Complex Molecules and Organs 3

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.”
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.”  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.” Robert Jastrow, “Evolution: Selection for
Perfection,” Science Digest, December 1981, p. 87.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences11.html#wp1008873

On Jun 20, 1:33 pm, Pah...@gmail.com wrote his usual CCPed BS

Pahu78@gmail.com wrote:
> Complex Molecules and Organs 3
> 
> 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.”
> Grassé, p. 104.

Grasse was rather sceptical about the evolution of complex organs, 
but our understanding has moved on a little since then (Grasse lived 
from 1895 to 1985). Rather than worry about one out-of-context 
quotation with no proper references to its source, just to be clear 
about what Pierre P. Grasse thought ...

"Zoologists and botanists are nearly unanimous in considering 
evolution as a fact and not a hypothesis. I agree with this position 
and base it primarily on documents provided by palaeontology, i.e., 
the history of the living world ... [Also,] Embryogenesis provides 
valuable data [concerning evolutionary relationships] ... Chemistry, 
through its analytical data, directs biologists and provides 
guidance in their search for affinities between groups of animals or 
plants, and ... plays an important part in the approach to genuine 
evolution." (Pierre P. Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms, 
Academic Press, New York, 1977, pp. 3,4,5,7)

So her we have just another quote deliberately extracted, out of 
context, to be misleading then? We have now pointed out several 
times that this material is dishonest, but you still keep quoting 
it. Pahu - you are exposed for what you are - a purveyor of 
untruths. Here we call it Lying for Jesus.

regards, Ian