But the quote also mentions " four main stages of eye evolution: non-directional, directional, low-resolution and high-resolution vision." Don’t those come from the Nilsson and Pelger paper?
So I am somewhere in the middle just now, not knowing specifically which Nilsson paper or papers is being referred to.
Incidentally, Wells was wrong in his comments about the Nilsson & Pelger paper. They didn’t produce a set of drawings; they produced a mathematical analysis of a gradual pathway that would continuously increase visual acuity. While it wasn’t a computer model, nobody claimed it was and it wasn’t necessary that it be one. It’s true that the exercise was purely theoretical, but how does that invalidate it? Dunno what Dawkins said or whether he read the paper, but it isn’t clear that Wells read it either.
Keep in mind the writers at ENV are paid to write anti-evolution rhetoric. Doesn’t matter if it’s correct or even honest. As long as it attacks evolutionary theory and plants that seed of doubt somewhere in some poor layman’s mind.
The story that’s going around in ID circles is that Dawkins said that they had created a computer model and that this is supposed to be an embarrassment for Dawkins.
It would be an embarrassment if he said it. Did he? What they created is a mathematical model.
I’ll let you judge for yourself.
Yes, that seems embarrassing. I would have to check the methods section again, but I swear I don’t recall a computer being involved. And I don’t see why it would be.
I do not think a computer was involved. But it appears that Dawkins thought so.
OK, Dawkins was a bad, bad boy. Moving on.