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? |
FIRST Living things on Earth? Maybe you should read what you post before you post it. What about the 3 billion years of life preceeding Trilobites? Do you feel no shame when you say something so wrong and so patently absurd?
I can categorically assure you that there is no evolutionist that thinks that trilobites were one of the first living things on Earth. When you spout this stuff the whole rest of your post will be ignored, even if there is something that is true in it.
It's called credibility - get some.
I am free to express myself, and I do so, frequently and loudly. It's easy to be brave when there is nothing to be afraid of.
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 double-lensed schizochroal eyes you cite did not appear in the Cambrian, but in the Ordovician, long after first appearance of trilobites in the fossil record. McIntosh, who makes himself an arbiter of what 'every thinking person' knows, has his facts wrong. Trilobite eyes in the Cambrian were holochroal.
Another error in what you posted. Evolutionists certainly do not believe trilobites were on of the first living things on earth. The first life on earth is currently dated at 3.8 By before present; trilobites appeared circa 450 million years before present.
As I wrote; nonsense, or nothing at all.
Justifiably amazed?” What an understatement! Darwin once said that it made him turn “cold” to think of something as complex as an eye evolving.
Did you read the Dawkins article? How many times has this particular piece of quote mining been debunked? How many times has it been reposted?
You think those scientists are creationists?
McIntosh is.