-18-2006 2:02 AM


You have misread the good Dr. Wise
randman writes:
What he is saying it is evidence of design because natural selection cannot explain it.
No, that isn't what he is saying.
Let's look at Dr. Wise's full concluding paragraph (emphasis added):
The design of the schizochroal eye makes it unique among eyes; perhaps even to the point of being the best optical system known in the biological world. This design, in fact, seems to far exceed the needs of the trilobite. The origin of the design of the schizochroal eye is not understood by means of any known natural cause. Rather, it is best understood as being due to an intelligent (design-creating) cause, through a process involving remarkably high manipulative ability. Among available hypotheses, creation by God is the most reasonable hypothesis for the origin of the complexity of the trilobite’s schizochroal eye.
”My favourite evidence for creation!’, Creation Ex Nihilo, Sept.-Nov. 1989, Vol. 11 No. 4, p. 29
Note the date: 1989
What he is actually saying is that he discards evolutionary explanations prima facie, not that the schizocroal eye provides a particular challenge, or that other scientists have not proposed explanations. They certainly have. If you follow the link on this page, you can read an interview where he advocates the abandonment of "evidential" based creationism in favor of "presuppositional" creationism. He also rebukes creationists for continuing to use bad data he himself has refuted:
Apart from evolution, Dr Wise says that one of the things that has really bothered him is finding creationists who fall into the trap of dismissing justified criticism. He said he has presented data to point out areas that some of them needed to change, and it was either fobbed off or was still being repeated next time he saw them.
'You know, there's no data that I ever ran into that bothered me as far as my creationist position went. But this issue did.'
Here is a nice summary of current evolutionary thought on the development of the schizocroal eye:
All early trilobites (Cambrian), had holochroal eyes and it would seem hard to evolve the distinctive phacopid schizochroal eye from this form. The answer is thought to lie in ontogenetic (developmental) processes on an evolutionary time scale. Paedomorphosis is the retention of ancestral juvenile characteristics into adulthood in the descendent. Paedomorphosis can occur three ways: Progenesis (early sexual maturation in an otherwise juvenile body), Neoteny (reduced rate of morphological development), and Post-displacement (delayed growth of certain structures relative to others). The development of schizochroal eyes in phacopid trilobites is a good example of post-displacement paedomorphosis. The eyes of immature holochroal Cambrian trilobites were basically miniature schizochroal eyes. In Phacopida, these were retained, via delayed growth of these immature structures (post-displacement), into the adult form.
The Trilobite Eye
When we examine the citations on The Trilobite Eye site, we see, among others:
Citations for this page:
Clarkson, E. N. K. 1975. The evolution of the eye in trilobites. Fossils and Strata 4:7-31.
Clarkson, E. N. K. & R. Levi-Setti. 1975. Trilobite eyes and the optics of Des Cartes and Huygens. Nature 254 (1975): 663-667.
Note the dates.
So we know that evolutionary hypotheses for the schizochroal eye date back at least to 1975.
Do we have a contradiction, then? Is it that Dr. Wise in 1989 says there are no hypotheses, even though Dr. Clarkson in 1975 published hypotheses? Is Dr. Wise a liar?
No. Wise is not lying, because he in fact rejects all evolutionary explanations out of hand. He does not say evolutionists cannot offer a mutational/natural selection explanation for the development of the schizocroal eye--he rejects all such evolutionary explanations: he is a Young Earth Creationist. He picks this eye as his favorite because of the "gee whiz" nature of a compound eye formed of single calcite crystals, not because it is intrinsically any harder to explain than any other evolved trait.
If you impute more to his remarks, you are misrepresenting him.
The retention of juvenile behavioral and morphological traits into the mature adult is a common phemonenon in pet breeding--it characterizes one of the primary differences between dogs and wolves, especially those cute little useless breeds that remain forever puppy-like.
Three points:
1. The acuity of the schizocroal eye has nothing to do with his argument. He has rejected evolutionary explanations a priori beause he is a scriptural, presuppositional creationist. I do not intend this as criticism: it is his own, self-professed belief, and he is quite aboveboard about it.
2. He states that the eye is best understood via intelligent design because that's what he believes about every aspect of every organism, not because this type of trilobite eye is a particular stumper for evolutionary biology.
3. You have misunderstood his position.
This message has been edited by Omnivorous, 02-19-2006 04:16 PM

