/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15805469
>no argument, resorts to ad homs because I challenged his dogma
Yep. It's a religion to you.
>Most evolutionary changes exploit structures that were used for something else
>pretends this means it's not evolution of gaps fallacy somehow
Wildy wrong and shows basic lack of understanding of biology. All evolutionary changes (that we can verify, so all of them) are merely macro evolutionary and almost universally serve no function. Your children having different genes than you is an evolutionary change. That is how often evolution happens.
Even pretending "most" were that way, that is a pure ad hoc assumption on your part invented because species that are wildly different have organs that are somewhat similar, and the debunked idea of macroevolution magically filled in the gaps without evidence. Your dogmatic assumptions don't belong in science.
>That's the use of half an eye
There is no such thing as half an eye. A feature either directs/obscures light towards/away from a photosensitive point in an organism or it doesn't.
Nowhere in the animal kingdom exists a single celled organism that has a "halfway point" between pic related (single cell plankton with a lens directing light to focal point) and a general photosensitive cell like in bacteria. It would serve no function to be some fictional "half an eye"


More dogma