"Eyes" prove that evolution is wrong?

Question

http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=34

Answer 1

Read and learn about the evolution of the eye at

http://www.embl.org/aboutus/news/publications/report/report02/report02_41.pdf

Answer 2

Hello i am a scientist and i don't care for proofs of wrongness. That just proves a theory isn't quite complete. That is the beauty of science it can be wrong and just adapt. Science is not doctrinal; it does not NEED to be right. In fact scientific knowledge is an example of evolution. It is the evolution of scientific knowledge that has lead to the abillity of humans to design intelligently (oh the irony!) Which of course is the anthropological framework that creationists are trying to fit there doctrine into now.

Why have you asked this in biology?
If this question had been asked in a spirtual section i would be rattling on about how evolution has more to offer spirituality than creationism. Ie the sky is the limit (evolving humanity) rather than we have all fallen (creationism) and we have to get back to the start.(boring)

Answer 3

This one comment on that page says it all:
"There is neither a fossil record showing that the eye evolved nor any testable observations explain how it could possible happen."
No one can find anything fossilized, because an eye is one of the first things to decay. That alone proves that the rest of it is false.
Creation is a imaginary thought. Evolution is a fact that can be proven time and time again.

Answer 4

Kent Hovind is a both fraud and liar. Those are matters of fact that can be confirmed with a simple internet search. His "doctorate" comes from a church outbuilding, literally. It was not awarded by any recognised institution but rather bought from a church affiliated organisation operating from an outbuilding in a churchyard.

Almost everything he says on that sight is a lie or at best simply untrue.

You do realaise all this, right?

If you have any specific questions I will gladly answer them, but as presented this is just Bible thumping and not worth wasting time on in a science forum.

Answer 5

Wow, you are JUST the person I have been looking for. See I have this really GREAT waterfront property in southern Florida for sale. Scenic, rustic, beautiful. Real CHEAP CHEAP CHEAP!!! Get back with me soon to start the purchase process will ya?


psst: that was all sarcasm. The point of this answer is that if you're willing to believe that, I am sure I can convince you I really am a real estate broker and that the Everglades qualifies as waterfront property. Good day.

Answer 6

just because trilobites have been extinct for a while,does not mean that they had the first eye type we know of. Anybody who claims that is just doesn't know their stuff.
In addition anybody who implies light detection by itself is worthless doesn't know anything about living organisms either. There are actually many different eye types with the complete range of visual acuity from just a light detector to the eagle eye (you wouldn't claim either that our eyes are useless because they are not quite as good as a eagle eye?).
Theoretically eyes could have developed from no eyes pretty quickly (first link) Also look into pax genes for theories of eye design/evolution (second link as starting point).

Answer 7

And Dinosaurs prove that evolution is right and creation theory is wrong

Answer 8

Kent Hovind! My favorite creationist felon!

Answer 9

evolution applies to features that needs to be improved. it's simple. if an organ is efficient, there's no need for it to evolve. besides, t takes a long time for features to evolve.

Answer 10

The sun does too, but it, unlike the intricacy of the eyeball, can't be duplicated. Only one ever, till the end of time.