At 06:17 AM 09/25/2000, you wrote:
>Reflectorites
>
>On Sun, 10 Sep 2000 15:18:27 -0500, Chris Cogan wrote:
>
>[continued]
>
>CC>In fact, if we did not know
> >better from empirical observation, and if we thought life was designed,
> >we'd guess that life would be much different from what it turns out to be,
> >because we'd guess that the designers would be intelligent enough, good
> >enough biological engineers, not to design a kludge like the human wrist
>
>Even if we granted (for the sake of argument) that the human wrist was a
>"kludge" the fact is that even a "kludge" is designed:
>
> "kludge... a system and especially a computer system made up of
> poorly matched components"
> (http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=kludge)
Where's the indication in this definition of "design"? Even *computer*
kludges are not always design, but occur as the result of *failure* to
design, or to design *sufficiently*. In Nature, of course, there is no need
of design to have poorly matched parts.
>BTW I would like to see Chris' *evidence* why he thinks "the human
>wrist" is a "kludge". I must admit I have never heard of that argument in
>the evolutionary literature. Did Chris read it somewhere (and if so where?)
>or did he just make it up?
I don't know where I read it; it was a long time ago. I may even have come
across it in my Anatomy and Physiology course in high school. The wrist has
eight bones, an evolutionary heritage from pre-primates. Even a *poor*
engineer could design a better one with fewer parts (by better, I mean with
a lower frequency of failure, and equal or greater flexibility and
strength, etc.). Evolution does this because it gets itself into
cul-de-sacs where it can't make changes sufficient to *really* fix the
problem without having to make a genetic jump that's too big for it to make
without making it non-functional along the way. So it produces "kludges"
instead. These are better than nothing, but hardly ideal, biologically. A
designer would not have this problem, because the designer can change every
thing at once that needs changing. Thus, if there were a designer, our
children could all miraculously have radically better wrists than we do.
>CC>or
> >the nerve pathways from the retinal cells in the human eye (the nerves go
> >*in front* of the light-sensitive rods and cones, thus blocking some of the
> >light).
>
>Chris does not even demonstrate that "blocking some of the light" is a
>problem for vision. It isn't because the whole visual *system* of two eyes
>and the brain's visual processing sub-system amply compensate for any
>minor loss of light this might cause (which AFAIK has never even been
>quantified).
>
>Nevertheless, this has been one of the classic Darwinist arguments against
>design, as Denton explains:
>
> "In all non-vertebrate eyes, and in the pineal or dorsal eyes of
> primitive
> vertebrates, the photoreceptors point toward the light. However,
> in the
> vertebrate lateral eye, the photoreceptors point backwards away
> from the
> light towards the retinal epithelium and the choroidal blood
> sinuses. This
> arrangement necessitates the placement of the neural cell
> layer--which
> relays the visual image from the retina to the brain--between the
> photoreceptors and the light, and results in the blind spot where
> the axons
> of these neural cells leave the retina for the brain via the
> optic nerve.
> Generations of Darwinists have seized on this apparently illogical
> arrangement and particularly the consequent "blind spot" as a case of
> maladaptation. The following comments by Dawkins are typical:
>
> "Any engineer would naturally assume that the photocells would point
> towards the light, with their wires leading backwards towards the
> brain. He
> would laugh at any suggestion that the photocells might point
> away from
> the light, with their wires departing on the side nearest the
> light. Yet this is
> exactly what happens in all vertebrate eyes. Each photocell is,
> in effect,
> wired in backwards, with its wires sticking out on the side
> nearest to the
> light. This means that the light, instead of being granted an
> unrestricted
> passage to the photocells, has to pass through a forest of connecting
> wires, presumably suffering at least some attenuation and distortion
> (actually probably not much but, still, it is the principle of
> the thing that
> would offend any tidy-minded engineer!) (Dawkins R., "The Blind
> Watchmaker," 1986, pp.93-94,
>
> (Denton M.J., "The Inverted Retina: Maladaptation or
> Pre-adaptation?" Origins &
> Design, Vol. 19, No. 2, Access Research Network, 1999.
