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