Post reply

Reply to the message by Balance_Maintained

Name:

E-mail: (optional, won't be displayed directly)

Leave this field empty:

Homepage: (optional)

Leave this field empty:

Location: (optional)

Remember me (cookie)

Category:

Subject:

Formatting help

skip to input

format text bold: [b]bold text[/b]
format text italic: [i]italic text[/i]
insert hyperlink: [link=http://example.com/]link text[/link] / [link]http://example.com/[/link]
set text color: [color=#rgb]colored text[/color]
font size: [size=small]small text[/size]; [size=large]large text[/size]
insert list: [list][*]list item[/list]
insert image: [img]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; left: [img=left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; right: [img=right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail: [img=thumbnail]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail left: [img=thumbnail-left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail right: [img=thumbnail-right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]

:-)
;-)
:-P
:-D
:-|
:-(

Message:

> This is actually an interesting puzzle for the evolution debate, because one way or another, evolutionary theorist will have to admit possibilities that do not fit in with their main theory. -Natural selection would dictate that fish with the bigger eyes in a different position of their body would lead to better chance of survival, then why do the fish not have bigger eye spots all the time? Also, where or how did they develop the ability in the first place? If they never had big eye spots, how did natural select act upon something that did not exist in order to produce them? If they witnessed them on another creature, then we have to admit that fish have a higher level of cognizance than they have previously been acknowledged as having and that natural selection is able to act upon a creature by selecting a trait that another creature possess and applying it to the host creatures physiology, which grants natural selection some semblance of omnipotency. None of these things fit with evolutionary theory.