Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Tuesday, September 29, 2009

What good is half and eye/ vision system?

-

What good is half an eye/ vision system?

If you understand how things work then it is obvious that it isn't any good at all.

Well perhaps as good as half a bridge.

Ya see half a bridge isn't any good for people needing to get to the other side.

It is useless as a bridge- well because it isn't a bridge yet.

That brings us back to the eye/ vision system.

If it takes a complete eye/ vision system for functionality then less than that isn't of any help.

And yes one can have a complete vision system that is faulty and that may be better than no vision system at all.

But that isn't the point.

The point is until you get that complete system you have nuthin' but parts. Parts that do not function as a vision system.

The strawman enters at this junction- 50% of vision is better than 49%.

Perhaps, but that isn't the issue.

Enter another strawman- we see organisms with a simpler vision system than we have.

True, but each of those simpler systems is complete in its own right.

The point being is that in order to respond to evolutionary issues evolutionists are forced to erect strawman after strawman. Then they tear those down and act all proud of themselves.

Strange...

35 Comments:

  • At 7:49 AM, Blogger KristalMeff said…

    Are you really this stupid or are you deliberately trying to mislead naive people?

     
  • At 7:56 AM, Blogger KristalMeff said…

    I wonder why there are no comments attached to this piece of drivel.

    Have you ever heard of a psychological defence mechanism called projection. It's where people who can't come to terms with their own inadaquacies that they project them on to other people. Their are no strawmen in the rebuttal to your argument, you obviously have no idea what a strawman is. A strawman is a simlified and easily refuted version of your adversary's argument, what you have on your hands is the destruction of your "what's the good of half an eye" bollocks.
    Give it up.

     
  • At 8:28 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    KristalMeff,

    I am smarter than you.

    And it is the evolutionitwits who are misleading people.

     
  • At 8:30 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    A strawman is a misrepresentation of the argument.

    Evolutionitwits misrepresent the argument about half an eye/ vision system.

    Therefor they erect strawman after strawman and then set out to refute those misrepresentations.

    But anyway do you have anything to say or is ignorance all you can spew?

     
  • At 8:34 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    “Evidence”(?) for the evolution of the vision system


    Andrea Bottaro said the following over at the panda’s thumb:

    Eyes are formed via long and complex developmental genetic networks/cascades, which we are only beginning to understand, and of which Pax6/eyeless (the gene in question, in mammals and Drosophila, respectively) merely constitutes one of the initial elements.

    IOW the only evidence for the evolution of the vision system is that we have observed varying degrees of complexity in living organisms, from simple light sensitive spots on unicellular organisms to the vision system of more complex metazoans, and we “know” that the first population(s) of living organisms didn’t have either. Therefore the vision system “evolved”.

    Isn’t evolutionary “science” great!

    I say the above because if Dr Bottaro is correct then we really have no idea whether or not the vision system could have evolved from a population or populations that did not have one.

     
  • At 4:17 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    KristalMeff- a "fun fact" for you-

    What do meth and a vick's inhaler have in common?

    They are mirror images (of each other).

    The only reason you get different results is the fit at the docking sites.

    Meth has a "better" fit an induces one reaction whereas vick's is like putting your left hand into a right-hand glove- it's not a great fit- and that "lousy fit" induces another.

     
  • At 7:45 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    "I am smarter than you."

    How do you know?

     
  • At 7:06 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    KritalMeff's comments are more than enough evidence to support my claim.

    That is how I know.

     
  • At 9:24 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Well......

     
  • At 9:25 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    ...as long as you have that much evidence.

     
  • At 10:47 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I understand the point you are trying to make, however, YOU are a clown.

    And anytime KristalMeff wants to actually ante up I am more than willing to go.

    So I have the fact that KM is an obvious troll, much like yourself, PLUS the fact I am willing to substantiate my claim.

    And all you have is being a clown.

    Wow- I am all shivery and shit...

     
  • At 1:52 PM, Blogger Doublee said…

    As a layman who is very much interested in the theory of evolution, I have a few questions.

    Before we try to explain the evolution of the eye, should we not try to explain the evolution of the "eye spot"?

    The same question comes to mind:

    What good is an eye spot?

    Can an eye spot in isolation be selected for its survival value?

    Or must the evolution of the eye spot be considered along with a signal transduction system that affects the mobility (or some other factor) of the organism in some way?

    How many genetic changes must occur to effect the evolution of an eye spot and a signal transduction system?

    What is the probability of all these genetic changes occuring at once?

    If the probability is prohibitive, what is the step-by-step evolutionary sequence that provides an organism with an eye spot, if such a sequence can ever be deemed plausible? Is enough time available for all the genetic changes required?

    Is the eye spot and its associated signal transduction system an irreducibly complex system?

    If we cannot explain one of the "simplest" evolutionary transitions, how can we be sure that any evolutionary transition is possible, especially the evolution of the mammalian vision system?

     
  • At 6:37 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Really? Substantiate your claim. That you're smarter than Kristal? How?

     
  • At 7:24 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    How do people usually go about showing that they are smater than someone else?

     
  • At 11:40 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    You tell us, Joe. Except you won't. You won't even substantiate a claim you just said you would. Amazing.

     
  • At 9:17 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So you are saying that you are also ignorant on how people tell how smart they are.

    And you think your ignorance is my problem.

    Amazing.

     
  • At 3:17 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Hey. You're the one who said you would substantiate. I asked how. As there are several ways you might attempt this, I was wondering which way you planned on trying.

     
  • At 3:50 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So why is that you feel you have to stick your nose in everyone else's business?

