| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"david ford" |
| Date: |
31 Jan 2004 07:13:45 PM |
| Object: |
What eyes arose when, and in what? |
Dawkins, Richard. 1996. _Climbing Mount Improbable_
(NY: W.W. Norton and Co.), 340pp. A paragraph
on 139-40:
When we speak of 'the' eye, by the way, we are not
doing justice to the problem. It has been authoritatively
estimated that eyes have evolved no fewer than forty
times, and probably more than sixty times,
independently in various parts of the animal kingdom.
In some cases these eyes use radically different
principles. Nine distinct principles have been
recognized among the forty to sixty independently
evolved eyes. I'll mention some of the nine basic eye
types-- which we can think of as nine distinct peaks in
different parts of Mount Improbable's _massif_-- as I go
on.
When did each of these independent
supposed-blindcameramakings of eyes occur, exactly,
and in what, exactly?
Where can I find a chart of this information?
Or is this data best left described in vague generalities?
.
|
|
| User: "wvantwiller" |
|
| Title: Re: What eyes arose when, and in what? |
01 Feb 2004 12:45:01 PM |
|
|
(david ford) wrote in
news:b1c67abe.0401311713.5950f414@posting.google.com:
Dawkins, Richard. 1996. _Climbing Mount Improbable_
(NY: W.W. Norton and Co.), 340pp. A paragraph
on 139-40:
When we speak of 'the' eye, by the way, we are not
doing justice to the problem. It has been authoritatively
estimated that eyes have evolved no fewer than forty
times, and probably more than sixty times,
independently in various parts of the animal kingdom.
In some cases these eyes use radically different
principles. Nine distinct principles have been
recognized among the forty to sixty independently
evolved eyes. I'll mention some of the nine basic eye
types-- which we can think of as nine distinct peaks in
different parts of Mount Improbable's _massif_-- as I go
on.
When did each of these independent
supposed-blindcameramakings of eyes occur, exactly,
and in what, exactly?
Where can I find a chart of this information?
Or is this data best left described in vague generalities?
If your not too cheap, you can try Dawkin's prior book, The Blind
Watchmaker. Going to Alibris on the web will let you come up with any
number of reasonable used copies for a very good price. You might also
look for other volumes of his there.
I assume Dawkins didn't think he had to include all his previous work in
all his subsequent books.
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: What eyes arose when, and in what? |
02 Feb 2004 12:24:43 AM |
|
|
wvantwiller <wvantwiller@knickerbocker.com> wrote in message news:<401d4e69$1_1@news2.knology.net>...
dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in
news:b1c67abe.0401311713.5950f414@posting.google.com:
Dawkins, Richard. 1996. _Climbing Mount Improbable_
(NY: W.W. Norton and Co.), 340pp. A paragraph
on 139-40:
When we speak of 'the' eye, by the way, we are not
doing justice to the problem. It has been authoritatively
estimated that eyes have evolved no fewer than forty
times, and probably more than sixty times,
independently in various parts of the animal kingdom.
In some cases these eyes use radically different
principles. Nine distinct principles have been
recognized among the forty to sixty independently
evolved eyes. I'll mention some of the nine basic eye
types-- which we can think of as nine distinct peaks in
different parts of Mount Improbable's _massif_-- as I go
on.
When did each of these independent
supposed-blindcameramakings of eyes occur, exactly,
and in what, exactly?
Where can I find a chart of this information?
Or is this data best left described in vague generalities?
If your not too cheap, you can try Dawkin's prior book, The Blind
Watchmaker.
It just so happens that I have a copy. Where should I look in the book?
Going to Alibris on the web will let you come up with any
number of reasonable used copies for a very good price. You might also
look for other volumes of his there.
I assume Dawkins didn't think he had to include all his previous work in
all his subsequent books.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mitchell Coffey" |
|
| Title: Re: What eyes arose when, and in what? |
02 Feb 2004 05:27:27 PM |
|
|
(david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0402012225.1c8bb562@posting.google.com>...
wvantwiller <wvantwiller@knickerbocker.com> wrote in message news:<401d4e69$1_1@news2.knology.net>...
(david ford) wrote in
news:b1c67abe.0401311713.5950f414@posting.google.com:
Dawkins, Richard. 1996. _Climbing Mount Improbable_
(NY: W.W. Norton and Co.), 340pp. A paragraph
on 139-40:
When we speak of 'the' eye, by the way, we are not
doing justice to the problem. It has been authoritatively
estimated that eyes have evolved no fewer than forty
times, and probably more than sixty times,
independently in various parts of the animal kingdom.
In some cases these eyes use radically different
principles. Nine distinct principles have been
recognized among the forty to sixty independently
evolved eyes. I'll mention some of the nine basic eye
types-- which we can think of as nine distinct peaks in
different parts of Mount Improbable's _massif_-- as I go
on.
When did each of these independent
supposed-blindcameramakings of eyes occur, exactly,
and in what, exactly?
Where can I find a chart of this information?
Or is this data best left described in vague generalities?
If your not too cheap, you can try Dawkin's prior book, The Blind
Watchmaker.
It just so happens that I have a copy. Where should I look in the book?
[snip]
I don't have a copy, but in most serious non-fiction works you start
by looking in the index. Once you've located the appropriate
passages, you check the footnotes for the authors citations and work
from there.
I have no idea whether the works Gould cited include any charts, but
you've already established that you think there are no facts unless
dated *exactly* and located *exactly*; if you go beyond that and
insist that any statement about the universe must be said to be false
unless it comes with visual aids, then you've taken phenomenalism to a
whole new dimension:
Nothing Is True; All Is Illustration.
