Posted: Jun 23, 2014 1:48 pm
DavidMcC wrote:
It is not a strawman. I now have a page reference for the bad biology:
"Climbing Mount Improbable", chapter 5, page 153, Fig,5.14 from Nilsson and Pelger.
The reader is left to assume that the "fish" referred to in the fish-eye sequence is a vertebrate fish, because othing to the contrary is mentioned in the text. The sequence I have referenced is not the only one I know of, but it is the only one that I can find at the moment.
I accept that RD was not the instigator of this mistake, but he certainly propagated it, aided and abetted, it seems, by an aquaintance of his, who works for Nikon!
Looking at the diagram now.
What's the problem? It's a computer model based mathematical principles and allowed to 'evolve' on it's own in a simulation with eyes being selected for which have a 1% change in magnitude of one of its properties to go forward to the next 'generation'. The steps shown are taken after every few 'generations'. It states this clearly.