A theory on the eye ball disproving evolution and another question for you?

Question

Darwin admitted that the human eye would have been impossible to put together in one evolutionary leap. But who said it was? If everything started from a one celled creature it probably needed an eye fro a loooong time. So why couldn't it have developed little by little until it was functional and eventually there was a creature with functioning eyes? It's ancestors could have had useless part eyes that didn't do anything. But here's the glory of the evolution theory: It's still a theory.
For my question, I think this makes it hard to completely disprove evolution. What do you say about things like an angler fish? It lives so deep it never sees light, but it does have eyes (and many other fish have eyes that don't use them) along with a glowing lure to attract other fish. So, it has eyes so it's ancestors need them, but it has a glowing lure to attract fish in pitch black areas. Did it's ancestors with good eyes need a lure in lighted ares? Then where did it come from?

I'm not talking about mutation, I'm talking about it hevolving slowly. And all your answers saying God created it without anything backing it up are worthless, don't be so close minded. I'm making a suggestion.

And no I didn't say a single celled creature had an eye, come on, I said as it evolved it needed one and as it developed more cells they eye developed along with it.

milo.3600 I hope you come back and read this because I support evolution, other people make this arguement.

Answer 1

I think people who haven't studied evolution and Darwin shouldn't get to put opinions up presuming Darwin's feelings on God. What a silly answer up there!

Evolution occured, is occurring, and will occur. I don't think you can study the subject and disagree. Some people do believe in God and Evolution though.

Answer 2

Did you just say that a single celled creature had an eye? That is impossible since the eye has at least 9 different kinds of cells, including muscles and liquids (both are made of cells).

The creatures in the deep do have eyes, so the angler fish does have a use for the light.

Answer 3

The thing about macro-evolution is that it has to be beneficial immediatly for it to be a benefecial breakthrough. If it is not functional, there is no need for the eye, it falls to pieces. The ancestors can't use the uselessness, so there is no eye. It seems like the angler fish disproves evolution. It doesn't need eyes, so they are unnessary, so natural selection would select against it.

Answer 4

i think evolution does not disprove the bible and vice verse. Animals evolve all of the time to evolve to the ever changing ecosystem. So do human beings. To have this way of great organic and organic potential would in basic terms lead me to end we've been blessed with the aid of a extra physically powerful being and given this present. the international works at the same time all to nicely for there to no longer be a extra physically powerful plan. in simple terms what i think :) God Bless

Answer 5

I've been searching on this for the last half-hour, and it's killing me! There's a term for it like "irreducability" or something. Basically, the premis is that at some point, the eye or any other organ for that matter would be of so little use that "natural selection" would have ignored it.

What's always been interesting to me about evolution is the symantics of it all. In many contexts, you can actually replace the word "evolution," "nature," or "natural selection" with the word "God." There is always an implied intelligence in the background.

I think the eye is incredibly complex, and it is difficult to me to accept that it simply happened by accident. I would have better odds on red 13 at the casino I think. It just doesn't make sense to me.

But there are more arguments than just the eye that cause me to doubt evolution. Even if I weren't a Christian, logically, I would have these doubts. You don't have to believe in God to question evolution, there are a lot of unanswered questions.

The problem with evolution--if I were an atheist--is that it's sort of like convicting the wrong guy. You stop looking for the real criminal or in this case, the real answer to how we got here.

Also, in my opinion, I think evolution gives us an "out" from God. Consider the following:

So if we weren’t created, and we are not being maintained, and we will always be alone, to whom do we answer? Jeffrey Dahmer shared this mindset, “If a person doesn’t think there is a God to be accountable to, then—then what’s the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges? That’s how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime. When we, when we died, you know, that was it, there is nothing…” states Dahmer, as seen on NBC Dateline in 1994.

I believe that the strong insistence on evolution is the root cause to many of the moral problems in our schools and in society today. Without God to hold us accountable, why should we behave a certain way?

Also, this is nothing new. The Bible predicted that man would one day turn away from belief in creation.

Romans 1:18-25
The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen

Answer 6

This is a piece written concerning the PBS program "Evolution":

Could the eye have evolved?

The program would have us believe it did. Dan Nilsson explained a simplistic computer simulation he published in a widely publicized paper.9 When ‘explaining’ the origin of the eye, Darwin started with a light-sensitive spot. This simulation starts with a light-sensitive layer, with a transparent coating in front and a light-absorbing layer behind.