> http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od192/ir192summ.htm).
>
>Ayoub in 1996 had looked at this (again no pun intended!) from the angles
>of 1. Regenerating photoreceptive pigments; 2. Recycling of
>photoreceptive material; and 3. Absorption of excess light; and then
>conducted a thought experiment with the photorectors and retina reversed:
>
> "So, as a thought experiment, let's fix the blind spot. We will
> start
> by turning the photoreceptors around, so their wiring isn't in the
> way. We have eliminated the blind spot, providing slightly better
> sight in one portion of the eye. Now, however, the blood vessels
> and RPE, needed to maintain the photoreceptors, must be located
> on the inner side of the retina, between it and the lens. This
> places a
> large capillary bed (containing many red blood cells) and an
> epithelial tissue in the path of the light, significantly
> degrading the
> visual information passing to the photoreceptors. Furthermore,
> since the photoreceptors continually shed material from their outer
> segments, dumping this opaque waste in the path of the light would
> greatly diminish the amount of light reaching the photoreceptors.
> Our proposed change also reduces the quality of the light, by
> refracting it with the opaque pieces of shed outer segment
> membrane. We might imagine simply placing the RPE at the back
> of the retina, but this raises the problem of how to dispose of
> spent
> outer segment membranes, so that the photoreceptors can be
> quickly regenerated. Or, perhaps, we could surround each
> photoreceptor cell by RPE cells, but this would need increase the
> space between the photoreceptors, thus decreasing the resolution of
> vision. These design changes may force temporal or spatial
> decrements in vision. Are these improvements? Hardly; indeed, our
> thought experiment has taken the vertebrate eye rapidly downhill.
> In trying to eliminate the blind spot, we have generated a host of
> new and more severe functional problems to solve. Our "repair"
> seems far worse than the apparent flaw we wanted to fix." (Ayoub
> G., "On the Design of the Vertebrate Retina," Access Research
> Network, Origins & Design, Vol. 17, No. 1, 1996.
> http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od171/retina171.htm)
>
>The above would be sufficient to establish that the vertebrate eye is not
>badly designed and may in fact be *well*-designed.
A *thought* experiment from someone published at ARN? Surely, you're joking.
The fact is that the eyes of many organisms *are* built the "right" way
around. How do *they* do it, if it's such a bad idea? Perhaps Ayoub did not
want to be bothered by actually existing counterexamples; those pesky
*facts* do often get in the way of nice design-theory ideas, don't they?
Notice that at least some of the "restrictions" Ayoub assumes for the
alternative need not apply, if other changes are made as well (as,
*presumably*, a *designer* could well ensure, *couldn't* he?).
>But then in 1999 Denton considered the fact that land-dwelling vertebrate
>vision requires a lot of oxygen:
>
> "The remarkable capacity of the unique choriocapillaris system to
> deliver copious quantities of oxygen to the photoreceptors has an
> important consequence--it obligates the necessity for a capillary
> network within the photoreceptor layer and this in turn allows the
> photoreceptor cells to be packed tightly together, thus maximizing
> the resolving power of the eye. It is also hard to imagine how a
> standard-type capillary network to carry the necessary quantities of
> blood directly through the photoreceptor cell layer could be
> arranged without causing at least some decrease in the packing
> density of the photoreceptors and a consequent decrease in the
> resolving power of the eye. (Interestingly, in all known high-acuity
> eyes, including the compound eyes of insects and other arthropods
> and the camera-type eyes of various groups, including the
> cephalopod and photoreceptors, are packed tightly together and not
> separated by either blood vessels or any other type of intervening
> tissues or structures.)" (Denton, 1999).
>
>So therefore it seems that the vertebrate retina is *better* placed where it
>is behind the photoreceptors:
>
> "Taken together, the evidence strongly supports the notion that the
> inverted retina and its major consequence (the positioning of the
> photoreceptors in the outer section of the retina where they are in
> intimate contact with the choriocapillaris) is a specific adaptation
> designed to deliver abundant quantities of oxygen to the
> photoreceptor cells commensurate with their high energy demands-
> -especially in metabolically active groups such as the birds and
> mammals. Rather than being a case of maladaptation, the inverted
> retina is probably an essential element in the overall design of the
> vertebrate visual system. This conclusion is reinforced by the
> difficulty of envisaging alternative means of delivering the
> required
> amounts of oxygen to the photoreceptor cell layer if the retina had
> the typical non-inverted design of the sort that might appeal to a
> "tidy-minded engineer." (Denton, 1999).
>
>One mark of a good theory is when one of its claimed major weaknesses
>turns out to be one of its major strengths. In the case of the vertebrate
>eye,
>far from being badly designed, it turns out the counter-intuitive placement
>of the photoreceptors in front of the retina is an example of *good* (I
>would say *brilliant* but I'm biased! :-)) design!
>
>But (as the TV commercial says) there's more (i.e. it gets worse for the
>Darwinists). Since this design decision was made before the vertebrate-
>invertebrate split about1 billion years ago:
>
> "I wouldn't be surprised if the common ancestor of all surviving
> animals, who lived perhaps a billion years ago, possessed eyes."
> (Dawkins R., "Climbing Mount Improbable," 1996, p.128)
>
>it actually is a good example of far-sighted (again pun unintended!) design
>for vision on land which would not be needed until about 600 million years
>later:
>
> "Finally, there is the fascinating question of pre-adaptation.
> Although all vertebrates have the same inverted design the
> interesting question arises as to whether the inverted design is a
> necessity for high-resolution vision in the cold-blooded vertebrates
> such as fish which have lower metabolic rates than the warm-
> blooded vertebrates such as mammals and birds. In this context the
> high resolution eye of the cephalopods, including the octopus and
> squid, is instructive. The cephalopods have a typical non-inverted
> retina which is comparable in resolving power to the eyes of many
> vertebrates, have metabolic rates similar to that of fish and other
> cold- blooded vertebrates (even though the maximum oxygen
> capacity of cephalopod blood is only one third that of a fish), and
> inhabit an aquatic environment similar to that of many fish. This
> implies strongly that high- acuity vision in the eyes of
> cold-blooded
> vertebrates would be possible with a non-inverted retina and that it
> is only in the case of the higher and warm-blooded vertebrate
> species where the metabolic rates are far higher that the inverted
> arrangement to bring the photoreceptors adjacent to the choroidal
> vessels is a necessity for phototransduction. In other words, the
> inverted retinal design is almost certainly not an adaptive
> necessity
> in cold-blooded vertebrates." (Denton, 1999).
>
>CC>Things like the wrist *do* have evolutionary explanations,
>
>It depends on what Chris means by "evolutionary explanations". If he
>means that random mutation and natural selection can provide a plausible,
>complete, and testable explanation of the origin of the human wrist, I
>would be interested to see it.
>
>But of couse even if Chris could provide a plausible, complete and testable
>Darwinian "evolutionary explanation" of the origin of the human wrist, that
>fitted all the known facts, he would have to face the fact that more than
>one theory can be supported from the same facts:
>
> "Scientists whose theories make seemingly improbable events very
> probable, and who then, when these events are observed,
> congratulate themselves on being right, are often dismayed to find
> that other theories predict the same events and have the advantage
> of actually being right. (Yet remember that it is possible for
> evidence to support a theory despite also giving support to a
> competing theory....)" (Leslie J., "Universes," Routledge: London,
> 1996, p.155)
>
>What Chris would need to show is that *only* an "evolutionary
>explanation" would fit all the facts.
