Darwinian fairy tales again: Just keep those shards and fetters coming ...
I don't have time to blog much today, as I am writing a report on an unrelated matter, but apparently, Rob Breakenridge has replied here to my comments here on his abuse of all Albertans who do not worship Darwin.
I noted in reply to a commenter at Uncommon Descent:
... , Breakenridge's research assistant probably did not read the material I was referencing - and linked here (as well as at the Post-D): Experiments showed that birds did not care whether the spots, however created, looked like eyes or not.For info on all these tales and why they belong on the fantasy shelf, go here. Meanwhile, I will try to find Steve Fuller again and continue the discussion on intelligent design-friendly science courses.
Thus there is not likely any "evolution" of the spots toward looking like eyes.
The whole Darwinian construct in this area, in my view, springs from the notion that birds are feathered people. Therefore, what we think is an evolutionary selection advantage must be one.
Fast forward to the deluxe leatherbound edition Darwinian Fairy Tales, of which Breakenridge appears to have collected the entire gold-bricked set.
As I said in the first of my dialogues with [sociologist] Steve Fuller, an ID-friendly science course would take pains to make clear that birds are NOT feathered people. They do not have brains organized like people's brains. We cannot begin any study of bird adaptations by assuming that we understand how birds think - let alone by offering to do their avian thinking for them.
That is precisely what the Darwinians have so disastrously done with the peacock tale, the peppered moth tale, the Monarch-Viceroy tale, the eye spots tale, and so forth.