"Dost thou think because thou art virtuous there shall be no more cakes and ale?"
-Sir Toby Belch, Twelfth Night
Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by randman, posted 02-18-2006 2:02 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by randman, posted 02-20-2006 12:23 AM Omnivorous has replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 23 of 55 (288472)
02-19-2006 10:23 PM


Topic title modified a bit
Normally, I would not post a seperate message concerning something like this. As noted at the end of message 1, I have added the "(of trilobites)" part to the topic title.
Usually when I do an addition to a topic title, it is because the topic title is very poor and non-descriptive. Such was not here the case. Randman's original topic title was pretty good. But I do think adding my bit does help some, because "trilobite eye" probably has a little more meaning than "schizochroal eye" to most people.
Please, there is no need for anyone to reply to this message, here or at any other location.
Adminnemooseus

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 24 of 55 (288482)
02-19-2006 10:48 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Omnivorous
02-17-2006 6:32 PM


Flagging a message as being a quality reply
IMO, Omnivorous's message 8 is an example of a quality posting (to POTM or not to POTM?). Especially relative to #8, messages #5, 6, and 7 are (again IMO) pretty lame.
#8 moves the debate forward, the others probably more just cause bad feelings.
Just a little insertion - People, strive for "quality" not "lame".
If you really feel you must reply to this message, do it in the "General..." topic, link below.
Adminnemooseus
This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 02-19-2006 10:52 PM

New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Omnivorous, posted 02-17-2006 6:32 PM Omnivorous has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 25 of 55 (288494)
02-20-2006 12:23 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Omnivorous
02-19-2006 4:14 PM


disagree very much
What he is actually saying is that he discards evolutionary explanations prima facie, not that the schizocroal eye provides a particular challenge, or that other scientists have not proposed explanations.
That's not what he is saying at all. He specifically states:
This design, in fact, seems to far exceed the needs of the trilobite.
He specifically states that he feels the eye is his favorite hard evidence for design in the context of admitting there is evidence in other areas against his views. So he really is stating here the exact opposite of what you claim. He is stating the facts fit design here, not that they fit because of automatically dismissing evolutionary explanations. He is saying the evolutionary explanations are not better suited from a scientific perspective than the design hypothesis.
If you follow the link on this page, you can read an interview where he advocates the abandonment of "evidential" based creationism in favor of "presuppositional" creationism.
That may well be, although I would characterize it differently, but he is not doing that here. He states he is not. In fact, he deplores making bogus factual claims, stating something factually supports design when it does not, and you admit that.
He also rebukes creationists for continuing to use bad data he himself has refuted:
So when he says the data on this particular eye cannot be explained adequately by evolution, it is all the more credible since he is so willing to admit to other areas that can be explained by evo models. In no way is he dismissing the alternative evo hypothesis out of hand as you suggest, but is clearly stating the evo model doesn't work for the development of this eye because it exceeds the need of the trilobite; the implication being it could not arise from natural selection.
Do we have a contradiction, then? Is it that Dr. Wise in 1989 says there are no hypotheses, even though Dr. Clarkson in 1975 published hypotheses? Is Dr. Wise a liar?
Wise does not say there is no possible evolutionary hypothesis. He just says they are inadequate. You are grossly misreading his claim.
No. Wise is not lying, because he in fact rejects all evolutionary explanations out of hand.
If that is the case, if he indeed feels it is perfectly OK to argue that the only reasonable hypothesis from a scientific view is that of design, even when an evo explanation makes more sense, then why in the world would he just have bashed creationists for doing that exact same thing. He may dismiss evolution out of hand, but he does not dismiss evo science out of hand, and knows a heck of a lot about it, having studied under Gould at Harvard. No, he does not try to argue an evo explanation does not make sense factually, unless he really thinks that is the case, and puts forth this example because he thinks from a science perspective, not a faith one, that the evo explanations do not work.
You have misunderstood his position.
No, I haven't. You have completely ignored his lead-in point that the trilobite eye is far more advanced that it's need. The obvious implication is without some need, there is no selective advantage, and no reason for it to arise via natural selection.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Omnivorous, posted 02-19-2006 4:14 PM Omnivorous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by mark24, posted 02-20-2006 7:08 AM randman has not replied
 Message 27 by Omnivorous, posted 02-20-2006 9:22 AM randman has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 26 of 55 (288553)
02-20-2006 7:08 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by randman
02-20-2006 12:23 AM