>
>CC>but no
> >design explanations, unless you count "Well, that's just the way the
> >designers chose to do it;
>
>Not really. A good "design explanation" could be made of the human wrist
>conforming to the same basic vertebrate limb plan on the principle of
>variation on a theme:
>
> "Notice, this is exactly what we would expect as evidence of good
> creative design and engineering practice. Suppose you were in the
> bridge-building business, and you were interviewing a couple of
> engineers to determine whom you wanted to hire. One fellow says,
> "Each bridge I build will be entirely different from all others."
> Proudly he tells you "Each bridge will be made using different
> materials and different processes so that no one will ever be
> able to
> see any similarity between the bridges I build. " How does that
> sound? Now the next fellow comes in and says, "Well, out back in
> your yard I saw a supply of I-beams and various sizes of heavy
> bolts and cables. We can use those to span either a river or the San
> Francisco Bay. I can adapt the same parts and processes to meet a
> wide variety of needs. You'll be able to see a theme and a variation
> in my bridge building and others can see the stamp of authorship in
> our work." Which fellow would you hire?" (Parker G.E., "Creation:
> the Facts of Life", 1980, p.26)
>
>And what is Chris' "evolutionary explanation"? Is it "Well, that's just the
>way the" `blind watchmaker' "chose to do it"?
>
>CC>who are we to question why the designers did
> >things the way they did?"
>
>Chris is getting confused between `why' "explanations" and `that'
>"explanations".
>
>We don't need to know "why" even human designers designs things in
>order to know *that* they are designed:
>
> "Moreover, the specifics of design-purpose, plan, intent, function-
> may be unrecognized even when designedness is evident. The
> Smithsonian Institution has a collection of obviously designed
> human artifacts, concerning the purposes of which no one has a
> clue. In any case designedness and artifactuality, although they are
> closely linked, are not coextensive, and recognition of designedness
> s typically subordinate to, even dependent upon, recognition of
> rtifactuality." (Ratzsch D., in Dembski W.A., ed., "Mere Creation,"
> 998, p.294)
>
>If SETI receives a message from aliens SETI would not have to explain
>"why" the aliens sent the message to know that it is designed.
>
>In the case of the vertebrate eye having its photoreceptors `wired
>backwards' we can in fact provide a good "why" explanation. But in other
>cases it might be more difficult.
>
>CC>This last, of course, is not an explanation *at all*.
> >>It's the *evasion* of explanation.
>
>Who said it was an "explanation"? Unless Chris can provide details where a
>leading design theorist provided such an explanation it is just a straw man,
>set up to be knocked down.
>
>CC>It's the assertion that what we
> >*do* know (that other organisms have properly-built eyes, for example)
>
>See above. The invertebrate eye is "properly-built" built for a marine
>invertebrate existence where high-resolution, long distance vision is not
>necessary, by having the photoreceptors behind the retina.
>
>But the *vertebrate* eye is also "properly-built" built for a *land*
>vertebrate existence where high-resolution, long distance vision *is*
>necessary, by having the photoreceptors in front of the retina so the latter
>has accesss to a strong blood supply without *really* obscuring vision.
>
>CC>should be *set aside* in deference to the mindless "Well, that's just the
> >way they did it" excuse.
>
>See above. It turns out that it is the *anti-designist* objection which is
>the
>"mindless" one. I bet the anti-designists like Chris just just keep on
>believing it anyway, despite the new evidence that the vertebrate eye is very
>well designed.
>
>CC>It is a demand on the part of ID theorists that we
> >ignore the *facts* of biological reality
>
>In fact it is the "ID theorists" who are pointing out to anti-designists what
>*are* "the *facts* of biological reality" and it is the *anti-designists* who
>are doing the ignoring!
>
>CC>in favor of a belief in designers
> >whose minds are not known
>
>See above. It is not necessary that the "designers ...minds are... known". It
>is enough to know that there *is* evidence of design.
>
>But of course the *Christian* design theorists do not claim that the
>Designer's mind is not known, since they claim He has communicated a
>great deal of what is in His mind to man.
