Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site psivax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!tektronix!hplabs!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen
From: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Guess ew said that?  --  Too easy.
Message-ID: <654@psivax.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 15-Aug-85 15:39:53 EDT
Article-I.D.: psivax.654
Posted: Thu Aug 15 15:39:53 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 19-Aug-85 22:33:57 EDT
References: <2514@vax4.fluke.UUCP> <1394@uwmacc.UUCP>
Reply-To: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Distribution: net
Organization: Pacesetter Systems Inc., Sylmar, CA
Lines: 24
Summary: 

In article <1394@uwmacc.UUCP> dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Risky Rat) writes:
>
>Even so, he didn't give any convincing explanation for the development
>of the eye -- he simply talked himself into a feeling of confidence
>that it could be handled.  Therefore, his statement, while he didn't
>really end up endorsing it, is still a good objection.  I recall that
>when this part of the the Evidences series first hit the net, there
>were some skirmishes about the development of the eye from simpler
>forms.  The observation that no one had put forth anything remotely
>resembling a phylogeny of vision remains true.
>
	Well, we seem to have different ideas of what constitutes
something "remotely resembling a phylogeny", since I posted an outline
of just such a thing during the original discussion. Admittedly it was
only an outline, but I do not have the time to spend a week in a
library tracing down the references to generate a more complete
treatment. Goodness! I still have not managed to finish tracing down
all the references I want to on Dr Gentry's Polonium Haloes.
-- 

				Sarima (Stanley Friesen)

{trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen
or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen