"Richard S. Norman" wrote:
> ...
> >
> If you are trying to make an evolutionary argument, fish are certainly
> relevant. The human eye is the primate eye is the mammalian eye is
> the tetrapod eye is the vertebrate eye. There are all the same basic
> design. It was the fish who built it backwards! (Well, not modern
> fish, but aquatic chordates nonetheless.)
Absolutely!
>> The cephalopod eye is simply an example of a complex, camera eye
> that is build "properly", with the light first striking the receptor
> cells. It is used to demonstrate that, if there are two ways to do
> something, nature will try both regarless of which is supposedly
> "superior".
I think that's two glib. I assume that there is at least one possible
alternative which has never been realized.
Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
