Evolution of the Eye

No. Figuring out what they aretrying to show is left as an exercise for the student. Under some circumstances, yes. Care to name those circumstances? Nope. I notice you ignored my point about assumptions. Care to name the assumptions which are requred for 1 per 300 to be the best-case number? Then step S+1 will not occur until after step S. You are totally failing to understand. They do not assume that the steps can happen in any order. That is your myth.

Fred I am glad I have a chance to ask you a question.What is the creationist model that explains the details of how biology works at the level of dna? I do hope you won't simply fall off the radar to pop up at a later date.I have never heard the theory of creation and all the models of chemistry and physics that support this theory and I think it would be high time to see it in print and also see if you can explain things like energy and time and just how they apply to creation theory.
Please please please?P.s. In order to keep it on topic could you explain to me the creation model explanation for fish that live in deep sea caves that possess eyes but are blind?[This message has been edited by sidelined, 09-26-2003]

I may be way in over my head here but something occured to me about one of Fred's posts. It has been pointed out on several occasions that the mammalian eye is far from perfect. In fact some of the features could be considered "deleterious". For instance the rods and cones facing in the opposite direction of incident light leading to nerve fibers passing in front of incident light leading to a large blind spot.So, one doesn't have to assume a 100% beneficial mutation rate. A higher deleterious mutation rate serves to decrease the efficiency and may not reduce the functionality.

And the thing is, the paper doesn't say that, it says quite the opposite. This has been pointed out to Fred several times (in fact, every claim he made against the paper has been torn apart), and he has yet to respond.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Well Fred I am afraid that I have to point out to you that insisting that you would have done it another way does not render a different approach WRONG.Instead of insisting that they Nilson and Pelger are wrong because they didn't do it YOUR way, how about explaining what is wrong with the approach they actually used.

I don't think he is capable of doing that ... because he thinks that he is doing that. His assumption that his way is the only way is too deeply ingrained, and he isn't very good at questioning himself.

OH FREEEDDD, FREEEDDDD. Come out to PLAYY-AYY!?

I'm still waiting for him to explain why he thinks that the RNA editing convergence is a problem for reconstructing phylogenies when the text he's quoting says that "Particular RNA editing systems display a narrow phylogenetic distribution..." and to show his evidence that Avida relies on what he calls truncation selection. I've been waiting over two weeks for the first of these.

This topic seems to be taking a turn towards the bad, especially message 52 (which I'm tempted to blank out). People, let's be nice.AM------------------
Comments on moderation procedures? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
too fast closure of threads

I meant no disrespect or malcontent I simply have placed similar questions throughout numerous posts and the protaganists simply drop further discussion.It is no show of respect to drop discussion when honest questions are ignored.I do apologize nonetheless.P.S. Did you see the movie that paraphrased line in post 52 came from?