[Junior]

And the genes coding for that eye-spot (not true eye, as you keep saying) would be similar to that coding for the eye in other animals. In other words, to make it simple for you who cannot actually put on the evo hat, we should be able to look at the genes encoding the eye in human beings and that encoding the eye-spot in a single-celled critter and see that, while the human gene is quite a bit more complicated, the basic gene from the single-celled critter can still be discerned. Descent with modification and all that.

[gore3000]

And the genes coding for that eye-spot (not true eye, as you keep saying) would be similar

What absolute garbage! How were the genes transferred from the Euglena to man? Super-evo molecular transference? There are hundreds of species between Euglena and man in your stupid evo trees that had no eyes. Let's see some proof not garbage from you folk.

[gore3000]

And the genes coding for that eye-spot (not true eye, as you keep saying) would be similar to that coding for the eye in other animals.

Okay, let's go with your statement and examine it a bit. Where did Euglena get the eye-spot (it does see light from it). How did the eye of other species descend from Euglena? (and by that I mean through what species).

Note one thing, if there is a match between the eye-spot of the Euglena AND you can find the direct lineage of that trait through other higher species, then you can say that this is proof of evolution. However, if:
1. you cannot find where the Euglena got the eye spot.

OR
2. you cannot find the direct succession of Euglena's eyes to higher species.
OR
3. you cannot show that the gene for the eye-spot in Euglena is the same as those of higher species (this was your statement remember, so you cannot back off from it).
THEN
Euglena is a strong proof against the theory of evolution.