Evolution Logic

You could say it. Want to open a thread on a comparison of the two?We can take turns picking an item from one then the other. Offer evidence to support what we say. Saying is cheap. Backing it up is where the meat lies.

This is not relevant to the comparison of eyes. If I recall correctly it is clear that the octocpus and human eye evolved separately. Eyes have evolved lots (don't remember the number --more than 10?) time.The nature of the differences helps point that out. In addition the last common ancestors of octopi and mammals is so far back it is (I think) before eyes evolved. It would be in the Cambrian I believe.

We've seen how information can be measured and assigned a quantitative value. Can you tell us how one does this with "complexity" and "specificity"? I've never seen them defined well enough to be able to assign a number to. Without a number I can't tell if a mammal or a reptile or an amoeba has "more" or "less" of this stuff.The important thing to note is that one needs to be able to arrive at a number before you can talk in terms of more or less.

Loosly translated as:I was fooled when I read about it because it sounded so scientific.orI have not clue what it means.Given what I understand complexity to mean it is probably that both a mammal and a reptile are more complex than an amoeba (but I can't prove it since I don't know what complexity is). I am pretty darn sure that a reptile and a mammal are about the same in complexity and it would be very difficult indeed to figure out if there is an difference.Guessing what "specificity" is (and making up a bit of definition of my own)I would say that in that sense they all have very close to zero specificity. So close as to be safely approximated by zero. If you think it is significantly greater than zero you will have to show that.Rob, you've been had. You've read this stuff somewhere and thought it was really hot stuff. It is just random words made up to sound good. When questioned on it you've gone off into words without any more meaning that the ones that were used to fool you. Try again. I'm not fooled.