John Paul refutes Nilsson & Pelger?

http://www.arn.org/docs2/news/vexingeye021302.htm

Needless to say I am tired of doing the work for you. If evolutionists were half as critical of the ToE as they were Creationists they would see the theory really wasn't (a theory).

This thread was started because of my response to this:John Paul writes:
If you want to impress try something from a peer-reviewed journal.

​

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.

​

me:
Lindsay and Dawkins have been refuted by Behe.

​

Hogwash. Behe's IC arguments are plainly refuted by the evidence. Berlinski's article shows they did nothing to show that a vision sytem could arise, just possibly an eyeball. What is being missed here is the fact that even before an eyeball (which contains more than one cell), can only evolve AFTER the alleged single-celled organism with a light sensitive spot evolved in to a true metazoan (not the colony which biologists understand isn't indictative of true multi-cellularity- at best a colony would have many light sensitive spots and how would we get a vision system from there?)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.As for irrelevant- that is exactly what the Nillson & Pilger paper was and still is. It has absolutely no relevance to reality. Only the blind-faith followers of the ToE would hold such diatribe in high regard.[This message has been edited by John Paul, 12-19-2003]

Rei:
** Do you deny that random mutations can change structural morphometry?** (if not, visit the pigeons and dogs thread )John Paul:
I visited that thread and saw nothing about RANDOM mutations doing anything. How do we know those mutations were random and not the product of the design reacting to environmental (or other) pressures?Advantageous mutations- what is advantageous in one environment is not necessarilly advantageous in another. IOW there is no way to predict what will be selected at any point in time. Also there has NEVER been any observed data that shows "random" mutations can/ will accumulate in the way necessary to get one body part to continually increase in complexity. Then we still have the iussue of multi-cellularity.That said if the information for a vision system was designed into the population, anything is possible. However that is not what we are teaching in the classroom.

Don Lindsay tells me that the eye could evolve in a "handful" of mutations. However he couldn't tell me where those mutations occured or what those mutations were. IOW, he, like all the alleged rebuttals, are nothing but "just-so" stories.I have read most of the peer-reviewed literature on this topic (Behe's IC) and the evidence isn't there. No one knows how the mammalian vision system evolved. No one knows how blood-clotting evolved, or the cilia or any flagella- to name a few structures. Explanations are not to be confused with real evidence. If explanations counted for anything I would have gotten a 4.0 at every level of my education. Just because we see various levels of vision systems does not mena they evolved from one another.I may not be able to respond right away...