In the thread FMM throws Jesus under the bus, I had the following exchange with colewd:
Until you have an eye there is nothing to select for. You have 300k of nucleotides drifting toward a meaningless group of sequences. Until you find a group of sequences that can provide reproductive advantage (sight) it is drift drift drift.
This is just a version of the “what good is half an eye” PRATT.
Seriously, Bill, how can you possibly have missed everything that’s been written on this subject, from Darwin onward?
No, I have read Dawkin’s ” just so” stories in the blind watchmaker and other books such as half a wing is better then none. I am surprised a man as sophisticated as you would fall for this bullshit. We do lack a hair bit of evidence that a one winged bird would even survive in the wild. If you want to argue that half an eye or a single wing or part of a wing aids in reproductive advantage, knock yourself out.
I am also surprised that a true skeptic as yourself would not have looked into this more carefully.
Guffaw. Ever heard of bilateral symmetry, Bill? Do you really think birds needed to evolve one wing first, and then the other?
Man oh man are you clueless about biology.
Having dispensed with the one-winged bird objection, let’s see if we can get Bill beyond the “What good is half a wing?” canard.
To get the discussion started, I’ve linked to a relevant video from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute above.