Hi Bex,

I was going to set aside a chunk of time to look at Yahya's site, but what I'm finding is that over and over, it's simply pictures of fossils compared to pictures of modern species, though there appear to be a few exceptions (I found one to be trilobites, which I will discuss in a moment).

To again address this, the theory of evolution is all about how new species come into existence. Nothing in the ToE says an existing species has to go extinct. An example of a species that shows very little change over a long time just means that small changes in its genetic makeup were not helpful in its environment, and that that environment must have been relatively constant.

Also, other species can branch off during geographic isolation and evolve into many new species in new places while the ancestral species is not changing very much over in its environment. Thus, finding something that has not changed does not prove that it was not part of evolution you don't know about.

Moving on from that, Yahya claims that the "complexity" of the trilobite's eye means it could not have evolved. I decided to look up some information about trilobites. Yahya seems to think they had one type of eye, when in fact the eye types were many and varied. Some even evolved from sighted ancestors to have no eyes at all, as they lived in a deep ocean environment. I found this website, which gives a lot of accessible information, including how the eye evolved.

Interestingly, he does make many claims involving the worlds "existed for millions of years." Do you agree with this as well?

To be honest I found it frustrating trying to navigate Yahya's site, because its 94-or-so pages are in no particular order -- alphabetical order, at least, would have helped. Is there a particular specimen there that you think makes a good point, which you'd like to call my attention to?