…and this is a 
Tonight, on the History Channel…
Category: Science
Posted on: July 29, 2008 1:37 PM, by PZ Myers
It's the much anticipate first episode of a new series, Evolve - Eyes.
They are one of evolution's most useful and prevalent inventions. Ninety five percent of living species are equipped with eyes and they exist in many different forms. Learn how the ancestors of jellyfish may have been the first to evolve light-sensitive cells. Discover how dinosaur's evolved eyes that helped them become successful hunters. Finally, learn how primates evolved unique adaptations to their eyes that allowed them to better exploit their new habitat, and how the ability to see colors helped them find food.
I've programmed my computer to record it, and I'll probably live-blog the show as well. Let's hope I have reason to do more than get snippy!
Comments
Good. We complain enough about the history channel, but if we support the good shows we might get better programming.
I kind of wish they hadn't begun with eyes, though. I can't help but think they're going to be speculating a lot, which will let the denialists say, "See, it's just a bunch of guesses".
Evolution of tetrapod locomotion might have been a better send-off, after which they could tackle the questions and gaps involved in eye evolution.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Glen Davidson | July 29, 2008 1:43 PM
I know a couple bacteria species that might take issue with "Ninety five percent of living species are equipped with eyes". Still, good to see explicit statements and case studies of evolution in the popular media.
Posted by: Nick | July 29, 2008 1:45 PM
Lets hope it is done well...I'm waiting for either cheers or complaints from the IDiots. Anyone know what time it comes on specifically?
Posted by: GirBoBytons | July 29, 2008 1:49 PM
Should I make my Christian family watch this? Perspective helps, you know.
Posted by: Copache | July 29, 2008 1:50 PM
Cool, it's on right after Jurassic Fight Club!
I'd say more but the first rule of Jurassic Fight Club is you don't talk about Jurassic Fight Club.
Oops. I think I've said to much already...
Posted by: ThirdMonkey | July 29, 2008 1:53 PM
Sounds like a good program. Though I may be being quite pedantic when I point out that plants are living species as well, and they do not have eyes, so the claim that 95% of living species have them, is technically inaccurate. It should be 95% of animal species, perhaps?
Posted by: Thomas Langham | July 29, 2008 2:02 PM
Nick:
I know a couple bacteria species that might take issue with "Ninety five percent of living species are equipped with eyes". Still, good to see explicit statements and case studies of evolution in the popular media.
Not to mention the vast bulk of Eukaryotic life as well (the protists). Unless we are calling any sort of photosensitive machinery an eye. I think it is very important to show the diversity of eyes and eye-like ogans in all of life, and how different from one another they are because it is an excellent example of convergent evolution but the 95% of living things having eyes statement is just plain wrong. Eyes, as we think of them, have only evolved in a handful of phylogenetic groups such as the insects and tetrapods. That is hardly 95% of life on earth.
Posted by: Daniel Gaston | July 29, 2008 2:02 PM
Nick, you missed all the plant living species!
Posted by: Thomas Langham | July 29, 2008 2:04 PM
The Comcast Cable on-screen TV listing in my area are showing "To Be Announced" for the 10 PM time slot. The History Channel web pages seems to have it right.
Posted by: Steve D | July 29, 2008 2:05 PM
After all, the History Channel has a great track record for scientific accuracy - just watch "UFO Hunters" and "MonsterQuest." They're like Enzyte: "it's REAL science!"
Posted by: Milo Johnson | July 29, 2008 2:10 PM
#5, you beat me to it! JFC is the main reason I'm skeptical about Evolve. It's like were back at Animal Face Off! & Flying Shark vs. Flying Crocodile. Hopefully it'll be: alright, you had your fun, now let's look at some real science...
Hmm, you know, everybody needs a little JFC...
Posted by: MrSquid | July 29, 2008 2:11 PM
Depends on what you call "animal", of course. Nematodes make up a lot of the "animal species", and they lack eyes, as do many other worm species.
I wouldn't sweat their ambiguous statement though. Likely they found out that 95% of chordates, or some such thing, has eyes (it seems that it should be more than 95% of chordates, however), and then some copywriter didn't realize the importance of including the category.
I expect them to do better in the program than in their little blurbs. May they meet my expectations.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Glen Davidson | July 29, 2008 2:13 PM
They better have stomatopods. But who am I kidding, its gonna be a vertebrate biased wankfest.
Yeah, I'm a little bitter.
