>Jeffrey Lee wrote:
I'll take credit for a great many things, but not the following :-)
>>>>While I am a believer in evolution, there are parts of the puzzle that
>to me to be irreducibly complex, despite your contrary view. The one that
>puzzles me the most is the lense of an eye. I can imagine the evolutionary
>process that would give rise to vision: first a few epithelial cells that
>are light sensitive. This sensitivity confers an evolutionary advantage
>that favors increasing the number of light sensitive cells. These cells
>might even become configured in such a way that the eye formed a "pin-hole"
>camera view of the world. But where does the lense come in? Unless it was
>initially formed in a completely functional state (could be the lense like
>that in a human or one of those segmented lenses that bees have), I can't
>see how it would not make vision poorer rather than better. If it was just
>a prototype (as the initial light sensitive cells are prototypical eyes),
>then it would convey no advantage, so why would it evolve?<<<
>I would suggest you take a look at Dawkin's _Climbing Mount Improbable_. He
>has a very fascinating discussion that addresses your question concering
>the eye. I am at work now so I don't have the page number handy. He
>presents a very useful and plausible scenario that goes all the way from
>light-sensitive cells to fully evolved eye.
>><Jeffrey Lee: firstname.lastname@example.org @@ \
>>><Quality Systems Development @@@ \
>>>><Isis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. @@@@ \
>>Standard Disclaimers Apply: My views are my own unless they're not.