To: Junior
. . . step-by-step versions of eyes While it is true that there are different types of eyes in nature of varying degrees of complexity, the fact that you refer to them as "step-by-step versions" is proof that you have already determined their relationship to each other (i.e., the most complex has evolved from the least complex) without considering the possibility that they are unrelated.
To: Alberta's Child
When you can see one version of an eye is just a step removed from another version, and you can trace these steps through all the extent versions, it gives a pretty good approximation of how the most complex of the series could have evolved from the least complex, even if the eyes' owners are not even related. In other words, IR says complex eyes could not have evolved that way. Darwinism says they can and shows, by example, the steps required to reach the most complex eyes. Seems to me, Darwinism wins that one hands down.
55 posted on
06/07/2002 1:13:08 PM PDT by
Junior
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson