Post by Pahu79 on Dec 13, 2012 18:31:32 GMT -5
Complex Molecules and Organs 3
[continued]
b. “The probability of dust carried by the wind reproducing Dürer’s ‘Melancholia’ is less infinitesimal than the probability of copy errors in the DNA molecule leading to the formation of the eye; besides, these errors had no relationship whatsoever with the function that the eye would have to perform or was starting to perform. There is no law against daydreaming, but science must not indulge in it.” [/i] [emphasis in original] Grassé, p. 104.
“It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random mutations. This is even more true for some of the ecological chain relationships (the famous yucca moth case, and so forth). However, the objectors to random mutations have so far been unable to advance any alternative explanation that was supported by substantial evidence.” [/i] Ernst Mayr, Systematics and the Origin of Species (New York: Dover Publications, 1942), p. 296.
Although Robert Jastrow generally accepts Darwinian evolution, he acknowledges that:
“It is hard to accept the evolution of the human eye as a product of chance; it is even harder to accept the evolution of human intelligence as the product of random disruptions in the brain cells of our ancestors.” [/i] Robert Jastrow, “Evolution: Selection for Perfection,” Science Digest, December 1981, p. 87.
[continue]
[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]