John Paul refutes Nilsson & Pelger?

Needless to say, John Paul did a hit and run here.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

I've seen this before (and debated it before); it's nonsense. Please, if it's an actual refutation, summarize the main points; I'll do my attempt at summary, correct me if I'm wrong.1) It's not actually a genetic algorithm; they just measured the efficiency of changes in small increments.Response: So? There was no barrier; each increment produced a better eye, so gradualism is guaranteed to succeed. Who cares if it was done as a genetic algorithm?2) Nilsson and Pelger only developed an eyeball, not a complete eye (things like rods and cones were not developed by in their paper)Response: So? The existence of light sensitive cells was given as a prerequisite of their simulation. As I already discussed with you, John Paul, it's quite simple for a cell to become light sensitive.In short, my response is:So?Please explain what the relevance of his criticisms are.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Oooh, you have a copy of Woodmorappe?I should try and track down a copy - I'd scan it in so it could be referenced easily At least to scan a fair-use amount of its content.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

quote:

---

NO ONE has been able to show that mutations culled by NS could create a vision system. Nillson & Pilger did NOT use real genes or even computer generated copies of the genes involved. Behe shows how difficult it is and NO ONE has refuted or even rebutted him. Please by all means show that statement to be incorrect.

---

Key issue:** Do you deny that random mutations can change structural morphometry?** (if not, visit the pigeons and dogs thread )If you do, then you accept that Nilsson and Pelger is correct given their starting assumptions. Because, given their starting assumptions (1. A primitive light-sensing spot, 2. Advantageous mutations fixate into a population; you can contest these all you want later, but they're the premises), and allowing for minor structural morphometry changes at a tiny rate, an eye develops quite easily through gradualism.Again: Do you accept the text within **'s? If so, you accept Nilsson and Pelger, given their assumptions.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Ah, so now you're acknowledging that mutations can change structural morphometry (the only requirement, given the premises), but you're saying that they're not random. Ok. First off, I would like to ask why God felt the need to shove pigeon heads into their bodies, deform their chests, give them fuzzy feet or peacock-style tails, etc, if these things aren't random. Again, remeber: if there is *any* random mutation allowed, the eye will evolve, so *none* of these things can be based on random mutation.Next, allow me to point out a relatively simple experiment: take a stock of E. coli that have a gene involved in the metabolism of lactose removed - for example, galactosidase. Put them in a lactose-only environment. What do we find? Sure enough, they evolve the ability to digest lactose. What do they evolve it from? Well, that depends. You can run the test a thousand times, and you won't get the same ebg (evolved beta galactosidase) to develop every time. Not only does a new galactosidase need to evolve, but also a new control region and genetic switch - and the pathway that it will occur varies. Thus, it is not directed, but is random within the constraints of the system (note that if you're saying that the "system" could not have evolved, your dispute is with abiogenesis, not evolution).------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."