Matthew Fields wrote:
>
> In article >,
> Peter T. Daniels > wrote:
> >> >They're all just so inherently implausible -- kind of like, How did the
> >> >eye evolve?
> >> >--
> >> >Peter T. Daniels
> >>
> >> Ever seen planaria flatworms? or octopusses? Eyes have evolved
> >> something like 8 separate times,
> >
> >Are you not aware that "How did the eye evolve?" is the standard
> >Creationist challenge to evolutionists?
> >
> >Obviously both eyes evolved and butter was invented, but both processes
> >got a lot of 'splainin' to do.
>
> But at least for the eye, the explanation already exists in droves,
> and the Creationist challenge hinges upon its hearer being completely
> unaware of the evidence.
But it's rather amusing to see a rhetorical cliché met with earnest
explanation.
The Classical plural of octopus is octopodes. (Greek, not Latin.)
--
Peter T. Daniels