For those of you who "believe" in evolution?

Question

How could an eye form from NOTHING?

Evolutionists have NEVER properly addressed this.

That's like saying a Coke can formed over billions of years from nothing.

I suppose the aluminum formed itself, and then red paint was added after a few million years, and a couple of million years after that, some white paint "just happened" to spell out the words "Coca-Cola".

Please.

Also, for those of you who believe in evolution and are atheists, atheism IS a religion.

Answer 1

well i aint an aithiest - but i to have the question how could an eye form from nothing? like ur coke ex.

but isnt it the story that there was 1 little bactieria er something that eventually evoled into life? krazy

Answer 2

I don't "believe" in evolution. I know it is a fact based on scietific methods and observations. Nor am I an atheist. There is a happy medium.
As for the eye:
Euglena is a Protist (single-celled organism, since you probably have no clue) with an eye spot organelle which can detect light. It is a very primitive "eye" so to speak, but, over millions of years, it is believed that a pit may have formed over the eye spot in order to collect more light from the surroundings. Eventually the pit grew deep enough that the eye spot was exposed to the outside environment itself. Eventually this became the organ known as the eye today.
Your analogy really has no relation to evolution at all.
I urge you to seriously try to understand the Evolutionist standpoint; it is your duty to comprehend all sides of an debate. I personally have read a ton about Creationism (probably more than I have about Evolution) before coming to the conclusion that evolution is indeed fact.
And how about asking some real biology questions, instead of trying to stir up **** over the whole Evolutionism/Creationism thing.

Answer 3

You are missing the most important part of all of this, the idea of reproduction. That's how species change over time.

This is a nonsensical question. If you don't believe in evolution, then how to bacteria become resistant to drugs? You can understand the concepts of species changing over time and still get to believe in whatever god you want to. Unless you still think that the claims that the earth is not the center of the universe are blasphemous as well. Religion has had to adapt to scientific finding throughout time, and this will happen with these as well.


And, if it matters, I'm not an atheist. I'm agnostic. Which means I don't know what else is out there, and I believe that whatever it is, it's beyond our brain function to comprehend. Call that a religion too, if you want, I don't really care.

Answer 4

Go and read some Darwin.

Eyes evolved over many small steps, from a patch of light-sensitive cells, to a recessed patch of cells (bringing the benefits of protecting them and making it easier to determine from which direction the light is coming), to a clear covering to protect them further, to a lens that can actually focus the light and make the direction much more accurate, and so on.

Trying to compare biological evolution to inanimate objects such as Coke cans is entirely invalid. Carbon-based life-forms have two qualities that inanimate objects do not: the ability to adapt to their environment, and the ability to reproduce. Constant self-replication makes a "trial and error" approach to evolution possible: most organisms fail and die, but the best adapted pass their traits to the next generation.

Perhaps if aluminum was capable of self-adaptation and self-replication, and a cylindrical shape and those familiar red and white markings conferred some kind of survival advantage over a shapeless lump and random colors, Coke cans would evolve. But aluminum is capable of neither.

By the way: Atheism is by definition NOT a religion, it is the absence of religion. An atheist is one who subscribes to no religion.

Answer 5

Atheism isn't a religion, it's not organized, they don't have events or fund raising. It's a choice effectively.

Anyways, to address your question, it is my personal opinion that you do not fully understand the idea of evolution, perhaps you should do some further reading.

The idea that it formed from nothing is not entirely true, the theory is that one particular creature had a genetic mutation, this mutation gave it an advantage over the other creatures in it's species and so it lived long enough to pass on its genes, whereas the creatures without this mutation were killed off quicker and eventually all of these creatures end up with this genetic anomaly.

Answer 6

"Evolutionists" HAVE properly addressed this ...

... over and over and over and over and over ... (see source).

But if you don't actually read the answers, then you are doomed to repeat this lame question over and over and over and over ...

In a nutshell ... intermediate stages of eye development ARE useful. Examples are all over the place in nature TODAY. All that matters is that there is some advantage ... no matter how slight ... in every tiny improvement. Anything that produces better eyesight ... even *slightly* better eyesight ... confers advantage.

And as for your Coke can example ... why do creationists keep bringing up examples that have a glaringly OBVIOUS difference from something living? ... Namely, COKE CANS DO NOT REPLICATE WITH INHERITANCE ... NOR DO PIECES OF ALUMINUM. That is precisely the feature that life has that is the reason natural selection is NOT PURE CHANCE.

Answer 7

You can find examples of a range of eye types in mollusc species that are extant today, which would give you some insight to how eyes could have evolved in humans.
For example, oyster larvae have eye spots which can tell light from dark, it's just a mass of photosensitive tissue in the larvae.
Scallops have real eyes with a lens and retina, which is more developed than the oyster larvae but still not a human eye. Octupi have real eyes that are remarkably similar to humans.
Good luck with your investigation!
Parenthetical to your ps: a religious person can believe in evolution and believe in god

Answer 8

Please go and do some research before asking questions.

The evolution of the eye is well-studied and pretty well-understood. There is no evidence whatsoever for your ridiculous sky-pixie theory.

Your analogy is ridiculous. Coke cans do not contain DNA. Aluminium cannot replicate, unlike DNA. DNA replicates and mutations are introduced that change the expression of the proteins that make up cells and tissues and the interactions between those tissues. Are you really that stupid?

Educate yourself before wasting everyone's time in a scientific forum. If you want to ask ignorant questions like this ask them in religion and spirituality.

Answer 9

The alleged irreducible complexity of the eye has been beaten down years ago; only those who will not agree to read and be enlightened would still bring up this defeated argument.
The flagella of single cell organisms was a much tougher opponent, but was also shown to be a more evolved structure coming from the "injector" mechanism used by pathogen to infect their host.
Read the following link, and stop being a blind faith believer.
Evolution is real, creationism is not.

Answer 10

Evolution doesn't claim the eye came from nothing. And the question of how the eye could evolve has been address MANY times, starting with Darwin himself. The eye has been found in nature in current species in many stages of developement. You're 150 years behind the current research - please read up on evolution a little before posting again.

Answer 11

Evolutionists never said they had the answer to every question, did they? Indeed, they are forever searching for new information, through the scientific method, to support or refute their beliefs. In that respect they are unlike many believers in Yaweh, who claim to possess all knowledge, and who too often seek to impose their "knowledge" on others. Examples are the Inquisition, the Crusades, and other "religious" wars too numerous to list.