The single biggest problem I have with macro-evolution: How did the physical, color-detecting eye evolve?

Question

Yes, but how did they form in the beginning? Did the first multi-cell have one (by chance) then it just got better? Or did the first multi-cell decide that it probably needed one?

I admit: I only took two years of biology in high school, and the required two classes and one lab in college. But the eye is the most complex sensory organ on the body. It requires some thought on your part, to follow its evolution from goo.

Hey, Aviator! Thanks for being, you know, nice about your answer! Not cheeky, not prideful, just honest. Respect goes a long way, man. Thanks!

Answer 1

Creation is full of systems of "irreducible complexity", i.e. they cannot be reduced to a system simple enough that they could conceivably have evolved from simple organisms and the primordial goo -- Darwin admitted that this was a hurdle his theory had to overcome or it would ultimately need to be rejected -- unfortunately most of today's evolutionists aren't even a fraction as critical as the original evolutionary theorist was (...and they accuse Christians of blind faith).

Answer 2

fist a few light sensing cells that later evolved into more complex sensing organs which provided better advantage and higher survival rate. This is really 1+1=2 stuff.

Answer 3

Eyes have evolved dozens of times independently in the animal world. A wide range of mechanisms can be observed, and for any particular mechanism many different forms of gradually increasing complexity and acuity can be demonstrated. Richard Dawkins provides some excellent explanations of how eyes evolved in his books - I suggest you do some research.

Answer 4

Are you going to go study biology so that you can learn the answer to this question?

Or just insist that it can't be answered without reference to magic invisible beings?

Consider your response carefully: it will reflect on your intellectual honesty.
====================
Okay, fair enough response. Do you understand why I wrote this? I want you to think about the fact that not understanding something is not the same as demonstrating that it must have a supernatural origin.

There are a LOT of questions about biology that I cannot answer, but that most certainly does not mean that no-one can answer them.

There are also a lot of questions about biology that no-one can answer, but that most certainly does not mean that we never will be able to answer them.

There may even be questions about biology that no-one will EVER be able to answer, but that most certainly does not mean that they must have supernatural explanations.

It is quite arrogant to assume that if one cannot answer a question, it must be unanswerable, and therefore there must be a god who created everything. It's extremely difficult for human beings to overcome that kind of arrogance, but it's necessary if we're going to continue to develop our understanding of the world around us.

Answer 5

The simple answer is "very, very slowly." For a more comprehensive, and yet comprehensible treatment of the question, I'd refer you to "A Short History of Almost Everything" by Bill Bryson. It's a brilliant book.

Answer 6

Evolution didn't happen and the evidence for it is very scant....

It is amazing to me that those who push evolution theory so vehemently don't even know what most evolutionary scientists have said about the fossil record....

Even Charles Darwin was honest when he confesses in 'Origin of Species'; " But as by THIS THEORY innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we NOT find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?" -Charles Darwin

To the above fact, even the most world renown (evolutionary) biologists agree...." New species almost always appear suddenly in the fossil record with NO intermediate links to ancestors in older rocks in the same region. The fossil record with its abrupt transitions OFFERS NO SUPPORT for gradual change". - Stephen J. Gould (Natural History , June, 1977, p.22)

"The extreme rarity (of transitional forms) in the fossil record persists as the 'trade secret' of palentology. The evolutionary tree (diagarms) that adorn our textbooks is.....NOT the evidence of fossils". - Stephen Gould (Natural History, 1977, vol.86, p.13)

The thing to remember is that evolution is still just a theory - a hypothesis, a speculation, an unproven assumption, and certainly is NOT supported by the fossil record.

According to Scripture NOTHING evolved but everything was created "AFTER THEIR KIND"....which is directly consistent with the fossil record.

Answer 7

Basically, it would take millions and millions of years. And it did. This link gives you exactly what you want:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eyes