Evolution is based on ideas of turning bugs into buffalos.
Let me put you straight there, friend. Arthropods are not predicted to become mammals. Who ever told you that is lieing to you.
Once something works (e.g. a type of eye) it get conserved because it works. But there is a balance. Once something works it does not really need to change much untill there is a selective pressure.
So, once the mamalian eye evolved to a point that allowed the creature to survive to reproduce it did not need to diversify radically from that point. Variations will show up but not what you seem to be expecting.
ToE does not state that it should, you are saying it should (based on your flawed understanding of ToE).
Unlikely.
This is where you go wrong. Evoultionary changes occure when there is a selective pressure. Why do you think the shape of both fish and dolphins is so similar, that shape works.
Once evoultion hits on something that works it only changes if it is forced to by a selection pressure.
Crocodillians have a very successful shape that has not changed in millions of years. Cats on the other hand can be thought of as rappidly evolving.
Once an organism finds a 'sweet spot' or niche that does not change, it does not evolve very rappidly untill that niche changes.
Seeing light is a very effective means of improving fitness to the environment. Once the organisms version of a light detecting organ does it's job well enough it won't go much further: unless it is compelled to be environmental change.
if evolution was and had been at work since it first created the eye then a prediction should be that diversity defines the eyes.
I'm waiting for more evidence than you saying 'unlikely'.
We have our rodent=about=the-feet of dinos eyes.
Or dino eyes even.
NAW.
Again this is just you saying 'I don't believe it' with no rationale for your conclusion.
You have this idea of what ToE is (and the good people on this site have corrected you dozens of times, one imagines) and then you say that your idea of evolution won't work.
This is a 'strawman argument'.
If I was to say you god sends people to hell because he gets a kick out of it and therefor your good is evil, what would you say?
That's what you are doing to ToE: mischaracterising it (either on purpose or unwitingly) and drawing conclusions based on that mischaracterisation.
Can you see where I'm comming from?
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.
Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.
™ Version 4.2