Mitchell Coffey
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "William Klee" |
|
| Title: Re: What eyes arose when, and in what? |
02 Feb 2004 01:12:49 PM |
|
|
In article <b1c67abe.0402012225.1c8bb562@posting.google.com>, david
ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
wvantwiller <wvantwiller@knickerbocker.com> wrote in message
news:<401d4e69$1_1@news2.knology.net>...
dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in
news:b1c67abe.0401311713.5950f414@posting.google.com:
Dawkins, Richard. 1996. _Climbing Mount Improbable_
(NY: W.W. Norton and Co.), 340pp. A paragraph
on 139-40:
When we speak of 'the' eye, by the way, we are not
doing justice to the problem. It has been authoritatively
estimated that eyes have evolved no fewer than forty
times, and probably more than sixty times,
independently in various parts of the animal kingdom.
In some cases these eyes use radically different
principles. Nine distinct principles have been
recognized among the forty to sixty independently
evolved eyes. I'll mention some of the nine basic eye
types-- which we can think of as nine distinct peaks in
different parts of Mount Improbable's _massif_-- as I go
on.
When did each of these independent
supposed-blindcameramakings of eyes occur, exactly,
and in what, exactly?
Where can I find a chart of this information?
Or is this data best left described in vague generalities?
If your not too cheap, you can try Dawkin's prior book, The Blind
Watchmaker.
It just so happens that I have a copy. Where should I look in the book?
I'll give you the same advice a christian gave me when asked what part
of the bible supported his claims: "Start at the first page and read
everything until you get to the last page."
Going to Alibris on the web will let you come up with any
number of reasonable used copies for a very good price. You might also
look for other volumes of his there.
I assume Dawkins didn't think he had to include all his previous work in
all his subsequent books.
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: What eyes arose when, and in what? |
02 Feb 2004 11:16:52 PM |
|
|
William Klee <fnord2k@yahoo.com> wrote:
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
wvantwiller <wvantwiller@knickerbocker.com> wrote:
david ford wrote:
Dawkins, Richard. 1996. _Climbing Mount Improbable_
(NY: W.W. Norton and Co.), 340pp. A paragraph
on 139-40:
When did each of these independent
supposed-blindcameramakings of eyes occur, exactly,
and in what, exactly?
Where can I find a chart of this information?
Or is this data best left described in vague generalities?
If your not too cheap, you can try Dawkin's prior book, The Blind
Watchmaker.
It just so happens that I have a copy. Where should I look in the book?
I'll give you the same advice a christian gave me when asked what part
of the bible supported his claims: "Start at the first page and read
everything until you get to the last page."
It just so happens that I have read both _The Blind Watchmaker_ and
_Climbing Mount Improbable_. I don't recall coming across the chart
in either of those books. Is my memory correct?
Going to Alibris on the web will let you come up with any
number of reasonable used copies for a very good price. You might also
look for other volumes of his there.
I assume Dawkins didn't think he had to include all his previous work in
all his subsequent books.
.
|
|
|
| User: "William Klee" |
|
| Title: Re: What eyes arose when, and in what? |
03 Feb 2004 09:05:22 PM |
|
|
In article <b1c67abe.0402022117.e44b438@posting.google.com>, david ford
<dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
William Klee <fnord2k@yahoo.com> wrote:
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
wvantwiller <wvantwiller@knickerbocker.com> wrote:
david ford wrote:
Dawkins, Richard. 1996. _Climbing Mount Improbable_
(NY: W.W. Norton and Co.), 340pp. A paragraph
on 139-40:
When did each of these independent
supposed-blindcameramakings of eyes occur, exactly,
and in what, exactly?
Where can I find a chart of this information?
Or is this data best left described in vague generalities?
If your not too cheap, you can try Dawkin's prior book, The Blind
Watchmaker.
It just so happens that I have a copy. Where should I look in the book?
I'll give you the same advice a christian gave me when asked what part
of the bible supported his claims: "Start at the first page and read
everything until you get to the last page."
It just so happens that I have read both _The Blind Watchmaker_ and
_Climbing Mount Improbable_. I don't recall coming across the chart
in either of those books. Is my memory correct?
I'll give you the same advice a christian gave me when I said I'd read
the bible and didn't remember coming across the part that supported his
claims: "Start at the first page and read everything until you get to
the last page."
Going to Alibris on the web will let you come up with any
number of reasonable used copies for a very good price. You might also
look for other volumes of his there.
I assume Dawkins didn't think he had to include all his previous work in
all his subsequent books.
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: What eyes arose when, and in what? |
06 Feb 2004 10:03:11 PM |
|
|
William Klee <fnord2k@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<030220042105380934%fnord2k@yahoo.com>...
In article <b1c67abe.0402022117.e44b438@posting.google.com>, david ford
<dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
William Klee <fnord2k@yahoo.com> wrote:
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
wvantwiller <wvantwiller@knickerbocker.com> wrote:
david ford wrote:
Dawkins, Richard. 1996. _Climbing Mount Improbable_
(NY: W.W. Norton and Co.), 340pp. A paragraph
on 139-40:
When did each of these independent
supposed-blindcameramakings of eyes occur, exactly,
and in what, exactly?
Where can I find a chart of this information?
Or is this data best left described in vague generalities?
If your not too cheap, you can try Dawkin's prior book, The Blind
Watchmaker.
It just so happens that I have a copy. Where should I look in the
book?
I'll give you the same advice a christian gave me when asked what part
of the bible supported his claims: "Start at the first page and read
everything until you get to the last page."
It just so happens that I have read both _The Blind Watchmaker_ and
_Climbing Mount Improbable_. I don't recall coming across the chart
in either of those books. Is my memory correct?
I'll give you the same advice a christian gave me when I said I'd read
the bible and didn't remember coming across the part that supported his
claims: "Start at the first page and read everything until you get to
the last page."
Was the advice you got good advice, in your view?
Going to Alibris on the web will let you come up with any
number of reasonable used copies for a very good price. You might
also look for other volumes of his there.
I assume Dawkins didn't think he had to include all his previous
work in all his subsequent books.
