Posted: Apr 12, 2020 5:27 pm
by Wortfish
Spearthrower wrote:
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.

I quoted the sentence showing Darwin's acknowledgement about the problem of the evolution of the eye. It is STILL a problem, 150 years later. All that Darwin did was make a suggestion without any supporting evidence.

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

No scientific paper has been published that claims to account for the genetic basis of the evolution of the eye through random mutation and natural selection. We still don't know how an eye is put together, let alone its evolutionary origin.