>
>CC>and who, judging from their work, are *idiots*
>
>So Chris believes that he (including his mind and reasoning) was designed
>by "idiots"?
>
>I extend him my sympathy. I believe that I (including my mind and
>reasoning) was designed by *very* Intelligent Designer"!
>
>Chris has the same self-referential problem that Darwin had. If his theory
>was true, there would be no reason to believe that his theory was true:
>
> "Charles Darwin himself once said, "The horrid doubt always arises
> whether the convictions of man's mind, which has developed from
> the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all
> trustworthy. Would anyone trust the conviction of a monkey's
> mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?" In other words,
> if my brain is no more than that of a superior monkey, I cannot even
> be sure that my own theory of my origin is to be trusted. Here is a
> curious case: If Darwin's naturalism is true, there is no way of
> even
> establishing its credibility let alone proving it. Confidence in
> logic is
> ruled out- Darwin's own theory of human origins must therefore be
> accepted by an act of faith. One must hold that a brain, a device
> that came to be through natural selection and chance-sponsored
> mutations, can actually know a proposition or set of propositions to
> be true." (Sire J.W., "The Universe Next Door," 1988, p94)
>
>CC>Naturalistic evolution gives us a means of *understanding* why these crazy
> >facts *are* facts, because it gives us a means of showing how they arose
> >out of the accidents of history.
>
>Not really. "Naturalistic evolution" just *assumes* up front that
>these "facts" are "accidents of history" and then proceeds to
>interpret the "facts" consistent with that original assumption.
>
>In any event, since Chris thinks his mind has been designed by "idiots" then
>he would not know that his "understanding" of the facts was reliable.
>
>After all, no one would trust the output of a computer that was produced
>by designers "who judging from their work, are *idiots*"
>
>CC>These and many other facts make *sense* naturalistically,
>
>See above. By Chris' own admission his "sense" has been produced by
>"idiots". So on that basis his perception of what "make *sense*
>naturalistically" is likely to be unreliable.
>
>But in any event, "the facts" of the vertebrate eye *don't* "make sense
>naturalistically". Naturalistic `blind watchmaker' evolution could not
>explain why what they regard as an inferior type eye arose in the first place
>and then persisted for 600 million years in a marine environnment in which,
>by their own admission it had a disadvantage, until it became advantageous
>about 400 million years ago when vertebrates came onto the land.
>
>But from my `far-sighted Intelligent Designer' perspective I can offer an
>explanation why 1 billion years ago the vertebrate and invertebrate eye
>diverged, when it had no immediate advantage, and then about 400 million
>years ago when vertebrates came onto the land the advantage of front
>photoreceptors became apparent.
>
>Now I would like to see Chris' explanation that "makes *sense*
>naturalistically", of why this grand-daddy of all pre-adaptations occurred 1
>billion years ago when by his own claim it is supposed to be a bad design?
>
>CC>but they *don't* make sense in *intelligent* design terms.
>
>How would Chris *know* that "they *don't* make sense in *intelligent*
>design terms" when he is obviously so highly prejudiced against ID that he
>could not understand it if he wanted to (which he doesn't)!
>
>But I have provided above explanations that "make sense in *intelligent*
>design terms". Now it is Chris' turn to show how they "make sense in"
>naturalistic evolution "terms", i.e. the "work" of "*idiots*".
>
>CC>That's why ID theorists do *not* have an ID *explanation* for these
> >facts.
>
>I wonder which "ID theorists" Chris asked? The eye explanations have
>been on the main "ID theorists" web site since mid-1996 and early 1999.
>
>CC>That's why they are forced to hem and haw and claim, totally without
> >evidence, that their designer must have reasons of which we do not know.
>
>See above. There is no requirement to know the designer's "reasons" to
>know that something has been designed. However in some cases the
>designers reasons can be inferred.
>
>CC>They are, in effect, using the *failure* of their theory to "justify" a
> >bizarre *extension* of it.
>
>The "theory" would only be a "failure" if it in fact was what Design
>theorists claimed. But AFAIK no Design theorist has ever claimed to know
>in detail the designer's "reasons".
