Ok, the eye is frequently a topic of discussion as to how could such a complex
But, I want to know about the proported evolution of:
Stereovision is an incredibly complex function involving the eyes, muscles,
control systems, and brain processing.
> In a message dated 4/19/01 12:00:04 AM, firstname.lastname@example.org writes:
> << But these transition are well documented in the fossil record. Documented
> transitions include the origin of tetrapods from panderidicthyids, the
> transition from primitive ungulates to whales, and the transition from
> terrestrial anguimorph lizards to mosasaurs. There are quite a range and
> diversity of environments that are neither terrestrial nor marine and it is
> in these environments that the transitional species are quite well adapted.
> For example, it seems quite clear now that the earliest tetrapods were not
> terestrial and that limbs evolved for clambering in shallow water.
> Keith >>
> Thanks for the update, Keith. You speak of the "range of environments" as if
> it were an established fact. What are they? Wetlands? What else is there?
> I would appreciate any references you have on these points. Moreover, so
> what? If there were in fact a range of environments, would the animal not
> stay in the one it was best adapted to and ignore the rest? Or are you
> suggesting that these environments appeared sequentially and that the animal
> was forced by necessity to adapt to the current one?
> The flipper transition is only one of a whole host of others that had to be
> coordinated to produce the whale from whatever its precursor was. You know
> what these changes were and the magnitude of the problem of coordinating
> them. But I don't believe you have addressed the problem. Do you really
> believe that these coordinated changes were brought about by random mutations
> (with respect to the future) selected by whatever environment, or genetic
> drift, or any other undirected process?
> I have read before that you believe God is involved even in random events,
> such as random mutations. I agree with that. But does that mean that (1)
> God actually directs random events, i.e., chooses and brings about which ones
> he/she wants to have effected, or (2) that God merely knows what the outcome
> will be? If (1) then you have _directed_ evolution, and that's a far cry fro
> m what the mainstream evolutionary biological community believes, if my
> understanding of it is correct.
> Thanks again for your comments.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Apr 19 2001 - 18:36:38 EDT