You might be a nerd if...

[Dark Jaguar]

Again, you misunderstand. Why do you think I didn't bother doing research? It's clear you only take what the books say that you agree with and are tossing out whatever you don't. Since all mammels have a common ancestor, and that ancestor had two eyes, it FOLLOWS that our eyes are going to be very similar across species. You are overthinking this again. Mutation isn't constant, just natural selection. Mutations don't happen all that often. The idea that all creatures are going to "mutate" at will is what you are arguing. I'm arguing that when mutations occur, the harmful ones will die out while the beneficial ones will be kept. There is also breeding and the flow of genes from one population to another, which is another means of aqcuiring new genes, but that method is just as "stupid". It's not that there isn't a "design" at work. It's just that the design has absolutely no future plans. It's just the nature of nature.

A creature does not think "I think I should evolve an eye". The first thing that may occur is a mutation that causes cells to react to light. If it happens just right (and given enough time, that'll happen), this reaction will be hooked to the creature's nerves, and from there a rough sensitivity to light will be adapted. Any mutations that aid this are kept. Any that hinder this are tossed. If the creature migrates to a light-less environment, suddenly what is beneficial changes. Mutations that cut down on unneeded energy use, such as forming a functional eye, will be kept in those cases.

Once a population with some small tilt towards a certain "niche" occurs, any future mutations will be kept if they aid in that niche. It's especially slow at first to "diverse" a population into niches. However, think about it. If a creature excels at running and catching things, the mutations that make it do that BETTER will be the ones that survive. The ones that make it do that WORSE will be lost, and thus it is only natural that any niche creature will eventually streamline into a super efficient machine for it's niche.

Can you think of any reason why something resembling a cheetah would suddenly develop chameleon eyes? How would that benefit a cheetah type creature? Would a cheetah who's eyes no longer are located at the front for stereoscopic vision be more or less likely to pass on it's genes?

That's all there is to it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

You want an expert? How about Richard Dawkins?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins

You said in a recent speech that design was not the only alternative to chance. A lot of people think that evolution is all about random chance.

That’s ludicrous. That’s ridiculous. Mutation is random in the sense that it’s not anticipatory of what’s needed. Natural selection is anything but random. Natural selection is a guided process, guided not by any higher power, but simply by which genes survive and which genes don’t survive. That’s a non-random process. The animals that are best at whatever they do—hunting, flying, fishing, swimming, digging—whatever the species does, the individuals that are best at it are the ones that pass on the genes. It’s because of this non-random process that lions are so good at hunting, antelopes so good at running away from lions, and fish are so good at swimming.

So, what do you take of this? Clearly this is EXACTLY what I've been saying all along. Evolution is guided by natural selection to decide on which mutations to keep, and it is not anticipatory of what is needed.

Here's a pretty accurate description of evolution. NOWHERE in this article does it define an intelligent purpose to evolution. It's all just natural processes.

You say it's my fault you are saying "this is how it is"? No, it's yours. You fail to provide a single scrap of evidence for your claims and so all you have left is to say "that's just how it is". You are not obligated to provide evidence, but if you don't, I have no reason to believe this stuff you are spouting. I've backed up what I have to say with some links you should take the time to read.

That's really all there is to be said. I've basically stated this a bunch of times and all you've done is call me names and say it's the way you say it is without offering proof. How about telling me where all this proof is? Don't link to "google" by the way. Give me the name of a book I can check out of a library, an actual page online, some reference at an encyclopedia, or university, SOMETHING. I've done my research. I am going on trust that you have done yours, but I think you read everything wanting to prove a conclusion you already made before reading a single thing, whereas I read about it only wanting to find out the truth.

I WILL change my mind if you just provide some evidence of this. Until then, this is over. You are an intelligent person who can be insightful very often. Unfortunatly, in issues of science it seems you make up your mind and won't listen to anyone else once you do that... It's happened when I tried explaining how optical disks work (they only have "pit" or "not a pit" status, not multiple gradients of levels). It's happened when I tried explaining how a light gun works (no, they don't actually detect the electrons, that's physically impossible because the electrons are absorbed by the phosphors coating the screen, which release LIGHT as the reaction, plus the reason the tube in a CTR screen is a vacuum is because air would scatter the electrons anyway, so even if they did get past the screen, they would never reach your eyes). And now, it's happened with the method of introducing new genes into the process of natural selection.