Creationists as Hyperevolutionists?

Probably a symbiotic relationship between two single-celled organisms. Picture the nucleus as a parasite that when existing within another single-celled organism created a relationship that increased the overall survival advantage for the both of them. I don't think there necessarily needs to be one, although it could have gone something link: single-cellular --> bi-cellular --> multi-cellular. We wouldn't necessarily expect to see a present-day eye evolving into another type of present-day eye. Instead, we would probably expect to see the formation of beneficial light sensitive organs of increasing specialization through time. I reckon light sensitivity was a major feature of the very first cellular organisms since even plants have developed their own specialization upon that ability. Yes, it is too bad, but with all due respect... so what?

You asked what it could have been, and I answered. If you were going to reject any and all answers provided, then it was a rather disingenuous request, don'tcha think?BTW - What is creationism if not another "just-so" story? So what? Sure there is So what? Basically the notion that my pen will fall to the ground when I drop it is just a "belief." The difference is that it is well-supported by observations of reality. I only asked you to make a point above and beyond a statement that is not in dispute. Did you have one? I notice you didn't offer it here either...

A Pessimistic Estimate Of The Time Required For An Eye To Evolve, D.-E. Nilsson and S. Pelger, Proceedings of the Royal Society London B, 1994, 256, pp. 53-58. Hogwash. Behe's IC arguments are plainly refuted by the evidence.