attached mail follows:
> >The real issue is macromutations. The real issue is wholesale invention
> >of organs. Why, lets take the eye for example. what an idea.
>
> Evolution of the eye is relatively easy to bring about gradually,
***********
Really.
*************
I am a very patient person. What to explain this to me?
Could you please include:
1) Development of biochemical processes step by step showing adaptive
utility of each step.
Photoactivity must be connected to a set re-set mechanism and must be
connected to the
neorological system in some fashion.
2) Connection of light sensitive procell to the brain.
The real complexity is in the brain in spite of the enormous complexity
of the biochemichemistry
of the retina.
3) Neural processes for use of this infomation, that is the information
processing.
How does the animal know?
Please, go ahead, take your time, I will wait. I will clean out my
email inbasket
for your responce.
Also, I want to know the proported time frame for these mutations. That
is,
according to the geological record, every so often a nasty rock from
space kinda messed
things up.
Also, every so often, there were prompt (relativly speaking) climate
changes, limiting
the actual number of generations available without some kind of external
and quick
acting extinction process.
**************
*************
as all
> the intermediate steps are useful,
*********
WOW. This is a great assertion. Want to support it with someting.
Please, fill us in.
********************
not to mention the full range of degree
> of eye development. A single light-sensitive cell is enough to detect
> light versus dark, which could indicate time of day, approaching shadow, or
> exposure versus hiding. All of those are useful information. Increases in
> complexity allow improved visual acuity, useful for more detailed
> information about the surroundings. For example, even though I am very
> nearsighted, without my glasses
********************
Reduction in the utility of an existing function is not very
convincing. You
still have a great processing unit collecting even mitigated
information.
Actually, you are nearsighted.
You have given an enormous assertion and confused it to be even a
plausible
scientific theory. Really, can you count the bytes of information in
the eye
for example and then estimate the number of bytes of information that
could
be generated per generation and then the number of generations.
Something
to hang this on, just something.
*******************************
I can still get a lot of useful information
> about objects, such as avoiding obstacles while moving. In the case of
> color vision in primates, the specific mutations involved in evolving from
> colorblindness to full 3 color vision are known. The different forms of
> eyes in different groups also shows that there is more than one way to see
> a cat. Although meeting the common goal of good vision, the variation
> among eyes shows that many different ways of getting to that goal exist.
> In ID terms, they are not highly specified.
Bert M.
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jan 13 2000 - 11:28:28 EST