Re: disagree very much
randman,
What about the schizochroal eye exceeds the needs of the trilobites? What about the schizochroal eye evolution is harder to explain than mammalian eye evolution, for example?
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by randman, posted 02-20-2006 12:23 AM randman has not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 27 of 55 (288581)
02-20-2006 9:22 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by randman
02-20-2006 12:23 AM


Close Reading
randman writes:
Omnivorous writes:
What he is actually saying is that he discards evolutionary explanations prima facie, not that the schizocroal eye provides a particular challenge, or that other scientists have not proposed explanations.
That's not what he is saying at all. He specifically states:
This design, in fact, seems to far exceed the needs of the trilobite.
Indeed, he does say that it seems to exceed the trilobite's needs, an observation he does not connect to the rest of his comments with a thus, therefore, or consequently. Let me repeat: Dr. Wise rejects ALL evolutionary explanations. He does NOT say this eye presents a unique challenge to evolutionary theory--he merely cites it as his favorite example. He writes quite precisely and carefully, not linking his explication of the schizocroal eye to any specific argumentation.
Wise writes:
The evidence from Scripture is by far the best evidence for creation. No better evidence can be imagined than that provided from Him who is not only the only eyewitness observer, but who also is the embodiment of all truth. All Christians should be content in His claims for creation.
Since ID posits that any generic eye is irreducibly complex, what would be the point of making such an assertion? He makes a string of observations about the trilobite eye but does not construct from them the argument that you claim arises from the context. You are hearing what you want to hear, and you are manufacturing an argument from the context you bring to the passage. He does not use the words "evolution" or "natural selection" anywhere in the passage.
randman writes:
He specifically states that he feels the eye is his favorite hard evidence for design in the context of admitting there is evidence in other areas against his views.
You are mistaken. Could you point me to the passage in which he spefically "admits there is evidence in other areas against his views"? He doesn't.
randman writes:
So he really is stating here the exact opposite of what you claim. He is stating the facts fit design here, not that they fit because of automatically dismissing evolutionary explanations. He is saying the evolutionary explanations are not better suited from a scientific perspective than the design hypothesis.
In fact, he addresses no data other than the fact that the trilobite had a good eye. When he states, "The origin of the design of the schizocroal eye is not understood by means of any known natural cause," he is rejecting ALL scientific explanations. Far from declaring that there is data to support design, he addresses no data and dismisses naturalistic explanations. The scientific baby went out with the naturalistic bath water.
Omnivorous writes:
If you follow the link on this page, you can read an interview where he advocates the abandonment of "evidential" based creationism in favor of "presuppositional" creationism.
randman writes:
That may well be, although I would characterize it differently, but he is not doing that here. He states he is not. In fact, he deplores making bogus factual claims, stating something factually supports design when it does not, and you admit that.
What would you characterize differently about him saying that he favors presuppositional creationism over evidential creationism? That is exactly what he said. Here is a link to that interview so that others can verify this more readily.
When you say, "but he is not doing that here," I assume you mean in his commentary on the eye. His deploring of bogus data is in the same passage as his declaration in favor of presuppositional creationism in the other arrticle, not in the piece on the eye. But when you say, "He states he is not [doing that here]," where is that?
Omnivorous writes:
He also rebukes creationists for continuing to use bad data he himself has refuted
randman writes:
So when he says the data on this particular eye cannot be explained adequately by evolution, it is all the more credible since he is so willing to admit to other areas that can be explained by evo models. In no way is he dismissing the alternative evo hypothesis out of hand as you suggest, but is clearly stating the evo model doesn't work for the development of this eye because it exceeds the need of the trilobite; the implication being it could not arise from natural selection.
Again you are putting your interpretation into his mouth. He does NOT say the evolutionary "model doesn't work for the development of this eye." He observes that the eyes seemed to exceed the trilobite's needs, but he makes no argument of it. You have constructed that argument, not Dr. Wise. Again, why sense would it make for him to make a special pleading of this one structure when he holds the position that NO organismal structure is "best explained" by evolution?
Further, where does he show that he is willing to "admit to other areas that can be explained by evo models"? That is made of entirely whole cloth. He says that nowhere in either article. You seem to be claiming that he does sometimes agree that natural selection is a better explanation--can you support that assertion? I don't believe you can, because I don't think he holds anything like that position. At any rate, he does not make that admission here.
randman writes:
Wise does not say there is no possible evolutionary hypothesis. He just says they are inadequate. You are grossly misreading his claim.
No, randman, you are grossly misreading me. I did not say Dr. Wise said there were no possible evolutionary hypotheses--that was your claim:
randman writes:
What he is saying it is evidence of design because natural selection cannot explain it.
In addition, when I write:
Omnivorous writes:
Is it that Dr. Wise in 1989 says there are no hypotheses, even though Dr. Clarkson in 1975 published hypotheses? Is Dr. Wise a liar?
My question draws attention to your misreading; it does not impute that stance to Dr. Wise. In fact, I conclude:
Omnivorous writes:
No. Wise is not lying, because he in fact rejects all evolutionary explanations...
Here is another textual claim you make with no support in the passage at hand:
randman writes:
If that is the case, if he indeed feels it is perfectly OK to argue that the only reasonable hypothesis from a scientific view is that of design, even when an evo explanation makes more sense, then why in the world would he just have bashed creationists for doing that exact same thing?
He doesn't. He criticizes creationists for using bad data--I suspect that he means things like fake fossil footprints and hammers fraudlently placed in older strata. But, in any case, nowhere in that linked article did he say that any evolutionary explanation makes more sense than design. You are a very creative reader.
Omnivorous writes:
You have misunderstood his position.
randman writes:
No, I haven't. You have completely ignored his lead-in point that the trilobite eye is far more advanced that it's need. The obvious implication is without some need, there is no selective advantage, and no reason for it to arise via natural selection.
I think Dr. Wise is far too intelligent to say that according to evolutionary theory characteristics arise in response to need. Again, you are imputing to the gentleman something he is far too knowledgable to say.
At any rate, the question is not whether Dr. Wise might argue this or that; the question is whether he made the specific assertions and arguments in this piece that you asserted he did. I have clearly demonstrated that he did not, and you are grasping at contextual straws.