    Is it because you don't have a life?

     
  • At 5:09 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    You posted a claim on the interwebs, Joe. If you didn't want to discuss it, perhaps you should have kept your opinions about your and others intelligence to yourself.

    So, what method to you plan on using to prove that you are more intelligent than Kristal?

     
  • At 5:19 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    You posted a claim on the interwebs, Joe.

    Interwebs?

    If you didn't want to discuss it, perhaps you should have kept your opinions about your and others intelligence to yourself.

    Fuck you.

    However I think it is cute that you think you can tell me what I can and can't do.

    BTW asshole KristalMeff made unsubstantiated claims.

    So the question is why are you so infaturated with me?

     
  • At 5:28 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    I don't think I can tell you what to do, Joe. I just ask questions (which you, on the whole, avoid).

    You claimed that you would substantiate the claim that you are smarter than Kristal. I asked you to do what you claimed. You have yet to do what you said you would.

    Kristal's comment history on this thread:

    1. Asked you a question.
    2. Asked a rhetorical question, followed by a question posed to you. Opined that your were projecting. Gave reasons why.

    To be fair, I would ask Kristal to provide a link to rebut your OP. However, you would not address any of the issues in any such link so I don't know what the point would be.

     
  • At 5:28 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Oh, and what method do you plan on using to prove that you are more intelligent than Kristal? There are several available...

     
  • At 6:12 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Erik,

    You avoid answering my questions at all costs.

    Also Kristal couldn't produce any valid references to refute what I said.

    If it could it would have.

    Ya see that is how smart people do things.

    Ignorant assholes, like you and Kristal, just throw out whatever bullshit you can make up.

     
  • At 6:28 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Which method of proving you're more intelligent than Kristal was that one? I'm not familiar with the proof by misdirection (one of your ID courses, I'm sure).

     
  • At 6:34 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I'm not familiar with the proof by misdirection

    That is all evolutionitwits like you, Zachriel, Kellogg and the rest are capable of.

    You are all about misdirection.

    You are about as dishonest a person I have ever been engaged with.

    Because of you and your ilk the collective IQ of mankind is down a few points.

    And the sad part is you are proud of that.

     
  • At 6:52 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    I take it you can't prove that you're smarter than Kristal.

     
  • At 7:41 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I take it that you are an ignorant asshole.

     
  • At 11:18 AM, Blogger Doublee said…

    The invisible poster strikes again!

    Would you guys quit sniping at each other and enter into some serious discussion?

    For example, you could discuss the question, "What good is an eye spot?"

     
  • At 7:00 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Doublee,

    An eye spot isn't much good if the organism doesn't have any way of knowing what the incoming signals mean.

     
  • At 12:36 PM, Blogger Doublee said…

    Joe G,

    That's exactly the point of my questions. Until science can explain the evolution of the eye spot, explaining the evolution of the vision system (system, not eye) is a meaningless and futile exercise.

    Are the scientists who posit the series of eyes of increasing compexity really convinced by these arguments? Or are they knowingly just trying to put one over on the naive?

    We might forgive Darwin for this line of argument, but to accept this kind of argument from contemporary scientists is unforgiveable.

     
  • At 3:11 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Well if we listen to Ernst Mayr "we can be comforted by the fact that evolution occurred."

    IOW today's scientists are comforted by the fact that the eye/ vision systems evolved and all they have to do the clean-up work.

    Meaning there isn't any need to show how or even if it could. Of course it could, it did.

     
  • At 8:39 PM, Blogger TFT said…

    Here is something you should read:

    "Dear Carl,

    Thanks for asking for my reaction to Behe’s post on our recent paper in Nature. His interpretation of our work is incorrect. He confuses “contingent” or “unlikely” with “impossible.” He ignores the key role of genetic drift in evolution. And he erroneously concludes that because the probability is low that some specific biological form will evolve, it must be impossible for ANY form to evolve.

    Behe contends that our findings support his argument that adaptations requiring more than one mutation cannot evolve by Darwinian processes. The many errors in Behe’s Edge of Evolution — the book in which he makes this argument — have been discussed in numerous publications.

    In his posts about our paper, Behe’s first error is to ignore the fact that adaptive combinations of mutations can and do evolve by pathways involving neutral intermediates. Behe says that if it takes more than one mutation to produce even a crude version of the new protein function, then selection cannot drive acquisition of the adaptive combination."

    Go read it, Joe.

     
  • At 9:49 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    TFT.

    Carl Zimmer sez:

    "Because Behe thinks that the new research shows that evolution cannot produce anything more than tiny changes."

    Except the debate is NOT about evolution!

    Behe NEVER says that evolution can't do this or evolution can't do that.

    But anyways Thorton never supports his claims about Behe- that Behe ignores genetic drift.

    IOW it appears that Thorton is just playin' to the crowd.

    And Zimmer is stupid enough to buy it.

    Perhaps Thorton should write directly to Behe.

     
  • At 11:57 PM, Blogger thejarjam said…

    Behe responded to Zimmer and Thornton nearly a month ago. As expected, he played the role of teacher with Zimmer and Thornton being the undereducated students. Behe's intellect is clearly three or four levels above their own.

    Response to Carl Zimmer and Joseph Thornton, Part 1

    Response to Carl Zimmer and Joseph Thornton, Part 2

    Response to Carl Zimmer and Joseph Thornton, Part 3

    Response to Carl Zimmer and Joseph Thornton, Part 4

     
  • At 7:12 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Neither Throton nor Zimmer- especially Zimmer- seem to understand the debate.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home