Posted by: mikebok | July 29, 2008 2:14 PM
They better have stomatopods. But who am I kidding, its gonna be a vertebrate biased wankfest.
Yeah, I'm a little bitter.
It's the invertebrates own fault for not sticking up for themselves. They're spineless!
Posted by: Mark B. from Austin TX | July 29, 2008 2:24 PM
From what I have read about the evolution of the eye, this should be funny. Try to look at it with a critical eye instead of swallowing it hook, line and sinker.
Posted by: Randy Stimpson aka Intelligent Designer | July 29, 2008 2:24 PM
This is the first time I can recall disagreeing with Glen on something. I think eyes are a great place to start, because they are so iconic, what with the quote mining of Darwin and the sense that eyes are especially complex and evolutionarily improbable...when in fact the evolution of eyes and of sight has a pretty rich theoretical framework. From the computer models to our ability to arrange eyes from extent organisms from the simple eyespots to several kinds of complex eyes, to the genetic evidence related to opsins that Carroll writes about, there is plenty of data to demonstrate eye evolution. I think that once we knock down the "eyes couldn't have evolved" argument, other macro-structures are a slam dunk to accept as evolved. The IDiots will continue to throw micro stuff up, I'm sure, but for the average person, a plausible case for eye evolution will be a serious blow to their sense that guided design is in any way obvious.
Posted by: Greg Peterson | July 29, 2008 2:29 PM
@14 - They do a pretty good job sticking up for themselves. They are angry little monsters. They have one emotion: rage. And they have one response to stimuli: smack.
Posted by: mikebok | July 29, 2008 2:32 PM
And what have you read about it Randy?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 29, 2008 2:32 PM
I know as much about biology as I do pottery, but the claim that 95% of species have eyes strikes me as ridiculous on its face. Setting plants aside, aren't most animals bacteria and amoebas and whatnot?
Posted by: nobi yuno | July 29, 2008 2:38 PM
Animals don't include plants and bacteria.
Posted by: Steve_C | July 29, 2008 2:42 PM
I'm with Greg -- the eye is this sort of poster child for ID (I hate abbreviating things, but I just couldn't put those two words together in full), and the more people who know that its evolution is well understood, the better.
There are plenty of (vocal) people who will never accept that, regardless of the evidence. But I hope that there are fence sitters who could be coaxed towards reality by something like this.
Posted by: Aramael | July 29, 2008 2:44 PM
Either produce evidence of design or fuck off. Nobody is interested in your idiotic appeals to whatever the fuck your appealing to, engineer.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | July 29, 2008 2:44 PM
Wow, my first thought was to point out that their stat was a little bit off, but there are already twenty posts pretty much beating me to it... I don't understand how people post responses so quickly.
Posted by: Mozglubov | July 29, 2008 2:46 PM
Brownian, that non-sound you didn't hear was Randy drive-bying with no support for his non-point, only troll scat.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 29, 2008 2:50 PM
#15-Wow from that little comment you have posted, made me look at the world in a whole knew light, your word is so important! Don't you IDiots know posting stuff on PZ's blog does nothing but give us an even better insight on how stupid you all are? And more over do you all not realize we don't really want to hear what you have to think? Go to one of your IDiot blogs and post your garbage there where people fall for crap "hook, line and sinker", no one wants to read it here.
Posted by: GirBoBytons | July 29, 2008 2:53 PM
That, and I am awfully jealous of the quit wit of some of the fast responses... #14 made me chuckle.
Posted by: Mozglubov | July 29, 2008 2:54 PM
And what, dumbass, makes you think we wouldn't look at it critically? Your endless prejudices?
The fact is that on this forum we frequently reveal a critical eye. Sometimes it goes beyond reasonable objections, but that's to be expected from skeptics at times.
If you ever come up with any evidence for, say, viruses directing evolution, or eyes being designed, then why don't you try to come up with some evidence for your attribution (projection, really) of credulity on the part of others?
Btw, fuckwit, denying reasonable claims without cause is not casting a critical eye. It's just stupidity, like every post we've had from you thus far.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Glen Davidson | July 29, 2008 2:58 PM
I'm glad you reminded me about this show. I've been seeing the ads for the series over the last few weeks, and had wanted to check it out.
Posted by: Whateverman | July 29, 2008 2:58 PM
I recall a conversation I had with Dennis the Angry Hippie™ (a local non-celebrity 'round these parts) who, in the midst of trying to convince me that archaeologists had discovered Sumerian texts from ~40,000 BP, implored me to remember that 'the mind is like a parachute; it only works when it's open."
