The link is a bunch of hand-waving and goal-post shifting. The distinction between "eye" and "eyeball" is most baffling. This is not a refutation, but simply states that the simulation didn't cover all possible aspects of vision. Of course, that wasn't the purpose - the purpose was to start with a light sensitive patch see if the evolution of the structure known as the eye was feasible from a selectionist point of view.
Nothing is "refuted" here; only limitations noted. The typical anti-evo tactic of arguing that since EVERYTHING isn't explained, then NOTHING is explained.
[This message has been edited by Zhimbo, 12-18-2003]
™ Version 4.2