Fred Williams responds to me:
quote:
I don't think MonarchzMan was looking for "just-so" stories to explain away the problem.
Since we can find living animals with eyes identical to every step in the process, from photo-sensitive spot to spot in a depression to pinhole cameras to fluid filled and all the way up to the more advanced eyes, it isn't a "just so" story. Didn't you read the link I provided you? It said so right up front. It's the third sentence on the page:
Examples of organisms that still use the intermediary forms of vision are also shown.
Why didn't you read what you were provided?
quote:
quote:
"according to one scientist's calculations, only 364,000 years would have been needed for a camera-like eye to evolve from a light-sensitive patch."
Where is the proper citation for this "evidence"?
Do some research and find out. I am not here to do your homework for you. I made that clear in my original post: Do some research. I provided you a link to get you started. The field of the evolution of vision is long and varied and cannot be delineated in a 50-word missive.
Get thee to a library!
quote:
Is the author afraid someone might actually look at the math and find it to be compeltely bogus?
Not at all.
The author is writing an abstract to a popular audience. Those who wish to find out more information will do something like, oh, I don't know, actually watch the program that the abstract is describing or perhaps go to a library and look it up.
The link I provided is a brief description of a segment in the PBS series,
Evolution, and in particular, the episode titled "Darwin's Dangerous Idea." It's on videotape and DVD. If you go to your public library, they should be able to acquire a copy for you.
quote:
Is this what you guys call "science"?
Yes and no. We call it "science for the popular press." The link provided is not the entire case. It's an abstract. You do know what abstracts are, yes? Did you bother to look at the header of the section where you got your quote? Here it is, since you seem to have missed it the first time:
Backgrounder
Now, what do you think that might mean? Is it an indication that the text that follows is the entire amount of information contained or might it indicate that there is a lot more information in the full work which you need only to look at in order to find?
If you want the journal articles, then point your browser to
PubMed and look it up.
Must we do all the work for you?
quote:
To make matters worse, evolutionists were forced to admit that the eye must have evolved down 40 seperate, independent paths becuase of the "convergence" problem where similarities could not be explained via common decent!
What makes you think this is a problem?
Why can't the same thing evolve more than once? The reason why vision evolved more than a dozen times is not because evolutionary theory was "forced" to do so in order to maintain the theory. Instead, it was forced to do so because that's what the data said.
Vision
evolved and it
evolved more than once.
------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!