horseshoe crab – Uncommon Descent

Researcher: Horseshoe crab vision 400 mya was same as today

University of Cologne: “The eyes of the extinct sea scorpion Jaekelopterus rhenaniae have the same structure as the eyes of modern horseshoe crabs (Limulidae).” Sudden appearance. Long time. No big changes?

Richard Emerson This is an excellent introductory/overview presentation by Michael Behe - I've already sent it to a few friends. Nano-machines like... – C. S. Lewis Society interviews Mike...
Granville Sewell Richardemerson: "...building upon Behe's work." Just for the record, he has been questioning Darwin and promoting ID since his PhD... – New W.E.Loennig Interview
bornagain77 Bob O'H, since you guys are talking about accurately seeing stuff, and seeing that you believe that your visual perception... – Michael Egnor: Here’s why an argument...
polistra Even by secular standards evolution isn't important. The force/flow/friction laws, Newton and Ohm and Carnot, are much more important to... – Has New Scientist returned abjectly to...
richardemerson Very interesting - and seems like solid research building upon Behe's work. Thanks for sharing this! – New W.E.Loennig Interview
bornagain77 JVL asks: "How do you test that (God) hypothesis in the lab?" Hmmm, interesting question, tell you what, you show... – Michael Egnor: Here’s why an argument...
Querius Asauber @45, Yes, exactly. Their spirituality was a Nazi blend of mysticism, honor, colorful ceremonies, solemn oaths, German mythology, strong... – Stephen Hawking was Sometimes Embarrassingly Stupid
Querius Bob O'H @43, Fair enough. I reacted because the quote being discussed here (“Because there is a law such as... – Stephen Hawking was Sometimes Embarrassingly Stupid
doubter Q. "Do you have any neurological support for experiencing pain or whether something is conscious or not?" Even in principle,... – At Scientific American: Why we live...
JVL ET: So it has to be able to handle the God hypothesis if that is how it really happened. How... – Michael Egnor: Here’s why an argument...
Querius Silver Asiatic @ 40-42, Nicely articulated in a target rich environment. ; -) As to the exact nature of the... – Stephen Hawking was Sometimes Embarrassingly Stupid
bornagain77 Bob, Please do explain the flagellum via unguided Darwinian processes. Electron Microscope Photograph of Flagellum Hook-Basal Body http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-08-20images/figure03.jpg Structural diversity... – Michael Egnor: Here’s why an argument...
Querius Viola Lee @39, Yes, I agree with this as well. And quoting an MLB star on some pronouncement on the... – Stephen Hawking was Sometimes Embarrassingly Stupid
Bob O'H The “replication errors” is a subjective judgement. Is it a “modification” or an “error” if it is directed? What if... – What Most People Don't Know About...
jerry Hasn’t the scientific understanding of factors involved with evolution changed quite a bit since then? Yes and no. We had... – What Most People Don't Know About...
Bob O'H ET - the bacterial flagellum is a lot bigger than a single molecule like dynein and kinesin. But nice try. – Michael Egnor: Here’s why an argument...
Querius VL @34, The truth of the matter is that almost everyone here is talking about things that we don’t have... – Stephen Hawking was Sometimes Embarrassingly Stupid
Viola Lee Hi Johnny. You write, "It sounds like you think that all scientists agree about everything, are up-to-speed about everything, and... – What Most People Don't Know About...
mohammadnursyamsu Natural selection is based around subjective terminology, differential reproductive "success", which subjective terminology is then objectified. The entire life cycle... – What Most People Don't Know About...
johnnyb Bob - The "replication errors" is a subjective judgement. Is it a "modification" or an "error" if it is directed?... – What Most People Don't Know About...
polistra I couldn't get past the Beavis and Butthead dudes. – Was the pupil of the eye...