.
|
|
|
| User: "William Klee" |
|
| Title: Re: What eyes arose when, and in what? |
06 Feb 2004 10:49:59 PM |
|
|
In article <b1c67abe.0402062003.7dc534b2@posting.google.com>, david
ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
William Klee <fnord2k@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<030220042105380934%fnord2k@yahoo.com>...
In article <b1c67abe.0402022117.e44b438@posting.google.com>, david ford
<dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
William Klee <fnord2k@yahoo.com> wrote:
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
wvantwiller <wvantwiller@knickerbocker.com> wrote:
david ford wrote:
Dawkins, Richard. 1996. _Climbing Mount Improbable_
(NY: W.W. Norton and Co.), 340pp. A paragraph
on 139-40:
When did each of these independent
supposed-blindcameramakings of eyes occur, exactly,
and in what, exactly?
Where can I find a chart of this information?
Or is this data best left described in vague generalities?
If your not too cheap, you can try Dawkin's prior book, The Blind
Watchmaker.
It just so happens that I have a copy. Where should I look in the
book?
I'll give you the same advice a christian gave me when asked what part
of the bible supported his claims: "Start at the first page and read
everything until you get to the last page."
It just so happens that I have read both _The Blind Watchmaker_ and
_Climbing Mount Improbable_. I don't recall coming across the chart
in either of those books. Is my memory correct?
I'll give you the same advice a christian gave me when I said I'd read
the bible and didn't remember coming across the part that supported his
claims: "Start at the first page and read everything until you get to
the last page."
Was the advice you got good advice, in your view?
Yep. Helped me see christianity is a crock and that god, if it exists,
is evil.
Going to Alibris on the web will let you come up with any
number of reasonable used copies for a very good price. You might
also look for other volumes of his there.
I assume Dawkins didn't think he had to include all his previous
work in all his subsequent books.
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: What eyes arose when, and in what? |
07 Feb 2004 11:20:59 PM |
|
|
William Klee <fnord2k@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<060220042251142026%fnord2k@yahoo.com>...
In article <b1c67abe.0402062003.7dc534b2@posting.google.com>, david
ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
It just so happens that I have read both _The Blind Watchmaker_ and
_Climbing Mount Improbable_. I don't recall coming across the chart
in either of those books. Is my memory correct?
I'll give you the same advice a christian gave me when I said I'd read
the bible and didn't remember coming across the part that supported his
claims: "Start at the first page and read everything until you get to
the last page."
Was the advice you got good advice, in your view?
Yep. Helped me see christianity is a crock and that god, if it exists,
is evil.
Now you are telling me similar advice in suggesting that I start at
the beginning of 2 Dawkins books and read them through to the end
(again), this time looking for the information I am inquiring about.
Would I be justified in concluding from your advice that evolution as
it is characterized by Dawkins, J. Huxley, T. H. Huxley, and Futuyma
is a crock? Would I be justified in concluding from your advice that
were it to exist, evolution would be evil?
.
|
|
|
| User: "William Klee" |
|
| Title: Re: What eyes arose when, and in what? |
08 Feb 2004 12:20:04 AM |
|
|
In article <b1c67abe.0402072122.7c6c2226@posting.google.com>, david
ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
William Klee <fnord2k@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<060220042251142026%fnord2k@yahoo.com>...
In article <b1c67abe.0402062003.7dc534b2@posting.google.com>, david
ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
It just so happens that I have read both _The Blind Watchmaker_ and
_Climbing Mount Improbable_. I don't recall coming across the chart
in either of those books. Is my memory correct?
I'll give you the same advice a christian gave me when I said I'd read
the bible and didn't remember coming across the part that supported his
claims: "Start at the first page and read everything until you get to
the last page."
Was the advice you got good advice, in your view?
Yep. Helped me see christianity is a crock and that god, if it exists,
is evil.
Now you are telling me similar advice in suggesting that I start at
the beginning of 2 Dawkins books and read them through to the end
(again), this time looking for the information I am inquiring about.
Would I be justified in concluding from your advice that evolution as
it is characterized by Dawkins, J. Huxley, T. H. Huxley, and Futuyma
is a crock? Would I be justified in concluding from your advice that
were it to exist, evolution would be evil?
Sounds like you've already arrived at that conclusion and are now
looking for a rationale to support your conclusion. Believe what you
want.
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: What eyes arose when, and in what? |
08 Feb 2004 11:14:39 PM |
|
|
William Klee <fnord2k@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<080220040021279982%fnord2k@yahoo.com>...
In article <b1c67abe.0402072122.7c6c2226@posting.google.com>, david
ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
William Klee <fnord2k@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<060220042251142026%fnord2k@yahoo.com>...
In article <b1c67abe.0402062003.7dc534b2@posting.google.com>, david
ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
It just so happens that I have read both _The Blind Watchmaker_ and
_Climbing Mount Improbable_. I don't recall coming across the
chart in either of those books. Is my memory correct?
I'll give you the same advice a christian gave me when I said I'd
read
the bible and didn't remember coming across the part that supported
his
claims: "Start at the first page and read everything until you get to
the last page."
Was the advice you got good advice, in your view?
Yep. Helped me see christianity is a crock and that god, if it exists,
is evil.
Now you are telling me similar advice in suggesting that I start at
the beginning of 2 Dawkins books and read them through to the end
(again), this time looking for the information I am inquiring about.
Would I be justified in concluding from your advice that evolution as
it is characterized by Dawkins, J. Huxley, T. H. Huxley, and Futuyma
is a crock? Would I be justified in concluding from your advice that
were it to exist, evolution would be evil?
Sounds like you've already arrived at that conclusion and are now
looking for a rationale to support your conclusion.
The rationale mentioned is far too weak for my liking. But perhaps
you are satisfied with it.
Before the Christian gave you the advice about reading, had you
already arrived at the conclusion that [WK]"christianity is a crock
and that god, if it exists, is evil"? If "yes," did you use that
reading advice as [WK]"a rationale to support your conclusion"?
Believe what you
want.
