Hold on Kim, your first hunch was correct. To think of all the species you mentioned (and more), factor in the eco-systems spread far and wide, and then assume a theory that utilizes only time, chance, and the extremely rare beneficial mutation to give you a uniform result in all that diversity....well it stretches credibility to the point of transparency. As to the assertion that an eye would be detrimental to those dark cave dwellers because because it is a soft useless glob prone to infection so would be mutated out over time. The same logic applies to surface dwellers. What good is a partially evolved glob (eye) in a mammal, reptile, or insect. It certainly is not a survival factor. The same applies to partially formed wings, or nubs waiting hopeful eons to grow into arms with hands or legs with feet to aid in survival. And as I mentioned last week, try to imagine the quantum leap from asexual to sexual (male and female procreation just to be clear this time). The complexities in that scenario are insurmountable. And then someone mentioned the "overwhelming evidence" for Darwin's theory. Well, the world is still waiting for that. There are reputable scientists jumping off the good ship Beagle all the time. A little imagination is good to have in science but but when it continually becomes your default position you have gone from science to fantasy. Time to get a new theory. Ron