the schizochroal eye (of trilobites): evidence of design

From Message 11

quote:

---

For an educated person to claim loss of eyes due to natural selection is "evolution in action" is laughable, but typical of many evos insistence on using false logic to make their claims. Since they resort to such clear overstatements and sophistry, I really question the intellecual honesty and strength of their argument.

---

From Message 14

quote:

---

An eye becoming vestigal is evidence of microevolution/variation, but not macroevolution. That's the issue. The constant claim that microevolution is evolution in action is deceptive because on that basis, one could say having a baby is evolution in action, or that Indians dying from small pox is evolution in action.

---

In the first quote it is denied that it is evolution at all, with all sorts of nastiness. In the second it is admitted that the claim is true but fallacious arguments are introduced to back up more false accusations.Firstly a demonstration of microevolution occurring clearly is evolution in action. Thus the original accusations are completely baseless and false.Secondly the loss of eyes is a significant enough morphological change that it cannot simply be dismissed as "microevolution". Argument is needed to support such an assertion.Thirdly simply having a baby is not an example of microevolutionary change and thus we have a definite example of faulty logic - but from the objections to the site not the site itself.It is clear who is producing propaganda here..

You admitted that the loss of eyes was evolution by calling it microevolution. If you wish to claim that the webpage meant something ewlse it is up to you to demonstrate it and show that what it meant was actually wrong. If you cannot do that then you are the one switching definitions - and doing so in a most dishonest way.Secondly your assertion that you could call it creationism in action is absurd. What that would actually mean is that you had evidence that the species in question were individually created. I really don't know why you refuse to admit that evolution accepted by creationists is STILL EVOLUTION.I note that you offer no reason why the loss of eayes should be accepted as microevolution as the term is used within biology. If you wish to simply use "microevolution" to indicate evolution accepted by some ID supporters and Creationists then you need to make that clear - otherwise you are playing games with definitions as you accuse others of doing.Having a baby is not in itself a good example of microevolution because it is such a small part of microevolution that - excpet in very special circumstances nobody in their right mind would use it to argue for even miocroevolution. The comparison is therefore simply an attempt to use an inappropriate comparison to ridicule an opponents position - i.e. you are using propaganda.