I've found a few of these comments now, though your own (CTD) suggest that you have read Camp's comments without any attempt to digest what Dr. Theobald was saying. Bearing that in mind, I will choose a few of your own comments and clarify. It behooves you to do the rest of this work on your own and learn about what you're criticising before you criticise it.
The genealogical relatedness of all life predicts that organisms should be very similar in the particular mechanisms and structures that execute these basic life processes."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is common knowledge that the different eyes found among the members of the animal kingdom are NOT very similar at all. But any argument on such grounds will be met automatically with redefinition of "very similar".
You either ignored or completely missed what Dr. Theobald defines as "basic life processes." They are:
"Some of the macroscopic properties that characterize all of life are (1) replication, (2) information flow in continuity of kind, (3) catalysis, and (4) energy utilization (metabolism) .... all living species today should necessarily have ... inherited the structures that perform these functions. The genealogical relatedness of all life predicts that organisms should be very similar in the particular mechanisms and structures that execute these basic life processes." (emphasis added)
He adds a bit further down:
Common descent does not predict that these structures must be identical, just that the similarity must be statistically significant, and that there must be viable intermediates between the variations. For instance, because the genetic code is degenerate, common descent does not predict an identical genetic code in all organisms. However, all known genetic codes are extremely similar, with an extremely high degree of statistical significance. In fact, common descent does not require that all organisms even have a genetic code. If life evolved from something that lacked a genetic code, then there must have been a series of organisms with transitional codes, beginning with no code at all. It is at least possible that such organisms could still be alive today. But if common descent is true, then the genetic codes of these organisms would be less complex versions of the modern genetic code and would retain statistically significant similarity to the modern universal genetic code. This is a testable prediction
The fact that all terrestrial life has a genetic code is a piece of evidence that it evolved from a common ancestor. If there were other ways for life to exist and copy itself, then we would see evidence of this in past and present species. And if God created everything as it is, there would also presumably be no need for him/her to use this one-and-only way for life to copy itself; there must have been endless variations to choose from.
By the way, you'll notice that the above definitions refer to more fundamental processes than "The Eye." Though it's telling that so many organisms have this function. As with Russ' favourite, bilateral symmetry, you often find that once a particular structure evolves which is highly useful, it is usually retained in subsequent generations.
Your response to the above information was,
I see no mention of the "four basic life functions"; but there's no need. He's again full of crap.
Which confirms my earlier guess that you hardly glanced at what Dr. Theobald was actually saying. Which also means that I'm going to have to ask you to look at this article more carefully before you take more pot-shots at it.
How about answering my earlier questions? Still in denial mode?
