Replies

Besides the sheer ludicrousness of this "just so" story, the author forgot to mention how the rest of the creature's support systems (nervous, musculoskeletal, circulatory) were simultaneously and beneficiently 'evolving.' (Neither does the author even attempt to explain how this happened.)

Another thing that the evolutionists like to forget is that the genes of each species, even when coding for the same function, are different from each other. The genes (and there is more than one necessary to provide all the necessary capabilities for eyesight) for the eye are different in each species even though they work towards providing the same functionality. Clearly if each species evolved from each other, if each species was perfected through survival of the fittest, we should see after a while at least, that each species had the exact same gene for each function. Yet this is not the case. A simple proof of it is the fact that although all blood does the same work in different species, blood is not interchangeable between species.

Clearly if each species evolved from each other, if each species was perfected through survival of the fittest, we should see after a while at least, that each species had the exact same gene for each function. Yet this is not the case.

Are you sure that's not a disproof of design?

You just make this stuff up yourself as you go along, don't you? Want us to peer-review it for you before you submit it to Nature?

Then again, you don't have too many peers on this forum.

Another thing that the evolutionists like to forget is that the genes of each species, even when coding for the same function, are different from each other. The genes (and there is more than one necessary to provide all the necessary capabilities for eyesight) for the eye are different in each species even though they work towards providing the same functionality.

Thanks for mentioning that. I remember reading in Darwin on Trial something about the genetics and morphology not corresponding.