The Magical Mystery of Eye Evolution
When a creationist of even a little stature writes or posts something refuting a major dogma of evolution, and it must follow, as night the day, a misotheist is compelled to argue. Here is an example of same nonsense, different day.
Several weeks ago, I shared the post, "Genetics and the Coffin of Darwinism." A misotheist shared it on his Fakebook Page for the purpose of ridicule, and attempted to refute the very recent scientific material with a propaganda piece from 2010! (He constantly refuses to read creationist material. Based on my observations, I lack belief that people like this would understand scientific material from either side, even if they did read it. They might even see citations from evolutionists who admit they don't know certain things.) Encounters like this frequently happen regarding the evolution of the eye.
 |
| Staring fox up close, Unsplash / Erik Mclean |
The world is filled with magnificent biological designs and interrelated interdependent systems. I’ve been told that natural selection acting on random mutations has enough power to produce everything in biology. . . .
Well, I got a new challenge from a God-denier, who made the claim that evolution can even account for eyes. They provided a link to a “scientific” paper thinking they could bluster their way through a conversation without being skeptical. But I don’t fall to bluster so easily. Let’s analyze the claim to see if the scientists, who made the claim are asserting based on evidence or assumptions.
You can read the article, which is not too technical, at "Can Evolution Explain the Eye?" Be sure to come back later for the science material.
We have considered material rejecting dysteleology, which essentially says that certain things were not designed correctly, therefore, evolution. Such dreadful arguments include the human eye, and are refuted.
Evolutionists admit that the camera-type eye of vertebrates cannot be explained through gradual processes, time, natural selection, and so on. Indeed, the eye is an example of irreducible complexity, where the many parts need to be in place and working at the same time or a feature would not work at all. Like Charles Darwin, they believe in evolution despite evidence for the Creator, not from evidence for evolution.
The eye is supposed to have evolved over forty times, but how? Where is the evidence? We have to keep the pressure on and not just be content with Just-So Stories. Yes, there are structural similarities, but those easily demonstrate common design instead of evolution. Obviously, having eyes is vitally important for some creatures, but the evolution of and a common ancestor for eyes is debated. They will never reach agreement until they realize that the evidence does indeed show the handiwork of the Master Engineer.
A literature review of eye evolution theories was completed. It was concluded that all attempts to explain the existence of the vertebrate eye by Darwinian evolution have failed. The eye is an excellent example of intelligent design and effectively illustrates the concept of irreducible complexity. In spite of numerous attempts during the past 150 years since Darwin, evolutionists have failed to offer a viable theory of eye evolution. The areas reviewed include its anatomy, physiology, genetics, and fossil record.
If you see fit, you can read the rest by clicking on "Evolution Fails to Explain the Vertebrate Camera-Type Eye."