The video - The Seeing Eye
http://www.answersingenesis.org/video/ondemand/
2006-09-01 04:56:13 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
actually this is The hearing Ear... they are both great
2006-09-01 05:01:52 · update #1
yes, also the cell which contains as much info as about 10,000 dictionaries!! DNA seems pretty complex also...ohh yeah, the Brain is the most sophisticated tool that we know of. Millions of proccesses each second! 100 billion neurons>
2006-09-01 04:58:52 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
No it's not. The eye could have formed through evolutionary processes very easily. The eye almost certainly started out as a group of light sensitive cells. It grew more dense and complex allowing the animal to see light and shadow. The focusing aspect would have formed through a translucent membrane forming to protect these cells, but still allowing light to get to them. From there it would just be a matter of time until this membrane began to warp and change allowing light to focus better on these cells. This would be a very positive trait for the animal that had it. A billion years, or so of minute change and refinement, and here we are. And the human eye is far from the most versatile, or complex.
Going by theist reasoning, wouldn't God have given us the perfect eyes? Why then are there countless animals with more advanced eyes? It's because an extremely complex eye was not part of our evolution. For an animal like a hawk however. The eyes were very important to its survival. So they have grown more and more powerful.
2006-09-01 12:05:58 · answer #2 · answered by bc_munkee 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No... the evolutionary steps that led to the development of the eye are well understood... and that path was followed three or four times, independently, in nature.
Answers In Genesis is a notorious 'Liars For Jesus' (LFJ) web site whose stock-in-trade is lies, misquotes, pseudo-science and misrepresentation of evidence. The eye, along with bacterial flagellum and the blood clotting factor, are the most often cited examples of so-called 'irreduceable complexity'. All such arguments are fallacious, and have been thoroughly and effectively debunked from the standpoint of biology, genetics, palentology... all the way down to the genetic level.
LFJ web sites take advantage of the knowledge that their constituency (like you) is scientifically ignorant. Therefore, they can lie and misrepresent with impunity, knowing that their gullible believers TRUST them, and would not recognize REAL scientific information if it bit them on the a**.
Michael Behe, the author of the 'irreduceable complexity' idea, is renowned as a liar and a fraud. For example, Behe claims that "... the scientific literature is virtually silent on the topic of molecular evolution." Well, for starters, here's a list of just SOME (267) of the scientific works dealing with just that:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/publish.html
Look here for links that show how ALL of this crap gets debunked:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html
2006-09-01 12:22:00 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
No it is not. And a website dedicated to BS isnt going to prove it either.
If you look at the eye, it is actually "designed" incorrectly - it would operate better if it were "inside out". However, this is the only waay that EVOLUTION could make the eye...start with a photosensitive cell, which became several photosensitive cells, which then developed the ability to recognize shapes, which then developed a lens to focus the light, and then finally developed an iris to allow differing amounts of light in.... Evolution - pretty cool huh?
2006-09-01 12:01:40 · answer #4 · answered by YDoncha_Blowme 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Not at all....there are plenty of organisms out there with a "half eye" or less developed eyes, or even just light-sensitive patches of skin! Contrary to what the fundies will tell you, all of the transitional states leading up to human eyes exist CURRENTLY in nature...
Not to mention the fact that, eyes as organs have developed independently in several different evolutionary lines, and human eyes are not even the best model nature has to offer -- octopus eyes actually work BETTER than the eyes of humans, the self-proclaimed pinnacle of creation....
2006-09-01 12:01:11 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Just consider two questions.
1. Is your god less complex than an eye?
2. Is your god designed?
If you answered no to both questions, then things which seem to be complex don't need to be designed. So why even bring up the issue?
2006-09-01 12:25:41 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
The best evidence of intelligent design are these great creations:
Charles Manson, Jeffrey Dammer, Adolf Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot,
children born with brain defects, child molesters and so on
2006-09-01 12:06:35 · answer #7 · answered by Dr. Sabetudo 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Not unless any creator was interested in promoting design flaws.
2006-09-01 11:58:59 · answer #8 · answered by Blackacre 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Seems so to me. Some say it is couterproductive but only because it proves them wrong.
2006-09-01 12:00:21 · answer #9 · answered by ramall1to 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
No way am I clicking on that.
2006-09-01 12:00:31 · answer #10 · answered by Allison L 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