[doc30]

That is a creationist red herring. If you learn about evolution, you will learn why your question doesn't make sense.

From PH's list of links:
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/eye.html

[johnnyb_61820]

Are people _still_ pointing to this hogwash? Have you noticed that it completely ignores biochemistry? Have you noticed that he claims that it takes _2_ mutations to get from an eye spot to an eye?

Yes, if you ignore everything we know about the biology of the eye, biochemistry, DNA, and evolution, someone can come up with an imaginary story about how an eye might have developed from an eyespot.

But if you look at the mathematics behind causing even one gene to change, you see that the idea that a whole eye could evolve into an eyespot undirectedly is absurd.

Berlinski commented on the original paper that this page is based on here and here. Unfortunately, I could not find the original paper itself on the web.

Darwinism: substituting imagination for experiment.