“The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time.”
Albert Einstein, Ideas and Opinions, page 28

Sorry, but you sound like a proponent of Intelligent Design. Can you tell me why all those light sensing organs in so many organisms are not the precursors of eyes?

There are no transitional predecessors for eyes, whether they be molluscan, arthropod or vertebrate. As far as that is concerned, at the other end of the structural spectrum, there are no known predecessors for any of the cell organelles either. The whole notion of gradualism is a myth just like every other aspect of the Darwinian hoax. Just because a structure is simple does not mean it is ancestral. Conversely, complicated structures need not have simple evolutionary predecessors either. What we see in the living world are the expressions of preformed, “prescribed” “blueprints” which were present very early in the evolutionary sequence and were expressed in an all-or-none manner on a predetermined schedule as phylogeny unfolded. Chance played at best a trivial role in that sequence.

As far as can be ascertained, all of evolution has involved enormous leaps (saltations) NONE of which can be linked through gradual transformation. The only thing that has been continuous is reproduction which could not possibly in the past have been though sexual reproduction, because sexual reproduction is INCOMPETENT as a creative mechanism. All it is good for is maintaining the status quo and ensuring ultimate extinction. That is precisely the testimony of the fossil record. Sexual reproduction and its associated Mendelian genetics HAD in the past and still HAVE absolutely nothing to do with organic evolution except to bring it to a screeching halt.

Furthermore, there is very little evidence of favoring a monophyletic evolution either. I am inclined to agree with Leo Berg -

“Organisms have developed from tens of thousands of primary forms, i.e, polyphyletically.”
Nomogenesis, page 406

Besides, progressive evolution ceased long ago with not a new genus in the last 2 million years and not a new verifiable species in historic times.

The history of life as revealed by the fossil record is the loss of creative potential with time, exactly as is the case with ontogeny today and in the past.

I don’t expect a “true believer” like yourself to accept this thesis, a scenario in complete accord with what we REALLY know about the history of life.

I believe, with Robert Broom, that the whole business was planned from beginning to end. I further believe that the end may be any time now. For more heresy I refer you to my papers and my weblog.

jadavison.wordpress.com

You have got to be kidding. There is not a word in either of those books that ever had anything to do with the origin of species or of any other taxanomic category, not a word.

“It is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatsoever for believing it to be true.”
Bertrand Russell

Darwinism is nothing more than the mandatory position for the congenital atheist. It is the most absurd proposal ever conjured up in the history of human communication. Those who still adhere to it have painted themselves into a corner from which there is no escape except to completely renounce it as Alfred Russel Wallace, the cofounder of the Darwinian fantasy, did in his final book -

“The World of Life: A Manifestation of Creative Power, Directive Mind and Ultimate Purpose.”

jadavison.wordpress.com

My response was directed to Sorbet #24, not Brian Schmidt #25. Sorry about that.