In message , Stewart Robert Hinsley
writes
In message , James Brown
writes
In message , Martin Brown
writes
On 14/09/2011 15:35, James Brown wrote:

It was. Try this for size. It's from a chapter Spencer wrote in "The
Evolution Crisis", a compilation of five scientists who reject
evolution:


Sometimes I think folk protest too much. Given the length of time it
would take by a process of unguided evolution for a single cell (coming
in any case from inanimate chemicals) to develop photosensitivity let
alone be part of such a complex item as an eye-ball - personally I find
that a leap of faith which neither satisfies at a scientific level nor
at the level of personal belief.

You have been tricked by the Intelligence Design fraternity - a
thinly disguised alternative bunch of science deniers in the USA who
think Bishop Ushers 6000 year old Earth is true because the Bible says so.

I don't think for one moment that I have Martin. I cannot imagine how
you think an organism with a single working photosensitive cell but
without ALL the necessary brain already in place to process the data
could possibly have an advantage in the survival of the fittest - and
you haven' told me how the cell got photosensitive - or IR sensitive etc.

Argument from incredulity is a fallacy. There is a literature on the
evolution of sight. Have you read any of it?

An example: If I were presented with a computer motherboard what would
be the more incredulous hypothesis do you think?


Cephalopods manage without a blind spot. They put the "wiring"
(neurons) behind the detectors (rods and cones in vertebrates; I don't
know the terminology for cephalopods), instead of in front of them.

You've lost me there Stewart - who are the they? Are you stating that
the cephalopods were cunning enough to do all that - I know I struggled
with designing frame stores from scratch some decades ago, and you
should have seen the resultant wiring!! Should I should have asked a
cephalopod for some help? ;-))

Regards,
James
--
James Brown