Complex eyes in the Cambrian

The second law of creationist dynamics:

Any real discovery that conforms to modern evolutionary theory automatically disproves Darwinism.

I've always found it interesting that creationists can read enough of the literature to quote mine, without noticing what the literature is saying. I guess that they learn that skill by reading the Bible.

They have no capability of comprehension and no interest in comprehension. It's an associative scheme: they scan through an article to spot "hot button" verbiage that they use to index into their cardfile of stock arguments.
The appropriate arguments are assembled into a "rebuttal". It wouldn't be hard to write a computer program to implement this algorithm.

It is possible, though I wouldn't judge it likely, that somebody already has, and we are seeing the results.

There is a lot about ID/creationist repetitiveness and fantasy that reminds me of perseveration and confabulation.

And, after decades of the same refuted ID/creationist crap being pounded down by the science community and the courts, AiG keeps recycling crap here, and here.

AiG, the ICR, and the DI are continuously and breathlessly keeping their rubes “up to date” on how to interpret the latest research coming out of the scientific community by publication highjacking legitimate work and making it appear that ID/creationist exegesis is the proper way to understand science.

Then we see our copy/paste, FL/IBIG trolls engaging in these same mechanical and repetitive behaviors. So the ID/creationist tactics have certainly worked in turning these trolls into automatons.

If it were a Bugs Bunny Road Runner cartoon, it would be funny.

But the “Church of Confabulatory Perseveration” is just plain sick.

Oh please, all eyes are apparently related, and thus would have to have a common ancestor that existed well before the Cambrian "explosion." So why wouldn't complex eyes exist at the start of the Cambrian? It's just the same old boring "Cambrian explosion = God Designer." The Cambrian was an amazing radiation produced when spiking oxygen levels allowed animals to become dramatically larger and to otherwise evolve to fit niches. Plants were nowhere to be seen, and land animals were absent, or, at best, small and unimpressive. Eden makes sense as design. Prokaryotes for at least a billion years, then Eukaryotes for another billion or so prior to multicellular animals, then the Ediacaran radiation which largely died out (why, Designer?) and a few other feints, and then finally the Cambrian "explosion" where a huge number of phyla are first visible--a number to become extinct relatively soon (why, Designer?)--is not design, at least none that we know. It's an interesting (not expected--but could we expect evolution to follow our meager knowledge?) spike within a generally expected evolutionary progression.

What's fascinating is that their version flies in the face of all sciences (including that which they use to share their 'message' on the internet).

They haven't figured out that simple systems can give rise to insanely complex products in a very short period of time. Using computers we can do in hours what it takes a team of trained engineers a week to do. But even before that, we could watch complex systems emerge from simple behaviors in real time.

They just can't accept that non-designed complexity exists.

I've always found the obsession with increasing complexiy interesting. A lot of things actually decrease in complexity as evolution occurs. After all, you start with a crude system that kind of does the job, then work toward a system that does the job well. Increasing efficiency often means decreasing complexity as uneeded steps/parts are worked out of the method.

goliardo said: How can you quote Darwin for anything???? Darwin was not a scientist!!! If you don't believe me, you can read his books, that there are on-line:

Darwin was wrong about lots of things. That doesn't mean that he wasn't a scientist. It also doesn't mean that he was wrong about everything. That criteria only applies to those who claim to be omnipotent, not scientists.

Technically, those ancient arthropod eyes were more advanced than the eyes of modern creationists, since ancient arthropods could perceive something related to reality.

goliardo said: How can you quote Darwin for anything???? Darwin was not a scientist!!!

DS said: The second law of creationist dynamics: Any real discovery that conforms to modern evolutionary theory automatically disproves Darwinism.

Given that Columbus at his death still erroneously believed that he had reached India, it is reasonable to conclude that his discovery, the American continent, does not exist.

DNA does not encode such intricate morphological structures

Atheistoclast: thanks for attempting science, pitty about the unsubstantiated faith claim at the end:

'and I have a pretty good idea about who or what that something is!'

'Pretty good idea'? Not bad, but then you're up against science which, 'knows!' Keep the the faith bandwagon rolling, and try not to trip up into too many manglings of your meaning. I mean, really, you don't, 'KNOW!' I do, and I have no need for recourse to a god constantly checking to see if I washed my hands after visiting the shitter.

Atheistoclast said: Something else is responsible for (intricate morphological structures) - and I have a pretty good idea who or what that something is!

