[RightFighter]

I would like a pro-evolutionist to explan briefly how either of the following complex systems could have evolved:

1. The human eye

2. The process of blood clotting

Answers must be 3500 words or less and cannot contain any of the phrases "could have," "might have," or "is believed to have."

[Raymond Hendrix]

Answers must be 3500 words or less and cannot contain any of the phrases "could have," "might have," or "is believed to have."

Hey, that's not fair. You know that is their realm of expertise. Evolution "could have" done anything they say it "might have" done (if you only "believe").

The Blind Atheist

[berned]

I would like a pro-evolutionist to explan briefly how either of the following complex systems could have evolved:

1. The human eye

What an excellent question! The eye has a lens to focus light. a retina, a cornea, the eyeball itself, and the "wiring" back to the brain. Did the wiring "evolve" before the eyeball? If so, what would impell the organism to "design" wiring if nothing was attached to it?

If the eyeball came first, how did the organism get the necessary feedback to know if the eyeball design was best, without the wiring back to the brain?

Furthermore, without the eye having ALL the necessary components (say it had a lens but no retina, or a cornea but no lens, etc) then how could it get the necessary design feedback to even START the design?

[John H K]

I've seen better ones but the various links here are fairly brief: http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/eye.html

I'd like a Creationist to explain why whales have small muscles devoted to moving their ears, when they don't have any ears.

[Physicist]

Come on. You ask us how it "could have" happened, and then you say we can't use words like "could have" in our answers. Wasn't that one of the verses in "Scarborough Fair"?

[_Jim]

I would like a pro-evolutionist to explan briefly how either of the following complex systems could have evolved:

Do you deny the existance of SO MANY genes that are identical between SO MANY different species INCLUDING MAN?

Why is that - how can SO MANY things be found IN MAN and also SO MANY animals?

HOW IS IT that animals have eyes, brains, hearts and LUNGS like we do - and YET we can think and reason - YET the animals have 100% of what we have physiologically?

WHY is it that NO LIFEFORMS arose out of compounds other than carbon and didn't make use of GENES (which contain those 'blueprints' passed around from various species for eyes and brains and other 'complex systems'.)?

LIFE on earth has *more* of a common denominator than even the 'creationists' can conceive.

To believe as they do - they must *actually* place limits on God's abilities and God's notion of the universe and ignore his many laws that the universe he created obeys.

They are instead imposing their own narrow, restricted view of nature *and* of God on God and his wonderful and many-splendored creation ...

[cinFLA]

I would like a pro-evolutionist to explan briefly how either of the following complex systems could have evolved:

1. The human eye

2. The process of blood clotting

At some time some cells responded to light and those "creatures" had some advantage that was passed on. Through many generations, the cells specialized. The same with blood clotting. Now tell me, why did god wait so long before creating man?

[FastCoyote]

I would like a pro-evolutionist to explan briefly how either of the following complex systems could have evolved: 1. The human eye 2. The process of blood clotting Answers must be 3500 words or less and cannot contain any of the phrases "could have," "might have," or "is believed to have."

eye : any three dimensional object will be affected more by light on one side than the other- therefore light sensing organic units are almost trivial.

clotting: Organisms without the ability to clot blood die, period, so no non-clotters will survive..

On the other hand: creationists "believe" a divine entity "might have" created everything from nothing, so creationism "could have" been the answer.

[RonF]

Answers must be 3500 words or less and cannot contain any of the phrases "could have," "might have," or "is believed to have."

Oh, so only Creationists get to use those?