Obviously, “Black Ops” failed to comprehend the following, which I wrote on 18-Oct-06 at 11:57 am (emphasis added):

“I read science books, including those by people such as Sean Carroll and Richard Dawkins. No, I don’t get grant money and work in a lab, but I do try to be informed, from all sides.”

Perhaps this type of cognative dissonance is what allows people to believe in the Darwinian fairy tale in the first place…

And, for the record, I don’t reject “evolution”, per se, because “evolution” obviously happens, given that “evolution” can mean something as vague as “change over time”. However, “Darwinism” and “evolution” are not necessarily synonymous, and I reject “Darwinism” specifically, not “evolution” in general.

I predict that Darwinism will go the way of Marxism and Freudian thought, which is to the dustbin of history. It’s just a matter of time.

Ah, yes, the whole “argument by numbers” approach, rather than producing any evidence.

Uh, no – it’s not about determining the correctness of some theory based on how many people accept it. Rather, what matters is who accepts it. In this case, the people who’ve studied the evidence firsthand consider the theory of evolution to be the best available explanation. Cries of “well, I jest don’t likes it” from non-experts who haven’t seen the evidence are rather less convincing in this context. Sorry.

Anyway, I doubt you’re convinced by any of this. I doubt anyone cares that you’re unconvinced, but in any case you can have the last word.

Eat shit, a billion flies can’t be wrong…

Then kindly point it out. Most of the “evidence” I have seen has been in the form of imaginative “just so” stories.

I’m afraid that blog comments are not a suitable format for remedying the deficiencies in your understanding of modern science. Ask yourself for a moment why it is that you seem to have the inside track on this whole bogus-theory thing, why you’re seeing something that virtually every legitimate evolutionary theorist, biologist, and biochemist has apparently somehow missed. Ask yourself why it is that you’re the only one, versus tens of thousands of trained specialists in the field who disagree with you.

As for whether you find the theory of evolution plausible or implausible, I hate to deal your ego a blow, but I sincerely doubt if people who work with the theory of evolution are overly concerned that some random internet guy is skeptical of the best available explanation. It’s not like you’re unique in that. There are dozens of random internet guys, pretty much just like you, who are skeptical of the al Qaeda-theory of 9/11, the NASA-used-a-big-rocket-to-actually-go-there theory of the moon landings, or the fluoridated-water-is-not-a-commie-plot theory of public health. In the end, good science carries on, despite your personal disapproval. Sorry.

Eh?

Anyway, the reality is that there’s lots of fossil evidence supporting the evolution of eyes from primitive to complex, which is additionally supported by molecular biology.

Then kindly point it out. Most of the “evidence” I have seen has been in the form of imaginative “just so” stories. It is fascinating, however, that since I reject the implausible Darwinian explanation, that I must somehow be a “creationist”.

And yes, I do do research. Well, I read science books, including those by people such as Sean Carroll and Richard Dawkins. No, I don’t get grant money and work in a lab, but I do try to be informed, from all sides. Yes, I am a layman, but that doesn’t disqualify the legitimacy of my skepticism.

It always comes down to “yer just too stoopid to get it”, when, in truth, Darwinian evolution is a dying fairy tale.

Hey, I just figured you weren’t aware of the evidence, but if that’s not the case, and you actually believe that there’s no fossil evidence of eye evolution…well, if the shoe fits, eh?

Anyway, the reality is that there’s lots of fossil evidence supporting the evolution of eyes from primitive to complex, which is additionally supported by molecular biology. Unfortunately for you, scientific theories are not overturned by the willful blindness of armchair critics. Fortunately for you, the theory of eye evolution is easy enough to overturn – get on out there and find a complex, mammalian-style eye in a Cambrian- or pre-Cambrian-era creature. Find that, and you’ll blow a great big hole in the current theory.

Whoops, I forgot – creationists don’t do research. They just heckle from the sidelines. Well, there you go – back to the benches for ya.

No confusion on my part, but the unbridled arrogance on your part is amusing. It always comes down to “yer just too stoopid to get it”, when, in truth, Darwinian evolution is a dying fairy tale.

I am aware of the “just so” stories about how it “could have” or “might have” evolved via an undirected process, but, as I said, there is no actual fossil evidence of these “just so” scenarios. What we have are various eyes, allegedly in “various stages of development”, scattered throughout the animal kingdom. Calling that “evidence” is like calling a dictionary “evidence” of Shakspeare’s works.