(May 1, 2015 at 1:14 am)Hatshepsut Wrote:(April 30, 2015 at 6:59 pm)Pyrrho Wrote: Well, I have a program of training cats to make soup and... I realize there is some ambiguity in the word "hope," but I want them to watch it, but do not expect it. It is also good for people to see who wish to argue with creationists...
It looks like the video recaps explanations Stephen Jay Gould put in print a while back. An incremental thing, starting with Euglena's eyespot, moving up to the cuplike eyewell in flatworms, then with protective clear window over it, the window which will evolve to become a cornea/lens system.
We should realize, however, that flatworms did not evolve from Euglena. They had to use an all-modern creature lineup because most of the putative intermediate steps in eye evolution aren't represented in the fossil record.
It appears that you misunderstand the argument. The modern examples are merely that: examples of different kinds of eyes.
And eyes in the fossil record? Seriously? Do you have any understanding at all of fossilisation?
Quote:Another item of note is that camera eyes as complex as any modern examples may have appeared back in the Cambrian, right after the beginning of animal life itself. Of course that still accommodates five million years to evolve the eye, but it happened very fast compared to the five hundred million years of essentially no change in eyes since then.
And how is your speculation at all convincing?
Quote:Preferable to creation myths in terms of realism and supporting data, nonetheless popular accounting for evolution glosses over a lot of difficulties.
You haven't presented any glosses; pray tell, what are those?
Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