Firstly, this layer bends gradually into a cup, so it can tell the direction of light rays increasingly well. This continues until it is curved into a hemisphere filled with the transparent substance. Secondly, bringing the ends together, closing the aperture, would gradually increase the sharpness of the image, as a pinhole camera does, because a smaller hole cuts out light, and as there are diffraction effects if the hole is too small, there is a limit to this process. So thirdly, the shape and refractive index gradient of the transparent cover change gradually to a finely focusing lens. Even if we were generous and presumed that computer simulations really have anything to do with the real world of biochemistry, there are more serious problems.

However, the biochemist Michael Behe has shown that even a ‘simple’ light sensitive spot requires a dazzling array of biochemicals in the right place and time to function. He states that each of its ‘cells makes the complexity of a motorcycle or television set look paltry in comparison’ and describes a small part of what’s involved:10

‘When light first strikes the retina a photon interacts with a molecule called 11-cis-retinal, which rearranges within picoseconds to trans-retinal. (A picosecond [10-12 sec] is about the time it takes light to travel the breadth of a single human hair.) The change in the shape of the retinal molecule forces a change in the shape of the protein, rhodopsin, to which the retinal is tightly bound. The protein’s metamorphosis alters its behavior. Now called metarhodopsin II, the protein sticks to another protein, called transducin. Before bumping into metarhodopsin II, transducin had tightly bound a small molecule called GDP. But when transducin interacts with metarhodopsin II, the GDP falls off, and a molecule called GTP binds to transducin. (GTP is closely related to, but different from, GDP.)

‘GTP-transducin-metarhodopsin II now binds to a protein called phosphodiesterase, located in the inner membrane of the cell. When attached to metarhodopsin II and its entourage, the phosphodiesterase acquires the chemical ability to “cut” a molecule called cGMP (a chemical relative of both GDP and GTP). Initially there are a lot of cGMP molecules in the cell, but the phosphodiesterase lowers its concentration, just as a pulled plug lowers the water level in a bathtub.’

A transparent layer is also far more difficult to obtain than they think. The best explanation for the cornea’s transparency is diffraction theory, which shows that light is not scattered if the refractive index doesn’t vary over distances more than half the wavelength of light. This in turn requires a certain very finely organized structure of the corneal fibers, which in turn requires complicated chemical pumps to make sure there is exactly the right water content.11

Therefore, these simulations do not start from simple beginnings but presuppose vast complexity even to begin with. Also, in their original paper, they admitted ‘an eye makes little sense on its own’, because the ability to perceive light is meaningless unless the organism has sophisticated computational machinery to make use of this information. For example, it must have the ability to translate ‘attenuation of photon intensity’ to ‘a shadow of a predator is responsible’ to ‘I must take evasive measures’, and be able to act on this information for it to have any selective value. Similarly, the first curving, with its slight ability to detect the direction of light, would only work if the creature had the appropriate ‘software’ to interpret this. Perceiving actual images is more complicated still. And having the right hardware and software may not be enough—people who have their sight restored after years of blindness take some time to learn to see properly. It should be noted that much information processing occurs in the retina before the signal reaches the brain.

It is also fallacious to point to a series of more complex eyes in nature, and then argue that this presents an evolutionary sequence. This is like arranging a number of different types of aircraft in order of complexity, then claiming that the simple aircraft evolved into complex ones, as opposed to being designed. For one thing, eyes can’t descend from other eyes per se; rather, organisms pass on genes for eyes to their descendants. This is important when considering the nautilus eye, a pinhole camera. This cannot possibly be an ancestor of the vertebrate lens/camera eye, because the nautilus as a whole is not an ancestor of the vertebrates, even according to the evolutionists!

Answer 7

This objection to evolution has been kicking around for centuries and indicates a failure to fully understand the theory. If you think evolution is untrue, then you needn't worry about bird flu or any other epidemic for that matter. The theory of evolution is the bedrock for all of modern pathology. The link below refutes your "eye" objection entirely.

Answer 8

Darwin was actually looking for proff of God. There are creatures that only see light from dark (planeria= flatworms), and there creatures who see in black and white (cats and dogs) and creatures that see a couple of colors, deer see blue and green. and creatures that see ultra violet, that we don't see (social insects such as ants and bees). But if you want proof of creation, there are 127 steps in blood clotting and nothing intermediary.

Answer 9

I think that the only reason Darwin promoted evolution, was because he was mad at God. God is the creator.

Answer 10

The bigger question that needs to be asked, what was the mechanism that launched this "eye"? Was it another dip into the primordial soup that helped launch the "eye"?