Intermediates

This is a common Creationist mistake. So common that it's really frustrating to have to answer it yet again.There is no such thing as "half an eye".There is a functional eye. Period. There are ALL SORTS of eyes in the animal kingdom. We don't have the best one, not by a long shot.There are worms which have "eye spots" which are nothing more than patches of skin which detect "light yes" or "light no". That's a HUGE advantage over worms that didn't have that.There are worms which have pitted eye spots. That tells them: "Light yes, in this direction". Again, a huge advantage over the ones who can only tell day from night.There are worms with multiple pitted spots. "Light this side, not that"There are organisms with membrane covered pitted spots to they don't get silt in them.There are organisms with deeply pitted spots, giving them a better sense of direction from the light.There are organisms with more sensitive spots which can distinguish movement of things between them and the light (basic sight).There are organisms which can see colors from the light.There are organisms who's membrane is curved, giving them focus.There are organisms who have a second membrane to control how much light comes in.At EACH and EVERY stage of development, the organism with that particular eye is FULLY FUNCTIONAL and has a HUGE advantage over other organisms without it. Well "monkeys" are lower primates. "apes" are higher primates.So, in a very real way, chimps, gorillas, orangs and bonobos _ARE_ "half man, half monkey".I think what you mean is, why is it that none of the ancestors of modern man have survived. (the creatures between the us and our common ancestor with the chimp).The answer is simple: People are mean.There were times in our history where there were multiple types of pre-human alive at the same time. Neanderthal and Cro-Mag co-existed for 10,000s of thousands of years. Flores was alive even longer than that (though isolated).The problem is that modern humans don't like to share. We show up, other species go bye-bye - especially other predators. What about a species like the giant ground sloth? You'll admit that it's extinct, right? You'll also admit that we have multiple species of sloth still alive today.Given your concept of life, how is that possible?Ditto for several dozen species of proto-elephant and the alternate branches (mammoth, mastadon, etc) That depends on what you do with the new trait.If you develop the ability to breath air in addition to the ability to breath water (many amphibians have both), you can access new areas where you can find food without competition and escape from predators.If you live in a pond full of predators and competition for food and you manage to get out and explore the forest where you have free reign, why would you ever go back to the pond if you didn't have to?If you aren't using a trait, it doesn't tend to stick around because it is using up resources which can be used elsewhere.Surely you are aware of cave fish, newts, crawdads, which have lost their sight because they live in complete darkness.They found a niche where they could survive. That niche didn't require sight. They evolved to use those resources elsewhere and therefore lost sight.

I LITERALLY just explained this to you.If you have nothing but an eyepatch that detects light and you have an offspring which has 1 slight mutation resulting in a dimple of the skin under the eyepatch - that offspring has a MORE complex eye which not only determines if there is light, but can determine WHERE it's coming from.That's just from one minor change in morphology.Each small change is a slightly better eye. That wasn't the conclusion drawn. The point was you were claiming that eyes which are less than human in complexity couldn't work because they aren't fully formed.They _ARE_ fully formed. They _ARE_ fully functional.As for drawing conclusions, morphology and more simple features is good evidence for evolution, but is not in and of itself the best or only source of evidence for evolution.In fact, in my opinion, ERVs are the best evidence for evolution. I'm pretty positive that had we completely skipped Darwin and not even heard of evolution prior to the discovery of ERVs, we'd have been able to puzzle it out strictly from their evidence. Is your great great grandfather alive?He didn't survive. Why do you believe you are his offspring?

Not a pretty butterfly
Butterfly Pictures #4A very pretty moth
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/49/146397616_d4d4b9d5c2_o.jpg You are mixing and matching.Symmetry is the hallmark of beauty.
Deformation is deviation from the norm.
Signs of fertility are secondary sexual characteristics. (big boobs). Let's say that humans are evolving into those tiny gray aliens everyone claims exist. (They aren't, evolution doesn't suggest this - but I need you to be able to visualize where we're gonna end up for this exercise).So, current humans are like you or me.
Humans 20 million years from now are like the grays - short, hairless, big eyes, tiny nose, tiny mouth.Here is an example of a human who is one step further in the evolution toward the grays than I am. She has a more "gray-like" skull. Bigger eyes. Small mouth and chin.That's a couple variations closer than my big square heard, normal sized eyes, big mount and jaw.Clearly, she's not a hideous monster with whom no human would dare mate.Edited by Nuggin, : No reason given.

"better" in this case means more complex and able to preform more functions.A snake doesn't "need" a better eye, but a snake WITH a "better" eye is "better" suited than his brother who has a typical snake eye. He's therefore more likely to survive and pass along his genes, thus increasing the percentage of snakes with "better" eyes until they all have the "better" eye. There is a range of eyesight in living snake species. Some see better than others. Can you list this "bigger package" for us because I've explained it to you twice and repeating myself a 3rd time clearly isn't going to make a difference.What mutations occur in the human eye which are located no where else in primates, or mammals for that matter. That's also wrong. I have a typical PC. It has a floppy drive, a DVD drive, a keyboard, a mouse, 4 blocks of ram, a monitor, a case, a power supply, two hard drives, a sound card, ethernet card and a graphics card.If I removed the floppy drive, the case, the DVD, one of the harddrives two of the RAM chips - the computer would still allow me to post to this website and do all my normal activities except that I could only install software from a download.If I removed my sound card and my graphics card, I would no longer be able to play the games I enjoy, but I could still come here and post.If I removed the mouse. I could still come here and post, it would just be a much slower process.If I removed the ethernet card, I could still write all these messages in a text program. I just couldn't post them.If I removed the monitor, I could STILL write the messages, however I would likely make A LOT of mistakes while doing it.If I removed the remaining hard drive, I wouldn't be able to use the computer as I normally use it. However, it would still function as a heat generator, as a fan, as a "beep" maker.If I removed the power supply, it would stop functioning as a machine. However, it would still be a fully functional tool for other uses (paperweight, etc).Just because something doesn't work EXACTLY AS IT DOWN RIGHT NOW, doesn't mean that it has NO function whatsoever.

The human eye is "better" because it can focus binocularly, see in color, see further and with greater detail and it has eyelids.You keep saying "snakes don't need better eyes" indicating that you are missing out on some important core concepts about this topic.Say you have a population of rattlesnakes in a valley in New Mexico. One of those snakes has slightly better eyesight than the others. Is he MORE or LESS likely to catch food/avoid predators?More.Therefore is he MORE or LESS likely to survive long enough to reproduce.More.Therefore are his offspring MORE or LESS likely to make up a larger part of the population in the next generation?More.The snake doesn't "need" a better eye, but the snake with the "better" eye is going to out compete his neighbor and pass that trait on. You are assuming here that humans evolved a body and THEN gained eyes. What leads you to believe this? Do you think that chimps don't have eyes? Again, you are completely failing to understand the term "function".You are assuming that an eye which doesn't function as well as yours is useless.I've already explained this part to you twice, so I'm going to explain it a different way.If you and I are part of a secret government experiment and I am given the eyes of an eagle, I can see MUCH better than you can.Your eyes are now not as functional as mine. Compared to mine they are worthless. You can't even see things a mile away, let alone read letters off a page at that distance.Does that mean your eyes are now useless because mine are better than yours?You are assuming that anything less than human vision is blindness. I'm taking that to the next level. Anything less than eagle vision is blindness.Can you see the error in this argument?

Andrew,I present you with a post with a very nice picture demonstrating a girl who is a "freak" because he features put her a few steps ahead on the evolutionary chain.I can't help but notice you ignored the post.Do that mean you concede the point? If so, say so.