Forty minutes of detailed analysis of exactly all the evidence that would have to be discarded for his extraordinary claim to be plausible, and he happily ate those words.
Stimpy is more of the same, demanding that we accept his ignorance as equal to our knowledge.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | July 29, 2008 3:00 PM
If gawds great creation is eyes he sure screwed up. Mine have been getting worse for ten years.
I won't be able to watch the program, all I get is local TV. Dang!
Posted by: Patricia | July 29, 2008 3:02 PM
Yes, all, it should have said 95 percent of living 'animal' species. This is a press release, thankfully. This mistake is not made in the script.
I hope everyone gives the show and the series a chance.
Posted by: someoneintheknow | July 29, 2008 3:06 PM
Randy is the best ID trolls have to offer nowadays. Every time you explain something about science, or reality for that matter, ID'ers will be there to shout "OR, MYGODDIDIT!" and whine about persecution while they get dragged away.
Then watch all the faux skepticism and concern for scientific integrity melt away as snow for the sun when their ideas are scrutinized.
Posted by: Dutch Delight | July 29, 2008 3:09 PM
Well of course the 95% is bogus. After all, 73% of statistics are made up.
And to stimpy:
You fat, bloated, EEEEDIOT!
/Ren
Brownian, software engineers aren't True Engineers. Like
ImaginaryIndustrial Engineers.Posted by: True Bob | July 29, 2008 3:13 PM
Rather surprising to see any trolls here today. They should all be over on Rush or Big Bad Bills websites having a prayer rally.
Posted by: Patricia | July 29, 2008 3:15 PM
Does anyone know if spontaneous generation hated by the church in its heyday?
Posted by: Jose | July 29, 2008 3:19 PM
#35 - WTF?
Posted by: Patricia | July 29, 2008 3:21 PM
I forgot a "was".
Posted by: Jose | July 29, 2008 3:24 PM
Okay, I know this is silly, but this really bugged me:
Discover how dinosaur's evolved eyes that helped them become successful hunters
(Emphasis mine.)
Seriously? I guess it's an easy mistake to make, but isn't that what they have copy editors to prevent?
Posted by: Etha Williams, OM | July 29, 2008 3:29 PM
Just to clarify, it seems like an organism just growing out of the mud seems more anti-bible than evolution. I'm wondering if the church had issues with the theory.
Posted by: Jose | July 29, 2008 3:31 PM
@Etha Williams
I'm good friends with dinosaur, and I won't have you disparaging his beautifully evolved hunting eyes.
Posted by: Jose | July 29, 2008 3:35 PM
Did "spontaneous generation" ever have a heyday?
It's just a funny example of silly beliefs that people can acquire if they don't care about testing stuff. If anything it was there to explain why rats and other vermin kept appearing wherever people stored food.
Posted by: Dutch Delight | July 29, 2008 3:37 PM
No, but given the propensity of rats and mice to 'spontaneously appear' in barns, I wouldn't rule out the possibility of a 'hay-day'.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | July 29, 2008 3:40 PM
Etha - That Stephen Fry piece over on your blog is great. Have you seen the one he did on swearing? It's good too!
Posted by: Patricia | July 29, 2008 3:43 PM
No, but given the propensity of rats and mice to 'spontaneously appear' in barns, I wouldn't rule out the possibility of a 'hay-day'.
*crickets
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 29, 2008 3:44 PM
Rev. BDC, I believe you meant to link to something like this.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | July 29, 2008 3:46 PM
Don't forget to stay tuned after the show for " Mega Disasters: Noah's Great Flood"!
Oh well, at least the Evolve show is progress.
Posted by: Ian | July 29, 2008 3:47 PM
@ Rev. BigDumbChimp
I don't recall everything that I read. I do remember starting at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye
By the way, what is your field of technology?
Posted by: Randy Stimpson aka Intelligent Designer | July 29, 2008 3:47 PM
Thomas Langham #8: "Nick, you missed all the plant living species!"
What about potatoes? They have eyes, smart guy!
Posted by: Grumpy | July 29, 2008 3:49 PM
I do remember starting at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye
Problem the first...
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | July 29, 2008 3:50 PM
I don't recall everything that I read.
Clearly. So anyways, what's your problem with the evolution of the eye (as if we haven't heard it all before)?
