Rhiannon wrote:
But isn't that just a variation on the 'eye' argument, where people say you can't get a whole eye in one go, in one mutation? Cos eyes aren't like that - in nature there is everything from a dob of flat light-reacting pigment (like a flatworm?) to a cupshape (that helps with direction) to full blown eyes like mine or a cuttlefish's. And as they say, every little helps. So likewise it won't be the difference between a massive flood and a dry desert (despite my example). It'll be the difference between surviving in a little bit of rain and surviving in a tiny little bit more rain. And maybe a little mutation could do that. Then the offspring of that better adapted creature go on to have more offspring with a range of features. And again the best fit survive better and go on to produce more offspring.
That's a lot of maybes though. An eye would have to start with a single light-sensitive cell, and there is simply no way that that's going to provide sufficient survival advantage for natural selection.I'm not saying natural selection or evolution are necessarily wrong, but I think we accept them at face value because they're received wisdom, and it seems to me that there's something more going on that isn't currently understood.