"Dost thou think because thou art virtuous there shall be no more cakes and ale?"
-Sir Toby Belch, Twelfth Night
Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by randman, posted 02-20-2006 12:23 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by randman, posted 02-20-2006 10:47 AM Omnivorous has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 28 of 55 (288611)
02-20-2006 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Omnivorous
02-20-2006 9:22 AM


Re: Close Reading
It's abundantly clear to any reasonable reading of his words that he emphasizes the fact the trilobite's eyes' here "far exceed" it's needs as part of the reason he considers it evidence of design rather than evolution. If you cannot see that, that's your problem.
It is interesting though how something as clear and factual as this can be dismissed by many evos. It's as if many of you just don't want to accept any basic fact, even of what a claim is, if it could somehow be persuasive against your theories.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Omnivorous, posted 02-20-2006 9:22 AM Omnivorous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Gary, posted 02-20-2006 10:58 AM randman has replied
 Message 31 by Omnivorous, posted 02-20-2006 11:31 AM randman has replied
 Message 43 by mark24, posted 02-20-2006 4:57 PM randman has not replied

  
Gary
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 55 (288620)
02-20-2006 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by randman
02-20-2006 10:47 AM


Re: Close Reading
What was the trilobite using its eyes for in the first place? I think we need to establish that before we say that trilobites underused their eyes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by randman, posted 02-20-2006 10:47 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by randman, posted 02-20-2006 11:11 AM Gary has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 30 of 55 (288638)
02-20-2006 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Gary
02-20-2006 10:58 AM


Re: Close Reading
I don't know. I brought up Dr Wise's claims for discussion here readily admitting I don't know much about trilobites. Unfortunately, as usual, some evos refuse to even admit to the same basic facts, like what he was saying, and so the discussion has stalled.
Perhaps there is someone here that knows why Dr Wise thinks it's fairly obvious, it seems, to someone in that field why the eyes "far exceed" it's needs?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Gary, posted 02-20-2006 10:58 AM Gary has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024