Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site utastro.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!godot!harvard!seismo!ut-sally!utastro!bill From: bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) Newsgroups: net.origins Subject: Re: Integrated Circuits. Part II. Message-ID: <945@utastro.UUCP> Date: Thu, 20-Dec-84 17:21:30 EST Article-I.D.: utastro.945 Posted: Thu Dec 20 17:21:30 1984 Date-Received: Sat, 22-Dec-84 02:14:50 EST Distribution: net Organization: UTexas Astronomy Dept., Austin, Texas Lines: 117 >> From this, Paul derived what he thought was my position, to wit: > >>>(b) if humans are the pinnacle of creation, there should be no >>> sensory function which a human performs more poorly than any >>> other created organism. (last sentence of second excerpt) > >> This is not the same as the position I stated in my article, nor do I >> agree with it. For the record, let me stipulate that I recognize that >> a creator would take into account the needs of different organisms and >> design eyes which were appropriate to the ecological niche occupied by >> each organism. I am quite aware of the need for engineers to make design >> trade-offs. That is not an issue. Therefore, most of Paul's article >> (which counters point [b] above) is not relevant to my article. >The obvious implication from the statement that the octopus has the >right design while that of humans is second rate is that humans (if >they are the pinnacle of creation) ought to have a retinal design at >least as good as that of the octopus. The extension to any sensory >system is equally obvious; restriction of such a claim to the design >of the retina is data-sifting. Hence, I claim that (b) is in fact >Bill's position whether acknowledged or not, unless the original >remark is withdrawn. I find it particularly annoying to state my position and then be told that it is not my position. I would think that Paul would at least have the courtesy to accept my word as to what I mean. However, mindful of the imperfections of analogies, let me use one to illustrate what I meant. Suppose I bought a BMW; it is a very fine car, and for upwards of $20,000 I would expect to have one of the finest cars on the market, as indeed I would. But I would not expect that it would be superior to every other car in the market with regards to every conceivable attribute. For example, I would not expect its trunk space or passenger capacity to equal that of a Lincoln Continental, nor would I expect that a Lincoln would have the handling characteristics that I expect from a BMW. On the other hand, for this amount of money, I would expect the car to show advanced design in all of its systems and subsystems. In the same way, I would expect that each human system would show equal attention to its design, if (as creationists claim) that design is due to an intelligent Creator. >I claimed, and demonstrated, that the apparent superiority of the >cephalopod retina is illusory since no functional deficit results >from possession of a blind spot. Also, as I pointed out, all other >things are *not* equal. It may be objected (because Bill >specifically stated his discussion to be limited to the design of >the retina only) that I say this in an attempt to broaden the domain >of consideration by an unreasonable degree. But I showed that this >*must* be done. A retina is useless in isolation; indeed, to even >begin to investigate Bill's claim one needs to consider other >factors such as stereopsis and mobility of the organism. I would go >so far as to state that the (erroneous) conclusion that the blind >spot is a design fault results *precisely* from a failure to >consider the other factors. > >I'm aware that I appear to be arguing a ridiculous thing, i.e., that >a defect is not a defect. But that's exactly the point: you can't >tell whether a thing is a defect unless you examine whether it *is* >or *not*. To return to the BMW analogy, suppose that when I got the car home I found out that its radio used vacuum tubes instead of transistors. When I return to the dealer to complain, he tells me that "the apparent superiority of transistorized radios is illusory" since vacuum tube radios are functionally equivalent to them, and the reception of the two types is equally good. Suppose I pointed out the danger of the radio draining the battery if I inadvertently left it on in the parking lot. The dealer might respond that I have to consider the whole system. The engineers solved that problem by adding an interlock to the system so that the radio goes off when the ignition key is removed. The "total system" works just as well, and by Paul's argument I should not complain that my BMW came with obsolete technology. I should not consider my radio to be inferior to the transistorized one in my neighbor's Honda Civic. I would reply that it is self-evident that the technology is obsolete and inferior, and that I want my money back. In the same way, we see that two different retinal structures have been used in Nature in otherwise very similar eyes. One is clearly inferior to the other. Paul argues that we have to consider the whole system, and that when we do, the two are equally good. I claim that this argument is very unconvincing. >> First, it may be claimed that God knows best, and we are not to question >> His decisions. I reject this. I hope that I am not misreading Paul's >> article, but it seems that he accepts this as a legitimate position. >> It is obvious to me that an argument of this kind has no place in >> science. > >It's a misreading. I'm sorry. My phrasing was poor. I meant to say something like the following: "First, it may be claimed that God knows best, and we are not to question His decisions. I reject this. I hope that I am not misreading Paul's article, but it seems that he accepts *my position on* this as legitimate." Is this a correct understanding of your views? >> I would say that these points argue for *evolution*, not creation. >> Paul has shown how "kludging around" with other aspects of the >> human visual system are able to compensate for the design flaw, >> which is precisely the point I made more generally. >This conclusion is valid given the prior assumption of a design >flaw. Which is precisely the question! "Kludging" must be assumed. I argue that nothing need be assumed, the "kludge" is obvious. -- "When evolution is outlawed, only outlaws will evolve" Bill Jefferys 8-% Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712 (USnail) {allegra,ihnp4}!{ut-sally,noao}!utastro!bill (uucp) bill%utastro.UTEXAS@ut-sally.ARPA (ARPANET)