What a cop out. The standard is that the person making the assertion is the one responsible to back it up, not to send someone chasing fairy tales. Creationists are regularly criticized for that very thing.
All you’ve done is demonstrate that you have no answer to that question, and that none exists.
Wikipedia? What a joke. You obviously need to also catch up to the fact that evos don’t consider that a reliable source.
Wikipedia is often surprisingly good when it comes to science because scientists enjoy writing articles for their favorite areas. That is why the article on eye evolution has so many references. I realize you may not be familiar with these since they are lacking in creationist material, but these are articles relevant to the topic of eye evolution. Many of the sources listed were in scholarly journals. If you're doubtful about the Wikipedia article and are seriously looking for information on eye evolution, which you claim does not exist, you might try looking up the references. You will be elated to find, no doubt, that each of those scholarly articles has its own list of references, which will lead you to new and fascinating topics in eye evolution!
Oh stop your whining. The person that was making the assertion is making up fairy tales. My statements were in direct response to that. He or she was following the God of the Gaps strategy and attempting to make the objector verify the entirety of another theory instead of simply support an objection. This is intellectually dishonesty of the highest order. My part in these threads isn’t to support a theory but to provide objections to Young Earth Creationism. I don’t personally hold that the fanatics and their Young Earth Creationism is mutually exclusive with evolution, though I do feel that evolution is thousands of times more probable if they are evaluated independently.
If I objected to someones interpretation that the Earth is flat, I wouldn’t feel obliged to personally explain all of physics to that individual. Pointing him or her in the correct direction is enough. And I did that.
What is your complaint now? Is it that I’m not your personal teacher? Or is it that when you make a fundamental error in your reasoning and believe fairy tale versions of the creation of humanity that I should explain all of geology, physics, and biology to you personally—otherwise I should shut up. Classic God of the Gaps strategy—silence your opponent by making him your personal teacher/slave.