Saturday, March 9, 2019

A Darwinist's Poor Attempt To Account For The Human Eye

  • Discussion:
           -This article serves as a critique of Darwinist claims regarding the evolution of the human eye, and it turns out that proponents of this dogma merely came up with a just-so story with vain imaginations of how this highly sophisticated organ (i.e. the eye) could develop. Following is an excerpt from the author:

           "Through natural selection, different types of eyes have emerged in evolutionary history -- and the human eye isn't even the best one, from some standpoints."        

           It has been asserted without proof what "natural selection" has done. It has been asserted without proof that the human eye is not the best one (by whose standards?).

           "So, the evolution theorists say, the anti-evolution argument that life was created by an "intelligent designer" doesn't hold water: If God or some other omnipotent force was responsible for the human eye, it was something of a botched design."

           The eye functions properly because all of its parts are in a perfect order. This is also true regarding our photoreceptors. Consider the words of Dr. Sean DeVere Pitman, M.D:

           "To say then that the human eye is definite proof of a lack thoughtful design, is a bit presumptuous I would think. This seems to be especially true when one considers the fact that the best of modern human science and engineering has not produced even a fraction of the computing and imaging capability of the human eye. How can we then, ignorant as we must be concerning such miracles of complex function, hope to accurately judge the relative fitness or logic of something so far beyond our own capabilities? Should someone who cannot even come close to understanding or creating the object that they are observing think to critique not to mention disparage the work that that lies before them? This would be like a six-year-old child trying to tell an engineer how to design a skyscraper or that one of his buildings is "better" than the others."

           "Biologists use the range of less complex light sensitive structures that exist in living species today to hypothesize the various evolutionary stages eyes may have gone through."

           The problem here for the Darwinist is the irreducible complexity of the eye. There is simply no explanatory power for how such structures could become so complex by blind and unguided chance. Also, how does one account for the widespread dissimilarities that exist among living organisms? Similarities among living organisms can equally serve as evidence for a common designer.

           "Here's how some scientists think some eyes may have evolved: The simple light-sensitive spot on the skin of some ancestral creature gave it some tiny survival advantage, perhaps allowing it to evade a predator. Random changes then created a depression in the light-sensitive patch, a deepening pit that made "vision" a little sharper."

           So, some thinking process called "random changes" (millions of random changes would be needed to get to where evolutionists want it) just fantastically created something so as to improve vision. We cannot have an intelligent designer, but we can certainly have a phantom "random change" create something! Talk about pure desperation. These observations about the human eye exacerbate the problem for promoters of evolution:

           "Saccades are important to prevent blindness, so that system has to evolve. But the brain must simultaneously evolve the ability to anticipate saccades, needing a second lucky set of mutations has to be selected. Both systems undoubtedly require multiple lucky mutations, but without them all working in concert, the animal cannot survive."

           "At the same time, the pit's opening gradually narrowed, so light entered through a small aperture, like a pinhole camera."

           At the exact same time, mind you, the pit decided to just open to let light in. It made this decision all on its own.

           If a supercomputer is obviously a product of human intelligence, then how come divine intelligence cannot be the source of the brain and the eye? Both organs are intricate beyond human comprehension. Both organs contain countless volumes of intelligent information. Both organs have precision and design that transcend any creation of mankind. The aforementioned is true even about the structure of an individual cell. If scientists in laboratories can successfully carry out artificial selection, then there is no reason to believe that God can not have designed our bodies.

           "Every change had to confer a survival advantage, no matter how slight. Eventually, the light-sensitive spot evolved into a retina, the layer of cells and pigment at the back of the human eye. Over time a lens formed at the front of the eye. It could have arisen as a double-layered transparent tissue containing increasing amounts of liquid that gave it the convex curvature of the human eye."

           How could this evolutionary process take place? It has only been asserted thus far that it actually happened. The entire universe literally screams design, yet the atheist foolishly dismisses the wealth of evidence contrary to his views because of naturalistic biases. That is circular reasoning. Darwinism cannot explain how the beautifully complex, mechanical systems of the human anatomy came into existence.

           "In fact, eyes corresponding to every stage in this sequence have been found in existing living species. The existence of this range of less complex light-sensitive structures supports scientists' hypotheses about how complex eyes like ours could evolve. The first animals with anything resembling an eye lived about 550 million years ago. And, according to one scientist's calculations, only 364,000 years would have been needed for a camera-like eye to evolve from a light-sensitive patch."

           None of what has been found is part of any sequence of development. Eyes have always been highly complex and well developed. Evolutionists just line all the types up into a chosen sequence (chosen by intelligence) which they think would be how it should change from one type of eye to another, and then claim that this is what happened. How quickly did this process take place? What mechanism would direct the changes? What steps would be necessary in the completion of the process?

1 comment:

  1. Hello Jesse,

    You are certainly correct. Irreducible complexity is only one of the evolutionists achilles' heels. Great article!

    Something else, sometimes they will complain about the "bad design" in certain things. But look up Frank Turek's videos on this. He points out that even if a design "looks" bad to someone, we have to take into account the PURPOSE of that specific design for that specific animal or thing. Frank Turek gives some great analogies on that.

    Keep up the good work!

    ReplyDelete