Shouldnt the very fact that we even HAVE eyes be a sign pointing to a creator?

Question

I mean, IF evolution did occur, I dont think it would have happened the way scientist claim it has. Without eyes or eyesite, how did DNA know how to create it? How did an organism know it needed eyes when it never had it before? Without eyes, and with evolution, wouldnt it find a way around the need for eyesite? The cause for evolution is the need for something better, so the first single cells wouldnt have evolved because they were/are perfectly fine where they are. Survival of the fittest, if we came from single cells, why do we still have them today?

Im not arguing their complexity.

Answer 1

Organisms knew they needed eyes because light is important to life. There are organisms without true eyes that have "eye spots" to detect light to know if they are in the light or dark to know which way the food is.

As life evolved these "eye spots" developed into more sophisticated organs that give us the sight we have today.

The reason why we still have single cells is because they have found their niche. They are currently the best at doing what they are doing. We need they to feed the larger multicelled organisms so that we can live. The survival of the fittest is not in that humans are the most fit life form, we are terrible at producing our own chemical energy from the sun. So other organisms fill in these spots as being the fittest to do a specific task.

And DNA doesn't know how to create anything. What happens is DNA is a group of molecules that are in a stable form that causes other similar molecules to take the same shape. When DNA replicates it does not always do it 100% perfect and mutations happen. When a mutation that benefits the organism is formed then that organism is more likely able to share its DNA with the next generation (survival of the fittest applies here). So when the mutation where an organism was able to detect light was formed organisms benefited from it and over time this mutation kept mutating and became more efficient.

Answer 2

"The cause for evolution is the need for something better"

NO. Sorry. That is NOT correct.

It is not like nature sees a need, and then starts evolving something to fill that need.

Nature is constantly experimenting. A small change in a protein here. A small change in a structure there. Most experiments don't improve anything. Most experiments may indeed make things worse, but they don't last very long. But if one experiment in a million produces some advantage, NO MATTER HOW SMALL, then that change will propagate into the population.

The eye is the product of such a trial-and-error process ... let loose for millions of years. Start with the simplest proteins that respond to light (light-sensitive proteins are so common in nature that we have a name for them ... 'pigments'). Then structures that concentrate these proteins in a certain part of the body ... the top of the organism, and then eyespots, and then cup-shaped eyespots, then enclosed eye sockets, then a membrane across the opening to keep the inner fluid clean, then a focusing lens, all the time the eyespot at the back has become more and more of what we call a retina, etc. etc. etc. At no point does an organism "need" better eyesight ... but if something improves eyesight by accident, those individuals that have it, make more individuals that have it. Millions upon millions of experiments every single year, for millions upon millions of years. That is trillions upon trillions of experiments. The experiments are random, but the forces that reward advantage are not random.

As for why we still have single cells today? As you say, they were "perfectly fine where they are." So if two groups A and B of any species, get separated, members of B may (1) find themselves in a different environment where resources are more scarce, and competition more fierce, or (2) may stumble upon some genetic mutation (an experiment) that A does not stumble upon. So A's stay quite content how they are, and B's evolve due to the increased pressure of their different environment.

The problem with the creator hypothesis, is that it offers no explanation for why the creator would make so many different kinds of eyes, so many "inferior" designs in moluscs? Why superior designs in other species? Why give penguins better eyesight than His beloved humans? Why so many design flaws in our own eye (macular degeneration, color blindness, cataracts)? Why put non-functional eyes in blind cave-fish and salamanders? The human eye is a wonderful thing ... but it is far from perfect. It has all the characteristics of something designed by ... well ... by trial and error.

Every time you see somebody wearing glasses (or if you yourself wear glasses), ask yourself why a creator would make such an imperfect organ that it needs correction in 95 million Americans?

Answer 3

You have a rather Lamarkian perspective on evolution by natural selection. Organisms did not know they " needed " eyes. Eyes developed from a organism population of many variations. Some organism some where mutated a point of sensitivity to light sometime, on it's body. This may have been a directional advantage; point to the light, or go toward the light. ( not to have near death experience ) This small advantage allowed this organism to out reproduce his con-specifics, thus leaving more progeny with this trait. A rather simplistic explanation, but it will suffice, for our purposes. Natural selection would then begin it's work and more variations on that theme would be incrementally and beneficially add to our eyes evolution. We have all the intermediate steps in organisms around the world, who evolved into a niche that did not put a heavy selection pressure on the organism, so further complexity of eye was not needed. Go here for more information on this topic and refutations to attacks on evolution.

http://www.talkorigins.org

Answer 4

Eyes are useful. Even bacteria can detect light.

Btw, the "eyes are too complex to have evolved" argument is played out, creationists.

Answer 5

I agree. Science can only go far, and then there's God. I mean if we question the origin of EVERYTHING...we will never scientifically reach a starting point.