Trilobite eyes (Introduction)

by David Turell , Wednesday, March 20, 2013, 04:17 (4058 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: The changes were not gradual (a second correction of Darwin), but some neo-Darwinists have already challenged this, and proposed "punctuated equilibrium" as an alternative. Darwin's theory still stands. Evolution driven by genomic "intelligence" instead of random mutation is still evolution, common descent is still common descent, and natural selection is still what determines the survival or otherwise of organs and species.-Darwin's theory is quivering, not fully standing. Yes evolution occurred, but the key is epigenetics, not amorphous intelligence. The genome knows how to advance complexity when it has to. It isplanned to do that. The trilobite eyes have no known precursor. Complex compound eyes with bifocal lenses to campensate for the aberration when eyes look into water, with a different reflex angle for light. And what about the neurological attachments to a 'brain' to interpret the sights from the eye? And the complex developemnet of brain neurons to interpret the electric signals to give a conscious picture of what the eye is sending to the brain? Complexity upon complexity. All of this had to develop as specified complexity to give a whole functioning visual process. By chance mutation, no way! Too many interlocking parts. And it is in the Cambrian when neurons were invented. a very sp[ecialized cell which sends electrical impulses biologically as ions (charged particles)created as they enter the axon and travel from one end to the other. Not Ben Franklin's electricity or Eddison's: no, biological electrical generation. Never done before the Cambrian.- Dawkins quotes a paper claiming making eyes is easy and quick. He says there was a compuer simulation. He can't even read the paper properly, or he lies:-The paper: http://www.rpgroup.caltech.edu/courses/aph161/Handouts/Nilsson1994.pdf No computer simulation, just theoretidcal assumptions.-Dawkins mistaken quotes;-http://spot.colorado.edu/~cleland/articles/Dawkins.pdf-Berlinski takes apart the math of the original paper.:-http://www.discovery.org/a/1509-Eyes in 364,000 years. crazy!