The Origin of Novelty

I'm not sure exactly what you want us to produce. You mentioned, for example, the eye, but plausible hypotheticals for the evolution of eyes from scratch have been proposed innumerable times, and obviously these aren't good enough for you. All that you need to begin with is a cell which does something in response to light exposure. Lots of chemical reactions happen in response to light, so it's not difficult to imagine this appearing, either by pure accident or as a side effect of a cell specialised to do something else. Where do you see the problem in the standard hypothetical accounts of the evolution of eyes?

If I understand you right here, you seem to be saying that there are chimpanzee sized craniums, and human sized craniums, and nothing in between. This is false.Chimpanzee cranial capacity varies from about 275-500 cc; while in modern humans it's between 1,000 and 1,900 cc.We have fossil hominids well in the chimpanzee range, and well in the human range, as well as right in betwee the two. Perhaps this is best illustrated if you have a look at this pdf, all about measuring cranial capacity in hominids, and head for page 14. At the top is a scatter chart of the cranial capactiy of different fossil hominids. Note that the range in volume between chimpanzee and modern humans/neanderthals is quite amply fill by fossils of Homo habilis, Homo georgicus, Homo rudolfensis and Homo erectusIf you go to the appendix, starting at Page 25, you can see several pages of data on specific skulls showing there is no 'gap' in cranial capacity in the fossil record.Edited by caffeine, : No reason given.