I'm impressed you can see anything from your vantage point. Isn't it dark in there? :-)
And now let's hear from combustion computationalist Dr. McIntosh...
there is no hard evidence for molecules-to-man evolution.
What does Macintosh think we're make of? Quark gluon plasmas? We are made of molecules.
Dawkins has long touted stories on how the eye and other organs came into being by supposed slow evolutionary processes, but there is no experimental evidence, even if one did accept the fossils as a record of such changes.
Well, yes there is. Just a mere hundred miles or so south of Dr. McIntosh, in fact, they're examining the evolution of human visual pigments at a molecular level.
Any serious thinker knows that the fossils of the “Cambrian Explosion” period, near the base of the geological column, include some of the most sophisticated eyes ever known to have existed — the compound eyes of trilobites have double calcite lenses, which defeat any slow evolutionary explanation, and, what is more, they have no precursor in the rocks
Actually, 'any serious thinker' knows trilobite eyes evolved; the earliest lenses being simple prisms; the later ones being more complex; and eventually, some trilobites lost their eyes altogether.
Trilobites appear first in the fossil record in the Cambrian. That does not mean that trilobites first appeared in the Cambrian; it means they first developed fossilizable exoskeletons in the Cambrian. Those exoskeletons were made of what? Calcite! So having evolved an adaptation to deposit calcite on their exterior, how implausible is it they also evolved the ability to deposit tiny calcite crystals over their compound eyes to act as lenses.And remember, we're talking compound eyes here; all the lens does is concentrate light; it is not responsible for creating an image. The compound eye would simply work less efficiently without a lens, but it would still work.
What do you make of these two letters?
If creationists didn't talk nonsense, they'd have nothing at all to say?
Excuse me professor, but it is you who wander the dark halls of academia surrounded by Liberal Atheists, not I. I'm not restricted by those walls. Furthermore, I am free to express how I feel without fear of being ridiculed and shunned by my peers.
Actually, 'any serious thinker' knows trilobite eyes evolved;
Didn't you mean to say "every Atheist/Materialist knows how trilobite eyes evolved?"
15 Answers to John Rennie and Scientific American’s Nonsense—Argument #14
According to evolutionists, the eye has evolved to the pinnacle at which we now find it. Yet, the trilobite, an index fossil that evolutionists claim is 450 million years old, possessed an even more complex eye (with a dual lens system) than anything seen in nature today. And even the evolutionists know this to be true. Writing in Science News, Lisa Shawver wrote that trilobites possessed “the most sophisticated eye lenses ever produced by nature” (1974, 105:72, emp. added). Indeed they did! Trilobites possessed a lens system known in ophthalmology as an “optical doublet.” But in order to make such a lens system function properly, it is necessary to have what is known as a “refracting interface” between the two lenses. And that is exactly what the trilobites—which evolutionists believe is one of the first living things on the Earth, and which is an index fossil for the Cambrian period)—do indeed possess! The acknowledged worldwide expert on the trilobites, Riccardo Levi-Setti of the University of Chicago, literally “wrote the book” on these creatures. In his volume, Trilobites, he said:
In fact, this optical doublet is a device so typically associated with human invention that its discovery in trilobites comes as something of a shock. The realization that trilobites developed and used such devices half a billion years ago makes the shock even greater. And a final discovery—that the refracting interface between the two lens elements in a trilobite’s eye was designed in accordance with optical constructions worked out by Descartes and Huygens in the mid-seventeenth century—borders on sheer science fiction…. The design of the trilobite’s eye lens could well qualify for a patent disclosure (1993, pp. 57,58, emp. added).
Niles Eldredge, paleontologist of the American Museum of Natural History (and a scientist who devoted a portion of his doctoral dissertation to the trilobite’s eye), remarked:
These lenses—technically termed aspherical, aplanatic lenses—optimize both light collecting and image formation better than any lens ever conceived. We can be justifiably amazed that these trilobites, very early in the history of life on Earth, hit upon the best possible lens design that optical physics has ever been able to formulate (as quoted in Ellis, 2001, p. 49, emp. added).
“Justifiably amazed?” What an understatement! Darwin once said that it made him turn “cold” to think of something as complex as an eye evolving. With that in mind, Ian Taylor observed: “If Darwin turned cold at the thought of the human eye at the end of the evolutionary cycle, what, one wonders, would he have thought of the trilobite eye near the beginning?” (1984, p. 169, emp. added).
Yes, one does “wonder,” doesn’t one, Mr. Rennie?
|
------------------ Me: What do you make of these two letters? You: If creationists didn't talk nonsense, they'd have nothing at all to say? You think those scientists are creationists? |