Letter: Darwin's legacy

Sir: Bernard Jones, in expressing doubt about Darwin (letter, 8 September), raises some interesting points.

First, saying, "It is hard to imagine introductory phases of many phenomena," is not an argument against evolution. Just because one does not have the wit to conceive how something may have happened does not mean that it did not happen. I do not really understand how my computer works, but this letter is evidence that it does.

Second, it is very easy to say, "Isn't it amazing? For that to work, all the parts must be arranged just so - and that is exactly how they are arranged!" But that is the point. All of the systems where the parts were not arranged just so did not work properly, and so died out. We are left to observe the descendants of the one working system.

Lastly, creationists often cite the vertebrate eye as a system which could never have evolved by chance, and so must have been designed. Anyone with a passing knowledge of ocular physiology can see that the eye is riddled with design flaws and so, if it is an example of conscious design, you have to be worried for the safety of a universe under the control of its designer.

On the other hand, the eye is a perfect example of an organ that has been jerry-built from what was available, and has just "happened" into a functioning device. It strongly supports an evolutionary view of the world.

ANDREW COSGROVE

Corsham, Wiltshire