Don't tell me, it's the magic invisible hologram hypothesis, right? Or maybe the photons that are warped in the magnetic field of the earth, yea that's it. Why don't you google eyeless fruit flies and tell us all again how DNA has nothing to do with eyes and morphology.

Given that Columbus at his death still erroneously believed that he had reached India, it is reasonable to conclude that his discovery, the American continent, does not exist.

Henry J said:

Given that Columbus at his death still erroneously believed that he had reached India, it is reasonable to conclude that his discovery, the American continent, does not exist.

I guess in that case, corn and potatoes don't exist, either. Or llamas.

nilsson & pelger showed that a patch of useful light-detecting cells is unstable - a depression produces a runaway process of deeper depression, and a lens structure that enhances the directional selectivity of the pit. it seems to me that a bulge will lead to more bulging and compound lenses for exactly the same reason. has anyone done similar calculations for this convex case?

Louis! Eh?

goliardo said: You said in point nr 3: "Darwin himself explained in great detail... " How can you quote Darwin for anything???? Darwin was not a scientist!!! If you don't believe me, you can read his books, that there are on-line: [Various quotes from the works of Charles Darwin referring to his sexist beliefs.]

Atheistoclast said: I will restate my belief that DNA does not encode such intricate morphological structures. You can rant on all you like about transcription factors and promoters but these just affect protein expression and regulation.Something else is responsible for this - and I have a pretty good idea who or what that something is!

If God really is responsible for this super duper eye, it was kinda mean of him not to give it to the other arthropods.

I don't think that's our Louis, rvb

Atheistoclast said: The real issue for both creationist and evolutionist alike is explaining how such complex compound eyes with their thousands of lenses, each representing a pixel of vision, could have arisen through changes in DNA. Both would assume this to be the case. The creationist believes it is God's work whereas the evolutionist prefers natural selection instead. But both are mistaken. I will restate my belief that DNA does not encode such intricate morphological structures. You can rant on all you like about transcription factors and promoters but these just affect protein expression and regulation.Something else is responsible for this - and I have a pretty good idea who or what that something is!

You gotta hand it to the crackpots. I'd never come up with something more likely to make people fall about laughing than: "Then, all of these fragments compose a nebula of dirty."

A nebula of dirty what? Ice? Dust? Books? DVDs? The mind boggles.

Regrettably, the next sentence "Any nebula is a rotating structure" illustrates the other less-amusing aspect of crackpottery: its invincibly confident assertion of falsehood.

I dunno - I kinda like "Nebula of Dirty". I plan to use it for my mid-life-crisis rock band name.

Atheistoclast said:

Roger said: So if it wasn't natural selection and it wasn't God, who could possibly be manufacturing and sticking eyes on all the flies because that bit of their DNA is missing? No wait - don't tell me! It's Dr Dolittle, right?

NISUS FORMATIVUS Chuck Darwin used the term to describe the "coordinating power of the organization". http://players.readbooks.mobi/ReadBooksPreviews/freepreviews/0001000002872/www.gutenberg.org@dirs@etext01@2vapd10-3.html It is better known as the VITAL FORCE.....NWYRFE/NEART in druid talk.

Oh look, the dude can quote mine. Nice try atheist. Unless you can prove that developmental genetics is not sufficient to control development, complete with a testable explanation and evidence published in a peer reviewed journal, you got nothin. Of course, if you could do this, every real scientist would be more than happy to be convinced by the evidence. Probably get you a nobel prize or somethin. Still wouldn't mean goddidit or anything supernatural at all. Still wouldn't mean that evolution isn't real or that common descent isn't real. So come on dude, don't keep us in suspenders. You got anything except incredulity like all the other whackos out there? If not, I got some real good papers for ya to read. They demonstrate that we now have a very detailed understanding of developmental genetics of compound eyes and how they evolved. But of course you don't have to bother to read all them papers if you just claim not to believe it, right. You can just go merrily on your way denying reality with your thumbs stuck in your ears and your hands over your eyes. Man, you must be some kind of contortionist.

Scientific Storkism?

DS said: Oh look, the dude can quote mine. Nice try atheist. Unless you can prove that developmental genetics is not sufficient to control development, complete with a testable explanation and evidence published in a peer reviewed journal, you got nothin. Of course, if you could do this, every real scientist would be more than happy to be convinced by the evidence. Probably get you a nobel prize or somethin. Still wouldn't mean goddidit or anything supernatural at all. Still wouldn't mean that evolution isn't real or that common descent isn't real. So come on dude, don't keep us in suspenders. You got anything except incredulity like all the other whackos out there? If not, I got some real good papers for ya to read. They demonstrate that we now have a very detailed understanding of developmental genetics of compound eyes and how they evolved. But of course you don't have to bother to read all them papers if you just claim not to believe it, right. You can just go merrily on your way denying reality with your thumbs stuck in your ears and your hands over your eyes. Man, you must be some kind of contortionist.

Atheistoclast said: They don't specify how a complex structure is built and takes shape, only what goes into it. [...] Even if you knock out just one transcription factor, |Pitx3, you will prevent lens formation because this protein switches on other proteins that are used in the lens by binding to their promoter regions.

terenzioiltroll said: Am I the only one that finds those two excerpts contradictory?

Atheistoclast said: But, as more genomes are sequenced and analyzed over the next decade, it will become manifestly clear that the genome is a not a repository of morphological information. Sorry.

mrg said: Why do you even read him?

terenzioiltroll said:

Atheistoclast said: But, as more genomes are sequenced and analyzed over the next decade, it will become manifestly clear that the genome is a not a repository of morphological information. Sorry.

Well, from the very "Wired" post you quote(mine)d earlier: “It is not currently possible to compute an organism from its genome,” he wrote, but the modENCODE work will “bring this goal closer.” It seems that your sources disprove your thesis. I think you are using the words "DNA", "gene" and "genome" interchangeably, while they are not synonyms at all. Besides, we already know for sure that the genome darn well IS a repository of (at least some) morphological information.

Atheist,

Three things are necessary in order for development to produce the structures in a body:

1) Cells must divide in the proper place at the proper time

2) Cells must stop dividing in the proper place at the proper time

3) Cells must differentiate in the proper place at the proper time

This is all that is required in order to make any structure in the body.

Now, pay close attention. Exactly which of these processes is it that you believe cannot be controlled by cascades of gene expression? Exactly why do you think that fine tuned control over gene expression in every cell in the body isn't sufficient to produce structures? Exactly why can't you understand that DNA encodes not only the structural components of the body but also the instructions for their assembly? Exactly what more do you think is required? Exactly what is this other mysterious thing that you think is necessary? Exactly how is this mysterious factor inherited? Exactly how does this mean that evolution cannot happen? Exactly why should anyone take your incredulity seriously?

I can provide references about the genes involved in the development of compound eyes in insects. These references not only detail how the structures are formed, but how the regulatory mechanisms have changed over time in various lineages. Are you at all familiar with the literature in this field? Do you really think that evo-devo and "darwinism" are going to collapse? Or maybe you are just blowing smoke.

I would be happy to discuss these issues on the bathroom wall. This is not the appropriate place for such a discussion. We are discussing fossil eyes here, not your delusional fantasies about development.

Protiens aren't just bricks and girders. You know that, Joseph. They have specific shapes, specific behaviours, specific binding sites. Stop being obtuse, Joseph, you're starting to sound like Robert Byers. You're not 'clasting' anyone or anything except your own credibility.

Atheistoclast said: These proteins do not have the inherent ability to interact with each other and self-assemble to form features of exquisite complexity and operation such as the eye. At the end of the day, proteins are remarkable only for their binding capability.

Also, there is simply not enough genetic differences between us and pigs, for example, to account for our major anatomical and behavioral differences. What differences that do exist do not have any significant impact on the gene product.

Atheistoclast -

Is there any evidence that would convince you that morphologic development can be explained without reference to a "designer"? If so, what evidence would suffice?

Joe,

You are sadly mistaken. Proteins are indeed capable of interacting to form highly complex structures. And controlling exactly when and where specific proteins are produced and how they interact is indeed the secret to forming those structures. Everyone knows you don't believe it, but no one cares. You have not proposed any testable alternative. You have not even shown any evidence of being at all familiar with the available literature. In short, you got nothin except worthless incredulity dude. But thanks for at least admitting that you can extend our ignorance. That is apparently your only goal.

One more time, just to be fair. DNA not only contains the instructions on how to make the components of life, it also contains the instructions on how to assemble those components. Nothing else is required. Nothing else is observed. God might watch every sparrow fall (so what, they still fall), but god does not have to personally construct every anal sphincter. She's much too busy for that.

And I noticed you ducked my questions. Why is that Joe? If you want to answer, please do so on the bathroom wall. If you don't want to answer the questions, I'm done with you.

Di fronte alle foto degli occhi degli insetti formati da migliaia di omatidi che convergono nel cervello debbo dire che non c'è stata evoluzione ,ma non sono creazionista vecchia maniera.Vorrei una spiegazione moderna adatta ai nostri giorni.L'800 è passato e ora la genetica parla con più serietà.L'occhio composto del Riccio di Mare è un grande occhio composito di 2000 pedicelli e 200.000 cellule visive.E' un capolavoro di ingegneria ,bisogna che per forza qualcuno l'ha creato.

Well, I think I understood the 2000 and the 200.000, except for not knowing what was being measured or in what units...

Giovanni said: E' un capolavoro di ingegneria, bisogna che per forza qualcuno l'ha creato.

Buckna should fund the Biologic Institute to set up sealed tanks of sterile air and watch for creation events in real-time. Probably the most effective use of their time and money. They seem to be going backwards doing what they are currently doing. Scientific creationism spawned intelligent design, and intelligent design just turned into a bunch of guys running the bait and switch scam on their own creationist support base. All anyone has ever gotten out of the ID perps is a switch scam that can't even mention that ID ever existed. Pretty much nothing else that they are doing is going to get them anywhere, so why not try to capture creation events? It has to be better than spending your time running bogus scams on your own creationist support base.

Buckna and other demented creobots have seen observations like these from professional paleontologists like Don Prothero, but refuse to listen:

"Bear this in mind: NONE of these people are trained in paleontology, or can tell one fossil from another; NONE of them has done real peer-reviewed research in this area, and most have not even visited the critical outcrops or collected the fossils in question. They just cherry-pick outdated ideas and quote out of context, completely falsifying the actual record. Any any REAL paleontologist knows, there is NO 'Cambrian explosion' but rather a Cambrian 'slow fuse' (see Prothero, 2007, Evolution: what the fossils say and why it matters), with the earliest evidence of animals from the Doushantuo fauna 600 m.y. old, then the multicellular but soft bodied Ediacara fauna (580-540 m.y. ago), and the earliest Cambrian 'little shellies', small skeletonized fossils of mollusks, sponges, echinoderms, and most other invertebrate phyla at 550 m.y. Only at the third stage of the Cambrian, the Atdabanian, do we get larger shelled invertebrates like trilobites, at 520 m.y. ago, some 80 m.y. after the process began. Hardly an 'explosion'!"

This is from Don's review of some cinematic creationist bulls**t posted here at Amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/review/R26VLR8AEX3RSF

Giovanni said: Di fronte alle foto degli occhi degli insetti [...]

terenzioiltroll said: I was wondering how many other commenters could actually read Italian...

mrg said: What's the Italian equivalent of "song-and-dance"?

All I can add to this is that a common designer means a common blueprint to sight. No evolution from primitive to complex and no species of eye types. Rather there is just one law or equation to the seeing thing.
The different types of eyes are just the single law broken up into its parts.
i do think the thing creationists should aim at here is that there is no need nor did it happen to see a evolution from simple to complex in eyes.
All eyes are simply doing the same thing. The rest is minor details.
I think creationism can be a better guide to healing eyesight.
I have a interest in.

Back to form, Byers. A 3.5 for incoherence, 4 for fatuousness ("all eyes are simply doing the same thing") and an extra point for the terminal non-sentence - truly inspired. I make it a 8.5.

Creationists seem to miss the point that it isn't that various living things are similar, but that there is a pattern of similarities and differences, things more or less similar to one another in a nested hierarchy known as the "tree of life".

Vertebrate eyes tend to be all rather like one another, and insect eyes tend to be rather like one another. The human body is most similar (in many different ways) to the bodies of chimps and other apes, among all of living things; and those bodies are all somewhat less similar to the bodies of other primates; and so on to lesser degrees, to other mammals, other vertebrates, other animals, etc.

It is not easy to ascribe this complex pattern to one "blueprint", or to one "designer", or one "function", "purpose", "raw material", ... one anything.

To the best of my knowledge, there has never been a suggestion which accounts for this pattern which does not involve "common descent with modification" (that is, evolution). There are various ways of accounting for evolution: inheritance of acquired traits, divine guidance, chance, upward drive, selection, entropy, elan vital, symbiosis, quinaries, omega point; but no one has thought of doing without evolution in explaining the "tree of life". And people have decided that they don't need to explain the tree of life. But to account for the pattern without evolution?

Robert Byers said: All I can add to this is that a common designer means a common blueprint to sight. No evolution from primitive to complex and no species of eye types. Rather there is just one law or equation to the seeing thing. The different types of eyes are just the single law broken up into its parts. i do think the thing creationists should aim at here is that there is no need nor did it happen to see a evolution from simple to complex in eyes. All eyes are simply doing the same thing. The rest is minor details. I think creationism can be a better guide to healing eyesight. I have a interest in.

why there are no vertebrate exapods

Dave Luckett said: Back to form, Byers. A 3.5 for incoherence, 4 for fatuousness ("all eyes are simply doing the same thing") and an extra point for the terminal non-sentence - truly inspired. I make it a 8.5.

TomS said: Creationists seem to miss the point that it isn't that various living things are similar, but that there is a pattern of similarities and differences, things more or less similar to one another in a nested hierarchy known as the "tree of life". Vertebrate eyes tend to be all rather like one another, and insect eyes tend to be rather like one another. The human body is most similar (in many different ways) to the bodies of chimps and other apes, among all of living things; and those bodies are all somewhat less similar to the bodies of other primates; and so on to lesser degrees, to other mammals, other vertebrates, other animals, etc. It is not easy to ascribe this complex pattern to one "blueprint", or to one "designer", or one "function", "purpose", "raw material", ... one anything. To the best of my knowledge, there has never been a suggestion which accounts for this pattern which does not involve "common descent with modification" (that is, evolution). There are various ways of accounting for evolution: inheritance of acquired traits, divine guidance, chance, upward drive, selection, entropy, elan vital, symbiosis, quinaries, omega point; but no one has thought of doing without evolution in explaining the "tree of life". And people have decided that they don't need to explain the tree of life. But to account for the pattern without evolution?

Robert Byers said: Always it was noted everyone had eyes, ears, butt, legs, and the insides all were alike and in the same places.

Therefore eyes make the case. Insects simply have different eyes because of some great need for a difference. The rest can have the usual way.

I understand octopus have eyes like us. Yet not because of evolutions hand.

I suspect there is a deeper equation to sight that these divisions of eye types is hiding. We need a Einstein of sight to get out the bigger equation here.

Robert Byers said: There is a suggestion from Yec and even iD folks. Common blueprint for biology on major points from a designer.

Robert Byers said:

TomS said: Creationists seem to miss the point that it isn't that various living things are similar, but that there is a pattern of similarities and differences, things more or less similar to one another in a nested hierarchy known as the "tree of life". Vertebrate eyes tend to be all rather like one another, and insect eyes tend to be rather like one another. The human body is most similar (in many different ways) to the bodies of chimps and other apes, among all of living things; and those bodies are all somewhat less similar to the bodies of other primates; and so on to lesser degrees, to other mammals, other vertebrates, other animals, etc. It is not easy to ascribe this complex pattern to one "blueprint", or to one "designer", or one "function", "purpose", "raw material", ... one anything. To the best of my knowledge, there has never been a suggestion which accounts for this pattern which does not involve "common descent with modification" (that is, evolution). There are various ways of accounting for evolution: inheritance of acquired traits, divine guidance, chance, upward drive, selection, entropy, elan vital, symbiosis, quinaries, omega point; but no one has thought of doing without evolution in explaining the "tree of life". And people have decided that they don't need to explain the tree of life. But to account for the pattern without evolution?

ccdhqh There is a suggestion from Yec and even iD folks. Common blueprint for biology on major points from a designer. Always it was noted everyone had eyes, ears, butt, legs, and the insides all were alike and in the same places. It always made sense there was a single basic plan. I don't think anyone ever said God made each kind so different in these points. Why would a creationist not want a common design? it suggests a designer. Its logical. Therefore eyes make the case. Insects simply have different eyes because of some great need for a difference. The rest can have the usual way. yet still the actual law or equation for sight is the same. these divisions do not reflect evolution or happenchance over millions of years but show a very limited list of options. In fact its only because of the unique nature of insects etc that they don't have eyes like us. I understand octopus have eyes like us. Yet not because of evolutions hand. In fact once again the eyes put evolution in a unlikely light. I think theres room for research of the whole idea of sight. I understand eyes have been investigated but I suspect there is a deeper equation to sight that these divisions of eye types is hiding. We need a Einstein of sight to get out the bigger equation here. Anyways it seems so unlikely that such limited options for eye types would now/fossil be around. There should of been great heaps of types of eyes if evolution for so long was going on while changing everything else.

Robert Byers said:I understand eyes have been investigated but I suspect there is a deeper equation to sight that these divisions of eye types is hiding.

Again, who's this "Byers" guy? Who are you talking about? If he's a figment of group imagination, he sounds like a really bizarre one.

Well, I suppose if you get drunk enough, you do see pink elephants. Or so the tale goes, I've never been that drunk myself.

mrg said: Again, who's this "Byers" guy? Who are you talking about? If he's a figment of group imagination, he sounds like a really bizarre one. Well, I suppose if you get drunk enough, you do see pink elephants. Or so the tale goes, I've never been that drunk myself.

mrg said: Again, who's this "Byers" guy? Who are you talking about? If he's a figment of group imagination, he sounds like a really bizarre one. Well, I suppose if you get drunk enough, you do see pink elephants. Or so the tale goes, I've never been that drunk myself.

Kevin B said: I'm postulating a "Dawkins' Weasel" program variant that selects for Latin phrases, such as "Cave Canem" (Beware of the Dog) and "Caveat Emptor" (Let the Buyer Beware). In this case it seems to have found "Cave Emptor" (Beware of the Buyer) :)

mrg said:

Kevin B said: I'm postulating a "Dawkins' Weasel" program variant that selects for Latin phrases, such as "Cave Canem" (Beware of the Dog) and "Caveat Emptor" (Let the Buyer Beware). In this case it seems to have found "Cave Emptor" (Beware of the Buyer) :)

I don't believe you. This is some sort of a prank, isn't it? You can't fool me! Show me one bit of evidence that this "Byers" actually exists in any way shape or form!

Kevin B said: In this case it seems to have found "Cave Emptor" (Beware of the Buyer) :)

Kevin B said: You wouldn't believe me if I did produce some evidence as you are clearly exhibiting negative confirmation Byers.

terenzioiltroll said:

Kevin B said: In this case it seems to have found "Cave Emptor" (Beware of the Buyer) :)

No. It is "Oh you, buyer: beware!" "Beware of the buyer" would be: "Emptor caveandum est".

TomS said:

terenzioiltroll said:

Kevin B said: In this case it seems to have found "Cave Emptor" (Beware of the Buyer) :)

No. It is "Oh you, buyer: beware!" "Beware of the buyer" would be: "Emptor caveandum est".

"Cave emptorem" or "Emptor cavendus/cavenda est".

TomS said:

Robert Byers said: There is a suggestion from Yec and even iD folks. Common blueprint for biology on major points from a designer.

You choose to ignore my point. There is no one "blueprint" in common among all eyes. Eyes have different degrees of similarity (and difference) throughout the world of life. Eyes in insects share features that are not found in vertebrates or octopuses. Octopuses share features that are not found in vertebrates or insects. Vertebrates share features that are not found in octopuses or insects. To point to one "blueprint", or one "designer", or one anything does not account for more than one collection of features.

Is there any need to point out that you don't rely on one blueprint to explain the variety of vision? There are also "needs" and "means", whatever those might be. Whatever. The "designer(s)" had to work within the constraints imposed by needs and means, as well as a blueprint? Not very well thought out. Which I can't blame you for. But there are all of those smart people who, we are told, have an alternative to "darwinism", and they can't help you out?

Robert Byers said: I am saying ... I mean ... I suggest... I suggest... I suspect ... I have been thinking ... Speculation.

Just Bob said:

Robert Byers said: I am saying ... I mean ... I suggest... I suggest... I suspect ... I have been thinking ... Speculation.

Why the hell should anyone care what you "suspect" or "suggest"? What training or credentials do you have in biology or any other science that lets you assume your SUSPICIONS could possibly count for anything against a couple of centuries of scientific research?

circleh said: It's called "word salad". That's all Byers the lyers has got.

People are talking about this "Byers" person again. He doesn't really exist, does he? Looks like a mass delusion in progress.

mrg said: People are talking about this "Byers" person again. He doesn't really exist, does he? Looks like a mass delusion in progress.

"Open the pod bay doors, HAL!"

I'm sorry, I can't do that, Dave.