People who argue against evolution vs. their understanding of same

[sdelsolray]

[quote=""Keith&Co.""]Seriously, Eric, the objections you post are meaningless. The paper was not meant to do what you're saying it fails to do. But that's not saying they did anything wrong in what they DID mean to do.

Back to your favorite sourcebook, plenty of verses caution a good christain to shut up when you don't know what you're talking about.
You're supposed to have a science degree, you claim, but you demonstrate clearly that you don't know what you're talking about.[/quote]

It looks like Eric has added the strawman fallacy to his inventory of fallacies.

[Keith&Co.]

Added?
He brought this shit up the first time he mentioned the paper, and apparently read none of the responses.

[Keith&Co.]

[quote=""Eric H""]

If resources are ambiguous and open to interpretation, then they can be misused, .[/quote]Ironically, you are reinterpreting an unambiguous paper, and misusing it.

[Eric H]

Keith&Co.;
No one is claiming that Nilsson Pelgar is proving evolution.

They may not prove the evolution of the eye, but they imply it by the paper titled..

A Pessimistic Estimate of the Time Required for the Eye to Evolve

Nilsson and Pelgar set to show the minimum number of generations it might have taken.

Pessimistic estimate of time; does not seem the same as a minimum number of generations.

However, I prefer your definition of a minimum number of generations, because the computer is programmed to only search for successful increments.

[Eric H]

Keith&Co.;
You're supposed to have a science degree, you claim

You must be thinking about someone else!

[Treebeard]

I think the main accomplishment of the Nilsson and Pelger exercise was to refute the ID'ers claim for irreducible complexity. Their process describes one possible sequence of changes by which the human-like eye could have hypothetically evolved where every change produced an improvement in terms of visual acuity. In this link the author relates the response he received from Professor Nillson (About 8 pages down and highlighted in red in the article, "Could the eye have evolved by natural selection in a geological blink?", posted by Vincent Torley):

... These are all interesting questions, but the Nilsson and Pelger 94 paper does not address these questions. Instead the paper asks the much more tenable question: is there a continuous route from a flat, non-imaging light detector to a focused camera type eye, where each little modification, no matter how small, would generate an improvement in acuity. The important answer we find is yes, there is at least one such route. Although this route was devised by us (by deciding which parameters were to change during different phases along the route) the important result is that there is at least one route where acuity continuously improves at each new generation. ...

(my bolding)