Posted by: Brownian, OM | July 29, 2008 3:51 PM
I think Spontaneous generation had at least 2 Heydays. The first one was maybe around 3.8 billion years ago. The second one lasted around 2,000 years, and ended in the 17th century. And people did do tests. They weren't very good tests by modern standards, but they were tests.
Posted by: Jose | July 29, 2008 3:57 PM
"Learn how primates evolved unique adaptations to their eyes..." Uh-huh. Only an atheist would lap up such stuff and sincerely believe, out of sheer faith, that something is actually being explained to him.
And "how" the ability to see colours helped them to find food...that's a funny one.
The dinosaurs evolved eyes which helped them to become better hunters? You don't say.
The "ancestors" of jellyfish, the first to evolve light-sensitive cells? So what evolved those "ancestors"? And if we're on the topic of evolution, tell me "how" can there be a "first"?
One can surely learn a lot these days! Wow! I'll be sure to watch!
Posted by: Paul Stilwell | July 29, 2008 3:57 PM
as great as this show sounds, why the heck is it on the History Channel? Over on Aardvarchaeology the other day Martin was fighting to distinguish archaeology from history. I don't see how we fit evolution into the history sphere at all if we can only sometimes incude archaeology.
Posted by: megan | July 29, 2008 3:58 PM
" I do remember starting at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye "
Ah, that explains it...
Posted by: leki | July 29, 2008 3:59 PM
@ #38 -
I'm with you! Not encouraging to see a typo in the show's description on the main page. That annoyed the crap outta me.
Posted by: Dan B. | July 29, 2008 4:01 PM
spontaneous generation hated by the church
How could the church hate the idea of spontaneous generation? How else to explain the virgin birth of baby jebus?
Posted by: supercrone | July 29, 2008 4:09 PM
I think my "spontaneous generation" question may be the one question Randy is qualified to answer. Is there a prize for that discovery?
Posted by: Jose | July 29, 2008 4:10 PM
@Randy #47: nice page. Is it really easier to believe that some magic sky daddy built the eye -- with all its faults -- rather than that it evolved? Look, I know that five hundred million years is beyond human comprehension, we're just not built for it. I like the analogy of language: there was no point, in the last two thousand years, that people living on the Italian peninsula could not understand their children. Yet Latin and Italian are distinct languages -- you can see that they're related, but I speak Latin, and I cannot for the life of me understand Italian. Nobody directed this process, nobody at the time would have noticed it (although we do have some rather amusing rants that have survived, concerning how those kids today are just mucking up proper grammar). But it happened, and the time scale was miniscule, compared to geologic time.
I know this won't convince you -- the problem is that nothing will convince you, and I know this because the evidence for billions of years of undirected evolution is, by all sane measures, irrefutable.
Having said that, let it the fuck go. If the bible tells you everything you need to know, refuse modern medicine, refuse petroleum, basically, don't take advantage of anything that the industrial revolution created, because all of this is based on evolution or a 4.5 billion year old Earth.
I wish more people would live their beliefs. I'm living mine.
Posted by: Aramael | July 29, 2008 4:12 PM
Paul Stilwell - Nice catholic website. Since you seem to like quotes, here's one you can feel free to use:
"What profit has not that fable of christ brought us?" Pope Leo X
Posted by: Patricia | July 29, 2008 4:13 PM
Hey, I don't have the History Channel today *cries*, what's this I hear about PZ "live-bloging" the show???? I really want to watch it... Specially for the simultaneous commentary by The Squid Master...
Posted by: Hamsterpoop | July 29, 2008 4:13 PM
Stilwell, you genius...
while I'll avoid stepping in the rancid pile of dung you just dropped at #52, I'll just say:
I'm "not" sure "you" are quite aware "of" the proper use "quotes"... so please "take" a class in "remedial" English before posting here "again".
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | July 29, 2008 4:14 PM
# 35:
I believe it did, especially with insects. I just saw a wonderful exhibit at the Getty here in LA of Maria Sibylla Merian's insect studies and how they advanced entomology.
The Getty's painting collections are not extensive, but any exhibits they develop having to do with manuscripts are usually excellent, and this one is no exception. I highly recommend it.
Posted by: Susan | July 29, 2008 4:15 PM
Uh-huh. Only an atheist would lap up such stuff and sincerely believe, out of sheer faith, that something is actually being explained to him (emphasis added)
Are you trying to be ironic?
And "how" the ability to see colours helped them to find food...that's a funny one.
I know little about the subject and haven't seen the show yet, but even I can imagine how that could obviously be helpful.
The "ancestors" of jellyfish, the first to evolve light-sensitive cells? So what evolved those "ancestors"? And if we're on the topic of evolution, tell me "how" can there be a "first"?
You mean like the first intelligent designer?
Posted by: Ian | July 29, 2008 4:17 PM
Paul is another kooky catholic that believes in virgin births and zombie saviours but not simple evolution. Funny.
Posted by: Steve_C | July 29, 2008 4:17 PM
Actually, after rereading Paul's post, I think he's just a poe.
Posted by: Ian | July 29, 2008 4:23 PM
Tell me more? I never knew chemical processes and spontaneous generation had anything to do with each other.
Posted by: Dutch Delight | July 29, 2008 4:26 PM
Nah. He's pretty well sumberged into the Catholic mythology. Check out his website. Really? Spikes? Kinda sick.
Posted by: Steve_C | July 29, 2008 4:27 PM
Can anyone record this show as a digital file? I don't have the History Channel. Or any channel, for that matter. :(
Posted by: Uncephalized | July 29, 2008 4:36 PM
Randy: Exactly what is it in the wikipedia article you cite that you think helps your cause?
Posted by: Andrew | July 29, 2008 4:39 PM
It's a slim connection, but I'll take advantage of kooky Catholic Stilwell's presence here as an excuse to put a kooky Catholic response to PZ's "desecration" here:
One doesn't know what "public reparation" they want, nor how they can be so deaf to what "free speech" means.
I have my own reservations about PZ doing what he did, but they pale in comparison to the intense opposition to free speech and free religion exhibited in that piece.
To be fair, these are only 600 bozo Catholic priests and deacons, who I hope are not representative of the church. They'd better not be, since they're a page out of the medieval history of persecution of religious "offenses".
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Glen Davidson | July 29, 2008 4:40 PM
Hi Etha WIlliams
How's that 12 note thing doing for you?
Your contributions have been missed.
Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | July 29, 2008 4:42 PM
@ Dutch Delight
Tell me more? I never knew chemical processes and spontaneous generation had anything to do with each other.
Well, you're attacking the joke response. Is it good form to defend the joke response? I can try, if you like.
Posted by: Jose | July 29, 2008 4:42 PM
Stilwell at #52 blithers :
When one has ACTUAL EVIDENCE, faith is not required.
The unique adaptation is most likely trichromatic vision.
Fully explainable as a duplication/modification of an opsin protein.
And "An unknowable being somehow DIDIT !!!!" qualifies as a 'better' answer why ?
Only if you're hebephrenic. The ability to distinguish more colors granted the ability to determine when fruits were ripe, AFAACT.
RiiIIiiIIIIiight - like starving because you can't see food as well as your competitors is such a GOOD thing !
Dealing with your IDiocy in order :
1. As far as anyone can tell, yes, the ancestors of jellyfish developed light sensitive cells. Quite useful for determining which way is up during the day, or WHEN it is day, or if something big swims overhead.
2. Even worms (the shape of the most likely common ancestor) can use eyes sometimes.
3. We aren't the top of evolution; it is gibbering arrogance to presume so. The delusion that humans are the pinnacle is generally seen in those with a pathological need to feel 'special' in the world.
4. Even if we humans were the 'top' of evolution, in what rational way would that prevent there from being a first ?
It is quite possible to go from 'light sensitive cell' to 'patch of light sensitive cells' to 'cup eye' to 'pinhole' to 'lensed eye'. The molluscs show that each proposed step is viable - the Nautilus, for example, has an eye with no cornea or lens, but gets along quite well.
Octopi have eyes functionally equal to ours - maybe slightly better, since they don't have a blind spot.
You could learn a LOT more if you'd watch to LEARN something, rather than things to quote mine or willfully misrepresent just to have something to blither about.
Posted by: prof weird | July 29, 2008 4:43 PM
Paul Stilwell said
Like you know anything about anything.
Start here:
The eye as a contingent, diverse, complex product of evolutionary processes.
The link for the paper that the post is summarizing is contained in the very last comment by Owlmirror. Read it.
Also, Evolution of vertebrate eyes.
Come back when you've read those and explain any objections. Generally, you need to have read and understood most of what has been written about a subject before claiming that it takes faith to believe in it. But of course, once you have dedicated your life to sloppy thinking, you just can't help but project that on to others.
Posted by: Damian with an a | July 29, 2008 4:51 PM
Nah. He's pretty well sumberged into the Catholic mythology. Check out his website. Really? Spikes? Kinda sick.