.
|
|
|
| User: "William Klee" |
|
| Title: Re: What eyes arose when, and in what? |
10 Feb 2004 04:16:38 AM |
|
|
In article <b1c67abe.0402082115.5efe7dbe@posting.google.com>, david
ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
William Klee <fnord2k@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<080220040021279982%fnord2k@yahoo.com>...
In article <b1c67abe.0402072122.7c6c2226@posting.google.com>, david
ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
William Klee <fnord2k@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<060220042251142026%fnord2k@yahoo.com>...
In article <b1c67abe.0402062003.7dc534b2@posting.google.com>, david
ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
It just so happens that I have read both _The Blind Watchmaker_
and
_Climbing Mount Improbable_. I don't recall coming across the
chart in either of those books. Is my memory correct?
I'll give you the same advice a christian gave me when I said I'd
read
the bible and didn't remember coming across the part that supported
his
claims: "Start at the first page and read everything until you get
to
the last page."
Was the advice you got good advice, in your view?
Yep. Helped me see christianity is a crock and that god, if it exists,
is evil.
Now you are telling me similar advice in suggesting that I start at
the beginning of 2 Dawkins books and read them through to the end
(again), this time looking for the information I am inquiring about.
Would I be justified in concluding from your advice that evolution as
it is characterized by Dawkins, J. Huxley, T. H. Huxley, and Futuyma
is a crock? Would I be justified in concluding from your advice that
were it to exist, evolution would be evil?
Sounds like you've already arrived at that conclusion and are now
looking for a rationale to support your conclusion.
The rationale mentioned is far too weak for my liking. But perhaps
you are satisfied with it.
Why would I be satisfied with your rationale?
Before the Christian gave you the advice about reading, had you
already arrived at the conclusion that [WK]"christianity is a crock
and that god, if it exists, is evil"? If "yes," did you use that
reading advice as [WK]"a rationale to support your conclusion"?
Yep. Reading the bible again (it was the fourth or fifth time) only
reinforced the conclusion.
Of course, now you'll claim that you can now read the Dawkins books and
feel justified in concluding that evolution is false. Feel free, but
don't blame it on me.
Believe what you
want.
And I reiterate my above.
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: What eyes arose when, and in what? |
16 Feb 2004 04:08:37 PM |
|
|
William Klee <fnord2k@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<100220040009061577%fnord2k@yahoo.com>...
In article <b1c67abe.0402082115.5efe7dbe@posting.google.com>, david
ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
William Klee <fnord2k@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<080220040021279982%fnord2k@yahoo.com>...
In article <b1c67abe.0402072122.7c6c2226@posting.google.com>,
david
ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
William Klee <fnord2k@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<060220042251142026%fnord2k@yahoo.com>...
In article <b1c67abe.0402062003.7dc534b2@posting.google.com>,
david
ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
It just so happens that I have read both _The Blind
Watchmaker_
and
_Climbing Mount Improbable_. I don't recall coming across
the
chart in either of those books. Is my memory correct?
I'll give you the same advice a christian gave me when I said
I'd
read
the bible and didn't remember coming across the part that
supported
his
claims: "Start at the first page and read everything until you
get
to
the last page."
Was the advice you got good advice, in your view?
Yep. Helped me see christianity is a crock and that god, if it
exists,
is evil.
Now you are telling me similar advice in suggesting that I start
at
the beginning of 2 Dawkins books and read them through to the end
(again), this time looking for the information I am inquiring
about.
Would I be justified in concluding from your advice that
evolution as
it is characterized by Dawkins, J. Huxley, T. H. Huxley, and
Futuyma
is a crock? Would I be justified in concluding from your advice
that
were it to exist, evolution would be evil?
Sounds like you've already arrived at that conclusion and are now
looking for a rationale to support your conclusion.
The rationale mentioned is far too weak for my liking. But perhaps
you are satisfied with it.
Why would I be satisfied with your rationale?
It's your rationale, not mine.
Before the Christian gave you the advice about reading, had you
already arrived at the conclusion that [WK]"christianity is a crock
and that god, if it exists, is evil"? If "yes," did you use that
reading advice as [WK]"a rationale to support your conclusion"?
Yep. Reading the bible again (it was the fourth or fifth time) only
reinforced the conclusion.
I'm curious, while you were reading the Bible again, you were looking
for evidence for what claim(s)?
Of course, now you'll claim that you can now read the Dawkins books and
feel justified in concluding that evolution is false.
No, I won't. The rationale mentioned is far too weak for my liking.
Feel free, but
don't blame it on me.
Believe what you
want.
And I reiterate my above.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "\Rev Dr\ Lenny Flank" |
|
| Title: Re: What eyes arose when, and in what? |
08 Feb 2004 12:50:47 AM |
|
|
david ford wrote:
Now you are telling me similar advice in suggesting that I start at
the beginning of 2 Dawkins books and read them through to the end
(again), this time looking for the information I am inquiring about.
Would I be justified in concluding from your advice that evolution as
it is characterized by Dawkins, J. Huxley, T. H. Huxley, and Futuyma
is a crock? Would I be justified in concluding from your advice that
were it to exist, evolution would be evil?
You are entirely free to conclude whatever you like. <shrug>
Why is the rest of the world obligated to pay any attention to your
ignorant uninformed conclusions?
===============================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
DebunkCreation Email list:
http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/DebunkCreation
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: What eyes arose when, and in what? |
08 Feb 2004 11:07:05 PM |
|
|
"\"Rev Dr\" Lenny Flank" <lflank_nospam@ij.net> wrote in message news:<4025dc9d_4@corp.newsgroups.com>...
david ford wrote:
Now you are telling me similar advice in suggesting that I start at
the beginning of 2 Dawkins books and read them through to the end
(again), this time looking for the information I am inquiring about.
Would I be justified in concluding from your advice that evolution as
it is characterized by Dawkins, J. Huxley, T. H. Huxley, and Futuyma
is a crock? Would I be justified in concluding from your advice that
were it to exist, evolution would be evil?
You are entirely free to conclude whatever you like. <shrug>
As are you.
Why is the rest of the world obligated to pay any attention to your
ignorant uninformed conclusions?
I haven't said the world is obligated to pay any attention to my conclusions.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "LisaKay" |
|
| Title: Re: What eyes arose when, and in what? |
07 Feb 2004 09:24:12 AM |
|
|
(david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0401311713.5950f414@posting.google.com>...
Dawkins, Richard. 1996. _Climbing Mount Improbable_
(NY: W.W. Norton and Co.), 340pp. A paragraph
on 139-40:
When we speak of 'the' eye, by the way, we are not
doing justice to the problem. It has been authoritatively
estimated that eyes have evolved no fewer than forty
times, and probably more than sixty times,
independently in various parts of the animal kingdom.
In some cases these eyes use radically different
principles. Nine distinct principles have been
recognized among the forty to sixty independently
evolved eyes. I'll mention some of the nine basic eye
types-- which we can think of as nine distinct peaks in
different parts of Mount Improbable's _massif_-- as I go
on.
When did each of these independent
supposed-blindcameramakings of eyes occur, exactly,
and in what, exactly?
Where can I find a chart of this information?
Or is this data best left described in vague generalities?
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/change/grand/index.html
This might help.
-LisaKay
aa #2054
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Russell Turpin" |
|
| Title: Re: What eyes arose when, and in what? |
08 Feb 2004 11:31:42 AM |
|
|
(david ford):
When did each of these independent supposed-
blindcameramakings of eyes occur, exactly,
and in what, exactly?
Speaking as someone with just a smattering of
biology, it's pretty easy to point to a handful
of eyes that evolved independently, and with
significantly different architectures: the
compound eye of insects, the cephalopod eye,
where the nerves run behind the retina, and the
vertebrate eye, where the nerves run in front.
The crustacean eye also exhibits a different
architecture, but I don't know whether it
evolved independently of the insect eye.
Depending on what counts as an eye, there are
also the eyespots of worms like planaria. Hey!
That's already up to five.
Given the richness of zoological diversity,
I'm certain there are more. In fact, I wouldn't
be surprised to see new ones discovered.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Barry OGrady" |
|
| Title: Re: What eyes arose when, and in what? |
20 Feb 2004 09:40:39 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 20:48:44 -0500, "Daniel" <cmoi_dan@hotmail.com> wrote:
It is amazing how people are so easily ready to believe in evolution as
opposed to creation.
Indeed. Why do you do it?
What are the odds of a living organism finding a
suitable rock to grow on... then multiply and become as diverse as what we
see on our planet... then evolves into a conscient being such as us.
I wasn't aware we were conscient beings.
What are the chances of a magical being existing? Far less.
When did we get a soul and from what has our soul evolved from.
That's easy. Never. It didn't happen.
The fact is, evolution is unprovable. Darwin started this charade with the
mindset that it was but a THEORY and unfortunately all research and
education is pooled to prove this THEORY. We just see similarities between
species and connect the dots, but between each dot their is a gap. Show me
a string of fossils that show a fish become a bird.
We have fish, we have "flying fish", then we have birds. But nothing in
between.
Human beings have very good imagination, we are very good at finding
similarities and extrapolate between them.
What are the odds of the first organism living through natural selection ?
BTW... as an exercise, it would be interesting for people to compare human
history and archaeology with the Old Testament text... you will find that
the oldest book is accurate and has yet to be disproved by historians and
archeology.
I always suspected that the earth is flat with a solid dome.
Open your mind to the possibility
Not that far open! Your brains fell out.
----
Dan
-Barry
========
Web page: http://members.optusnet.com.au/~barry.og
Atheist, radio scanner, LIPD information.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: What eyes arose when, and in what? |
31 Jan 2004 07:51:36 PM |
|
|
And so upon Sun, 01 Feb 2004 01:13:45 +0000 didst david ford speak thusly:
Dawkins, Richard. 1996. _Climbing Mount Improbable_
(NY: W.W. Norton and Co.), 340pp. A paragraph
on 139-40:
When we speak of 'the' eye, by the way, we are not
doing justice to the problem. It has been authoritatively
estimated that eyes have evolved no fewer than forty
times, and probably more than sixty times,
independently in various parts of the animal kingdom.
In some cases these eyes use radically different
principles. Nine distinct principles have been
recognized among the forty to sixty independently
evolved eyes. I'll mention some of the nine basic eye
types-- which we can think of as nine distinct peaks in
different parts of Mount Improbable's _massif_-- as I go
on.
When did each of these independent
supposed-blindcameramakings of eyes occur, exactly,
and in what, exactly?
Where can I find a chart of this information?
Or is this data best left described in vague generalities?
Maybe you could read the book, check the bibliography, go to a library...
Sorry, radical ideas I know. Didn't mean to scare you.
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
"There is no system but GNU, and Linux is one of its kernels."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bobby D. Bryant" |
|
| Title: Re: What eyes arose when, and in what? |
31 Jan 2004 07:20:37 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 01:13:45 +0000, david ford wrote:
Dawkins, Richard. 1996. _Climbing Mount Improbable_
(NY: W.W. Norton and Co.), 340pp. A paragraph
on 139-40:
When we speak of 'the' eye, by the way, we are not
doing justice to the problem. It has been authoritatively
estimated that eyes have evolved no fewer than forty
times, and probably more than sixty times,
independently in various parts of the animal kingdom.
In some cases these eyes use radically different
principles. Nine distinct principles have been
recognized among the forty to sixty independently
evolved eyes. I'll mention some of the nine basic eye
types-- which we can think of as nine distinct peaks in
different parts of Mount Improbable's _massif_-- as I go
on.
When did each of these independent
supposed-blindcameramakings of eyes occur, exactly,
and in what, exactly?
Where can I find a chart of this information?
Or is this data best left described in vague generalities?
"They hide the information you're looking for in books."
-- Peter Harrison
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alun Harford" |
|
| Title: Re: What eyes arose when, and in what? |
31 Jan 2004 07:51:53 PM |
|
|
"Bobby D. Bryant" <bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.02.01.01.20.43.288745@mail.utexas.edu...
On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 01:13:45 +0000, david ford wrote:
Dawkins, Richard. 1996. _Climbing Mount Improbable_
(NY: W.W. Norton and Co.), 340pp. A paragraph
on 139-40:
When we speak of 'the' eye, by the way, we are not
doing justice to the problem. It has been authoritatively
estimated that eyes have evolved no fewer than forty
times, and probably more than sixty times,
independently in various parts of the animal kingdom.
In some cases these eyes use radically different
principles. Nine distinct principles have been
recognized among the forty to sixty independently
evolved eyes. I'll mention some of the nine basic eye
types-- which we can think of as nine distinct peaks in
different parts of Mount Improbable's _massif_-- as I go
on.
When did each of these independent
supposed-blindcameramakings of eyes occur, exactly,
and in what, exactly?
Where can I find a chart of this information?
Or is this data best left described in vague generalities?
"They hide the information you're looking for in books."
-- Peter Harrison
I hear "Origin of Species" is where they hide a lot of that stuff. Gits!
Nobody would ever think to look there unless they were in on the conspiricy.
Alun Harford
.
|
|
|
| User: "HiEv" |
|
| Title: Re: What eyes arose when, and in what? |
01 Feb 2004 03:53:20 AM |
|
|
Alun Harford wrote:
Bobby D. Bryant wrote:
david ford wrote:
[snip]
When did each of these independent
supposed-blindcameramakings of eyes occur, exactly,
and in what, exactly?
Where can I find a chart of this information?
Or is this data best left described in vague generalities?
"They hide the information you're looking for in books."
-- Peter Harrison
I hear "Origin of Species" is where they hide a lot of that stuff. Gits!
Nobody would ever think to look there unless they were in on the conspiricy.
Actually, IIRC, Darwin had trouble figuring out how the eye could have
evolved. Then again, he didn't have access to the vast resources we
have today on the archaeological and genetic history of life on earth.
--
The difference between intelligence and stupidity is that intelligence
has its limits.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Dworetsky" |
|
| Title: Re: What eyes arose when, and in what? |
01 Feb 2004 05:48:30 AM |
|
|
"HiEv" <spam@someoneelse.invalid> wrote in message
news:1tip10pdcu2l3govr8t3tg6a4701m8o3ds@4ax.com...
Alun Harford wrote:
Bobby D. Bryant wrote:
david ford wrote:
[snip]
When did each of these independent
supposed-blindcameramakings of eyes occur, exactly,
and in what, exactly?
Where can I find a chart of this information?
Or is this data best left described in vague generalities?
"They hide the information you're looking for in books."
-- Peter Harrison
I hear "Origin of Species" is where they hide a lot of that stuff. Gits!
Nobody would ever think to look there unless they were in on the
conspiricy.
Actually, IIRC, Darwin had trouble figuring out how the eye could have
evolved. Then again, he didn't have access to the vast resources we
have today on the archaeological and genetic history of life on earth.
Actually, he didn't have any problem figuring out how it could have evolved.
He posed this apparent problem **rhetorically**, then proceded to demolish
the problem piece by piece. He argued the eye could have evolved by
natural selection, because all the intermediate stages could be found in
living creatures today, ranging from eyespots, to simple depressions that
are light sensitive in particular directions, to lensless "pinhole camera"
eyes, to lensed eyes. His point was that the argument, that "half an eye"
was useless, was false.
The usual creationist tactic is to quote only Darwin's rhetorical question,
and not continue with his well-argued answer.
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove "pants" spamblock to send e-mail)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "William Barwell" |
|
| Title: Re: What eyes arose when, and in what? |
01 Feb 2004 05:04:51 PM |
|
|
HiEv wrote:
Alun Harford wrote:
Bobby D. Bryant wrote:
david ford wrote:
[snip]
When did each of these independent
supposed-blindcameramakings of eyes occur, exactly,
and in what, exactly?
Where can I find a chart of this information?
Or is this data best left described in vague generalities?
"They hide the information you're looking for in books."
-- Peter Harrison
I hear "Origin of Species" is where they hide a lot of that stuff. Gits!
Nobody would ever think to look there unless they were in on the
conspiricy.
Actually, IIRC, Darwin had trouble figuring out how the eye could have
evolved. Then again, he didn't have access to the vast resources we
have today on the archaeological and genetic history of life on earth.
And he didn't have access to the tools of modern science,
electron microscopes, and other basics.
As for eyes, and the evolution of feathers, hair and scales,
This stuff is known to the basic level of cell by cell layers
from embryonic stages on. And across families of organisms.
I remember reading quite a bit on such subject matter 20 years ago in the
Rice University library, Nature, Science and other journals
were a rich source of basic facts and recent discoveries.
Its there, if anybody wanted to go back through vast piles
of back issues of journals and read these things. I am sure
that there are lists of bibliographies floating around of all
these articles for specialists to keep track of it all.
But I also am well aware its all unknown to the general public and
to the creationist community that careful averts its eyes from these vast
repositories of basic facts.
Creationism is quite literally based on ignorance, ignorance of facts is
the basic foundation of creationsim.
--
"Socialist!" A name thrown at a moderate by a
reactionary who has run out of relevant argumemnts
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: What eyes arose when, and in what? |
31 Jan 2004 08:21:36 PM |
|
|
And so upon Sun, 01 Feb 2004 01:51:53 +0000 didst Alun Harford speak
thusly:
"Bobby D. Bryant" <bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.02.01.01.20.43.288745@mail.utexas.edu...
On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 01:13:45 +0000, david ford wrote:
Dawkins, Richard. 1996. _Climbing Mount Improbable_
(NY: W.W. Norton and Co.), 340pp. A paragraph
on 139-40:
When we speak of 'the' eye, by the way, we are not
doing justice to the problem. It has been authoritatively
estimated that eyes have evolved no fewer than forty
times, and probably more than sixty times,
independently in various parts of the animal kingdom.
In some cases these eyes use radically different
principles. Nine distinct principles have been
recognized among the forty to sixty independently
evolved eyes. I'll mention some of the nine basic eye
types-- which we can think of as nine distinct peaks in
different parts of Mount Improbable's _massif_-- as I go
on.
When did each of these independent
supposed-blindcameramakings of eyes occur, exactly,
and in what, exactly?
Where can I find a chart of this information?
Or is this data best left described in vague generalities?
"They hide the information you're looking for in books."
-- Peter Harrison
I hear "Origin of Species" is where they hide a lot of that stuff. Gits!
Nobody would ever think to look there unless they were in on the conspiricy.
I hear they collect big, big batches of that stuff in these buildings
which can be found in almost *every *town. Big cities even have *more than
one* of these stashes in them.
But it's probably just urban legend...
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
"There is no system but GNU, and Linux is one of its kernels."
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: What eyes arose when, and in what? |
01 Feb 2004 04:12:17 AM |
|
|
"Mark K. Bilbo" <y@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.02.01.02.21.45.716172@hoo.com-amikchi...
And so upon Sun, 01 Feb 2004 01:51:53 +0000 didst Alun Harford speak
thusly:
"Bobby D. Bryant" <bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.02.01.01.20.43.288745@mail.utexas.edu...
On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 01:13:45 +0000, david ford wrote:
Dawkins, Richard. 1996. _Climbing Mount Improbable_
(NY: W.W. Norton and Co.), 340pp. A paragraph
on 139-40:
When we speak of 'the' eye, by the way, we are not
doing justice to the problem. It has been authoritatively
estimated that eyes have evolved no fewer than forty
times, and probably more than sixty times,
independently in various parts of the animal kingdom.
In some cases these eyes use radically different
principles. Nine distinct principles have been
recognized among the forty to sixty independently
evolved eyes. I'll mention some of the nine basic eye
types-- which we can think of as nine distinct peaks in
different parts of Mount Improbable's _massif_-- as I go
on.
When did each of these independent
supposed-blindcameramakings of eyes occur, exactly,
and in what, exactly?
Where can I find a chart of this information?
Or is this data best left described in vague generalities?
"They hide the information you're looking for in books."
-- Peter Harrison
I hear "Origin of Species" is where they hide a lot of that stuff. Gits!
Nobody would ever think to look there unless they were in on the
conspiricy.
I hear they collect big, big batches of that stuff in these buildings
which can be found in almost *every *town. Big cities even have *more than
one* of these stashes in them.
But it's probably just urban legend...
No, we have one here in my town. I've actually been there. I think it's
called a 'library' or something like that.
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
"There is no system but GNU, and Linux is one of its kernels."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: What eyes arose when, and in what? |
01 Feb 2004 10:31:46 AM |
|
|
And so upon Sun, 01 Feb 2004 10:12:17 +0000 didst John Baker speak thusly:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <y@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.02.01.02.21.45.716172@hoo.com-amikchi...
And so upon Sun, 01 Feb 2004 01:51:53 +0000 didst Alun Harford speak
thusly:
"Bobby D. Bryant" <bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.02.01.01.20.43.288745@mail.utexas.edu...
On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 01:13:45 +0000, david ford wrote:
Dawkins, Richard. 1996. _Climbing Mount Improbable_
(NY: W.W. Norton and Co.), 340pp. A paragraph
on 139-40:
When we speak of 'the' eye, by the way, we are not
doing justice to the problem. It has been authoritatively
estimated that eyes have evolved no fewer than forty
times, and probably more than sixty times,
independently in various parts of the animal kingdom.
In some cases these eyes use radically different
principles. Nine distinct principles have been
recognized among the forty to sixty independently
evolved eyes. I'll mention some of the nine basic eye
types-- which we can think of as nine distinct peaks in
different parts of Mount Improbable's _massif_-- as I go
on.
When did each of these independent
supposed-blindcameramakings of eyes occur, exactly,
and in what, exactly?
Where can I find a chart of this information?
Or is this data best left described in vague generalities?
"They hide the information you're looking for in books."
-- Peter Harrison
I hear "Origin of Species" is where they hide a lot of that stuff. Gits!
Nobody would ever think to look there unless they were in on the
conspiricy.
I hear they collect big, big batches of that stuff in these buildings
which can be found in almost *every *town. Big cities even have *more than
one* of these stashes in them.
But it's probably just urban legend...
No, we have one here in my town. I've actually been there. I think it's
called a 'library' or something like that.
Suuure. Like you've actually *seen one of those places?
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
"There is no system but GNU, and Linux is one of its kernels."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana Tweedy" |
|
| Title: Re: What eyes arose when, and in what? |
02 Feb 2004 12:54:33 PM |
|
|
"Mark K. Bilbo" <y@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.02.01.16.32.05.422817@hoo.com-amikchi...
And so upon Sun, 01 Feb 2004 10:12:17 +0000 didst John Baker speak thusly:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <y@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.02.01.02.21.45.716172@hoo.com-amikchi...
And so upon Sun, 01 Feb 2004 01:51:53 +0000 didst Alun Harford speak
thusly:
"Bobby D. Bryant" <bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.02.01.01.20.43.288745@mail.utexas.edu...
On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 01:13:45 +0000, david ford wrote:
Dawkins, Richard. 1996. _Climbing Mount Improbable_
(NY: W.W. Norton and Co.), 340pp. A paragraph
on 139-40:
When we speak of 'the' eye, by the way, we are not
doing justice to the problem. It has been authoritatively
estimated that eyes have evolved no fewer than forty
times, and probably more than sixty times,
independently in various parts of the animal kingdom.
In some cases these eyes use radically different
principles. Nine distinct principles have been
recognized among the forty to sixty independently
evolved eyes. I'll mention some of the nine basic eye
types-- which we can think of as nine distinct peaks in
different parts of Mount Improbable's _massif_-- as I go
on.
When did each of these independent
supposed-blindcameramakings of eyes occur, exactly,
and in what, exactly?
Where can I find a chart of this information?
Or is this data best left described in vague generalities?
"They hide the information you're looking for in books."
-- Peter Harrison
I hear "Origin of Species" is where they hide a lot of that stuff.
Gits!
Nobody would ever think to look there unless they were in on the
conspiricy.
I hear they collect big, big batches of that stuff in these buildings
which can be found in almost *every *town. Big cities even have *more
than
one* of these stashes in them.
But it's probably just urban legend...
No, we have one here in my town. I've actually been there. I think it's
called a 'library' or something like that.
Suuure. Like you've actually *seen one of those places?
A friend of mine has a friend that was in one of those places.
DJT
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mitchell Coffey" |
|
| Title: Re: What eyes arose when, and in what? |
02 Feb 2004 04:55:08 PM |
|
|
"Dana Tweedy" <tweedyd@cvn.net> wrote in message news:<bvm6e2$u3i45$1@ID-35161.news.uni-berlin.de>...
"Mark K. Bilbo" <y@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.02.01.16.32.05.422817@hoo.com-amikchi...
And so upon Sun, 01 Feb 2004 10:12:17 +0000 didst John Baker speak thusly:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <y@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.02.01.02.21.45.716172@hoo.com-amikchi...
And so upon Sun, 01 Feb 2004 01:51:53 +0000 didst Alun Harford speak
thusly:
"Bobby D. Bryant" <bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.02.01.01.20.43.288745@mail.utexas.edu...
On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 01:13:45 +0000, david ford wrote:
Dawkins, Richard. 1996. _Climbing Mount Improbable_
(NY: W.W. Norton and Co.), 340pp. A paragraph
on 139-40:
When we speak of 'the' eye, by the way, we are not
doing justice to the problem. It has been authoritatively
estimated that eyes have evolved no fewer than forty
times, and probably more than sixty times,
independently in various parts of the animal kingdom.
In some cases these eyes use radically different
principles. Nine distinct principles have been
recognized among the forty to sixty independently
evolved eyes. I'll mention some of the nine basic eye
types-- which we can think of as nine distinct peaks in
different parts of Mount Improbable's _massif_-- as I go
on.
When did each of these independent
supposed-blindcameramakings of eyes occur, exactly,
and in what, exactly?
Where can I find a chart of this information?
Or is this data best left described in vague generalities?
"They hide the information you're looking for in books."
-- Peter Harrison
I hear "Origin of Species" is where they hide a lot of that stuff.
Gits!
Nobody would ever think to look there unless they were in on the
conspiricy.
I hear they collect big, big batches of that stuff in these buildings
which can be found in almost *every *town. Big cities even have *more
than
one* of these stashes in them.
But it's probably just urban legend...
No, we have one here in my town. I've actually been there. I think it's
called a 'library' or something like that.
Suuure. Like you've actually *seen one of those places?
A friend of mine has a friend that was in one of those places.
A friend of my cousin's neighbor insists they let anyone go in them
and they're *free*.
Mitchell Coffey
.
|
|
|
| User: "William Klee" |
|
| Title: Re: What eyes arose when, and in what? |
02 Feb 2004 05:42:48 PM |
|
|
In article <a766a589.0402021455.26056042@posting.google.com>, Mitchell
Coffey <MitCoffey@aol.com> wrote:
"Dana Tweedy" <tweedyd@cvn.net> wrote in message
news:<bvm6e2$u3i45$1@ID-35161.news.uni-berlin.de>...
"Mark K. Bilbo" <y@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.02.01.16.32.05.422817@hoo.com-amikchi...
And so upon Sun, 01 Feb 2004 10:12:17 +0000 didst John Baker speak thusly:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <y@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.02.01.02.21.45.716172@hoo.com-amikchi...
And so upon Sun, 01 Feb 2004 01:51:53 +0000 didst Alun Harford speak
thusly:
"Bobby D. Bryant" <bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.02.01.01.20.43.288745@mail.utexas.edu...
On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 01:13:45 +0000, david ford wrote:
Dawkins, Richard. 1996. _Climbing Mount Improbable_
(NY: W.W. Norton and Co.), 340pp. A paragraph
on 139-40:
When we speak of 'the' eye, by the way, we are not
doing justice to the problem. It has been authoritatively
estimated that eyes have evolved no fewer than forty
times, and probably more than sixty times,
independently in various parts of the animal kingdom.
In some cases these eyes use radically different
principles. Nine distinct principles have been
recognized among the forty to sixty independently
evolved eyes. I'll mention some of the nine basic eye
types-- which we can think of as nine distinct peaks in
different parts of Mount Improbable's _massif_-- as I go
on.
When did each of these independent
supposed-blindcameramakings of eyes occur, exactly,
and in what, exactly?
Where can I find a chart of this information?
Or is this data best left described in vague generalities?
"They hide the information you're looking for in books."
-- Peter Harrison
I hear "Origin of Species" is where they hide a lot of that stuff.
Gits!
Nobody would ever think to look there unless they were in on the
conspiricy.
I hear they collect big, big batches of that stuff in these buildings
which can be found in almost *every *town. Big cities even have *more
than
one* of these stashes in them.
But it's probably just urban legend...
No, we have one here in my town. I've actually been there. I think it's
called a 'library' or something like that.
Suuure. Like you've actually *seen one of those places?
A friend of mine has a friend that was in one of those places.
A friend of my cousin's neighbor insists they let anyone go in them
and they're *free*.
Yeah, right, and I suppose the next thing you're going to tell us is
that they let people actually *read* any of these "books" they want.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
