INFERNO
Are you saying that that portion of the article proves that the eye could have been build by Darwinian mechanisms?
I read the article and it doesn’t even attempt to prove that Darwinism was responsible for building the eye, there is a big difference between proving something and assuming something. There is nothing wrong with making assumption,but you can´t assume the very thing that you are supposed to prove
Trevor D. Lamb, Shaun P. Collin & Edward N. Pugh (2007) Evolution of the vertebrate eye: opsins, photoreceptors, retina and eye cup, Nature Reviews Neuroscience 8, 960-976 (December 2007) wrote:
Subsequent studies have shown how the roles of several key sites have altered during evolution (94–97), and have defined the molecular characteristics of the different classes of opsin (98–105).
Are you saying that that portion of the article proves that the eye could have been build by Darwinian mechanisms?
I read the article and it doesn’t even attempt to prove that Darwinism was responsible for building the eye, there is a big difference between proving something and assuming something. There is nothing wrong with making assumption,but you can´t assume the very thing that you are supposed to prove