Poes can link URLs too, you know.
Posted by: Ian | July 29, 2008 4:51 PM
Glen D, thanks for that glimpse into the authoritarian mindset.
Yay!
(I just posted a lengthy treatise on the subject over at Mixing Memory This is all I got left. :))
Um, no, no it doesn't.
Posted by: SC | July 29, 2008 4:52 PM
It's good to remember that photoreceptors are used for more things than imaging. The cryptochromes (in plants and animals) have a variety of non-imaging functions. Most interesting of which to me is the detection of magnetic fields.
Posted by: hje | July 29, 2008 4:55 PM
Aieeee.... don't these people have proof readers? Uh, I mean, proof reader's, apparently?
Oh, and Randy,...
fuck it. Never mind.
Posted by: Brain Hertz | July 29, 2008 4:57 PM
By the way, Damian, I linked to your comment with the "ethics of belief" chapter over at Mixing Memory, too. No response. Reminded them that they hadn't responded. Still nothing. I'm not optimistic.
Posted by: SC | July 29, 2008 5:00 PM
As many have been said before. Ahhhh
I'm an IT director. But the difference is, I don't put that out as a reason I'm better suited to know something about a field almost wholly unrelated.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 29, 2008 5:00 PM
Well I wanted the mixture of the two..
hehe
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 29, 2008 5:03 PM
Rev. BDC - I'm a hillbilly, what is an IT director?
Posted by: Patricia | July 29, 2008 5:04 PM
IT = Information Technology
I'm in charge of all network and computer systems and anything related to that for the company I work for. I set IT policy, budget, help with hiring etc.. as well as get my hands dirty with the technical stuff because we are a small staff for a $200 million a year multi-state company. I wear a lot of hats but mostly I'm Head Nerd.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 29, 2008 5:10 PM
Patricia, IT = Information Technology
Rev BDC, what is your educational background?
Posted by: Randy Stimpson aka Intelligent Designer | July 29, 2008 5:12 PM
I'd say yes, but only if you can make it really funny. In the end I don't know, it's all so hard to tell without a god to whisper the answer into my ears.
Posted by: Dutch Delight | July 29, 2008 5:15 PM
Rev. BDC - I'm a hillbilly, what is an IT director?
It means he's the next hot thing in directing. A young Cecil B. DeMille, if you will.
Posted by: Jose | July 29, 2008 5:16 PM
I don't have access to the history channel. I don't suppose this is going to be available anywhere else, such as on the web?
Posted by: Elliot | July 29, 2008 5:17 PM
it's all so hard to tell without a god to whisper the answer into my ears.
I'm sending god over to your place right away. He may be dressed as a UPS driver.
Posted by: Jose | July 29, 2008 5:22 PM
That's great!
It's unfortunate though to see them make an apostrophe error with "dinosaur's".
Posted by: Leon | July 29, 2008 5:24 PM
Also believes the last 4 Infallible Popes were wrong. They didn't and don't have a problem with evolution including the present one. Death Cults, it's not just for fundie morons any more.
Posted by: raven | July 29, 2008 5:24 PM
Mr. Stimpson, you could try using evidence instead of ad hominems. It might work better than acting annoying and slightly vindictive.
How do you tell designed objects from non-designed ones? Why is the eye one of the former and not the latter?
Posted by: Hap | July 29, 2008 5:25 PM
Why Randy, it seems I touched a nerve. Where oh where might this leading set of questions take us..... Humm whare ever could it be?
I have a BS In Natural Resources Ecosystems Assessment from NCSU and then a number of Technical Certifications more akin to my current field.
As well as a good heaping helping of the school of life. None of which I claim to be any better suited to explaining the intricacies of modern biology than the people who actually currently are practicing biologists in the field or related fields.
Now lead on Mr. question and no answer man.
Or would you mind answering what in that page you pointed to above supports your implied assertion that the evolution of the eye is "funny"?
Posted by: Rev. bigDumbChimp | July 29, 2008 5:26 PM
I see the three-disc series will be available for sale starting November 20th. I'll no doubt buy the dang thing, flaws and all. I hate supporting mediocrity (and for all I know these will actually be excellent, but I'm often disappointed with TV science shows), but I have noticed that in looking for errors and correcting them in my own mind, I'm able to retain a lot of information that might have slipped past me otherwise. The very act of being a critical bastard makes me a more learned elitist bastard. So it's win-win.
Poste