Replies

Thanks for the link. I read it as well as the one from PH. It reminds me a great deal of the arguments put forward by ID's. Mostly wishful thinking. Nothing is presented that would convince a skeptic. It seems written to convince those already believing in Evolution. What the argument boils down to is this: early creatures had light patches (light sensitive cells) which confered a slight advantage allowing them to survive and multiply. Natural selection over time kept choosing the best mutations of these survivors, ending up with our current eye. Basically, what they are arguing is that since we have eyes and early life forms didn't, then somehow with the magic ingredients of luck and time, eyes with all their current complexity evolved. ID'ers will say that we have complex eyes because God made them that way. Evo's say that it is from time and blind chance. Both sides are happy with their explanations and walk away convinced that the other is either wrong or crazy. But nothing is offered that will convince a skeptic, who is uninvolved in the God/Evo dabate. The links still don't address my main point: that sight is only possible when a complex system works perfectly. And I don't see how an entire system can evolve. And where are the mistakes of evolution? I would think that one eye would be better than none. Where are the fossils of one-eyed creatures that replaced their blind rivals for a time before being pushed aside by the better endowed stereo vision competition?