Posted: Apr 12, 2020 3:48 am
by Spearthrower
Wortfish wrote:
The_Metatron wrote:
Read that part in bold red font. Read it again. Read it until you understand it, and forever forget about that quote mine of yours as any sort of support for whatever you believe.

Reason tells me, that IF numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; IF further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and IF such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then [b][color=#FF0000]the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.

A lot of "IFs"....just speculation rather than substance. But, as Mivart pointed out, the slight gradations required may not confer sufficient utility to the organism to be conserved and so would be liable to be lost.

What a nasty little liar you are. It doesn't matter how many fucking IFs there are in Darwin's account from 150 years ago, because you were the liar trying to pretend that Darwin had said something else by cutting out 75% of the paragraph.

As for relevant knowledge, try modern scientific journals - not a Victorian naturalist writing prior to the advent of knowledge about genes, ffs.