>
>CC>Now the designers are intelligent, but *we* have
> >no means of understanding their intelligence.
>
>Chris is *really* getting confused. First, he claims he can judge from the
>designer(s) "work" that they "are *idiots*" which must mean he claims he
>can have *some* understanding" of "their intelligence"
>
>Second he confuses not knowing the the designer's "reasons" with not not
>having some "understanding" of "their intelligence".
>
>If SETI received a signal in a high-level mathematical code, as in the movie
>"Contact" we would know that the minimum level of "intelligence" of the
>sender was high, but we might not know much about their "reasons" for
>sending the message.
>
> >From my `far-sighted Intelligent Designer' perspective I could infer from
>the evidence of the vertebrate eye being prepare 600 million years in
>advance that the Designer's intelligence is very great indeed!
>
>CC>On what grounds then, can they be said to *be* intelligent?
>
>See above. Chris original premises are faulty and therefore so is his
>conclusion.
>
>CC>In short, ID theory demands that we are to subvert our ability to
> >understand physical reality and even to think logically in favor of a
> >nearly mindless acceptance of a belief in a gang of unknown idiots
>
>See above.
>
>CC>This epistemological subservience to blind faith is the real horror. "Junk
> >your knowledge of physics, chemistry, geology, and genetics!
>
>I sometimes wonder who Chris is *really* attacking. No Design theorist
>that I am aware of advocates `blind faith'. In fact the only advocates of
>`blind faith' that I know of are two Christian evolutionists Cliff Hamrick
>and Pim van Meurs (alias FMAJ1019).
>
>If Chris so dislikes "blind faith" why didn't he take it up with Cliff at the
>time and why doesn't he take it up with Pim/FJ now?
>
>I certainly do not regard my "faith" as "blind"!
>
>CC>Throw out your knowledge of the history of life on Earth!
>
>Another straw man. In fact it is "knowledge of the history of life on Earth"
>that is providing more evidence for Design and more problems for
>Naturalistic Evolution!
>
>CC>Ignore the many facts of life
> >that make sense in naturalistic terms but yield nothing but excuses and
> >emptiness in intelligent design terms.
>
>See above explanations "in intelligent design terms" about the vertebrate
>eye. I wonder what "excuses and emptiness" Chris will offer in reply?
>
>CC>Don't think, *believe!* Don't question the human wrist,
>
>I still am not clear what Chris thinks the problem with "the human wrist". It
>seems to me to have a remarkably versatile design.
>
>CC>take it on faith that the designers knew what
> >they were doing;
>
>There is nothing strange in that. We usually assume that "designers knew
>what they were doing" even if we don't always understand why they did it.
>
>CC>it doesn't work well, but who are *we* to question the
> >wisdom of the great and wonderful designers?" Etc., etc., etc.
>
>Chris's first task is to establish that "it *doesn't* work well".
>
>The human wrist and the vertebrate eye in fact do at least "work well".
>What does Chris want a corksrew for opening wine bottles for one and
>screw-in telescope attachments for the other?
>
>CC>(Sorry. Sometimes I get carried away by the endlessness of the evasions
>and
> >nonsense and anti-science coming from the ID camp.)
>
>I sometimes wonder who exactly Chris has these discussions with in the
>"ID camp". It sounds to me like he also has an `imaginary friend' who puts
>up nice and easy straw man ID answers so that Chris can feel good
>knocking them down!
>
>I have answered Chris' questions point-by-point, spread over four
>messages. Now let's see who is indulging in "evasions", "nonsense" and
>"anti-science"!
>
>Steve
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>Stephen E. (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ Email: sejones@iinet.net.au
>3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Web: http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
>Warwick 6024 -> *_,--\_/ Phone: +61 8 9448 7439
>Perth, Western Australia v "Test everything." (1 Thess. 5:21)
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Sep 25 2000 - 00:31:13 EDT