You just don't seem to have much to say.
Originally, you were trying to argue that evolution can't provide any explanation for the origin of the eye. So I provided a perfectly plausible mechanism.
Do we know how eyes evolved? No, we don't. But I provided a plausible pedigree, one that uses evolutionary mechanisms to lead to modern eyes.
Now you seem to be arguing that my pedigree is conjecture. Of course it is! But you're not saying we don't know how eyes evolved, you're saying there's no way evolution can lead to the evolution of eyes which is clearly, and patently false.
So stop with your pithy comments and start being honest. With me, with yourself and with the rest of the posters on this forum.
You're a bossy sort, that's alright, you can be any way you choose to be.
I assure you, I read your eye evolution theory. I found it very interesting, thank you.
I must still continue to find it hard to believe very complicated and intricate biological attributes could accidently come into being.
The burden of proof of a theory is on the person(s) providing the theory.
I find the defenders of the evolutionary theory to be often defensive and condescending. That's alright with me.
Again, what prompted my remarks was yet another artcle erroneously written as if evolution was proven, undisputed fact.
Thanks again for the info.