Eye Evolution: Comments about the Great Debate

I think the 20 post cut off is too articifical. If the debators still have something to add there should be room to do so.

Is there any intent that there be a time limit for a response? I think that if there is one it should be rather long to allow for a higher quality of debate. Days at least.

If we collectivly decide on no side comments I will certainly abide by it.

I disagree with you a bit MrH.Joralex did makes some points. He didn't do it very well, he did it a bit 'thinly' and he did it over and over but there is a point.For example:
Anybody still puzzling over this rhetorical question?

quote:

---

For instance, I hand a blue crab a fully-formed human eyeball - is it of any use to the blue crab?

---

I think the point he is making (poorly) is that it takes more than the eye. It takes the complete chain of structures.I have to agree with you that a lot of what he posted was a waste of time. And the rocks "seeing" bit is another poor attempt to make his point.I do think however, that he has a point.There does need to be enough structure to connect the capture of photons to some useful action.I think he missed the point that Zhimbo is making though. He has missed that almost all of the structure can be there first and separately from the "seeing" part. But that is partly Zhimbo's fault (at this point). He hasn't made that clear enough yet. But then I guess he didn't think Joralex would miss it so badly.We'll see what is next.