the human eye: proof evolution is false (i mean this as a question not a statement)?

Question

i was just doing a little reading.. and found this:

Darwin famously treated the subject of eye evolution in his Origin of Species:
"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree."

what do you think?

Irreducible complexity?

Darwin openly admits he has a partial explanation, too brief and imperfect for the evolutionary process of the eye, which nonetheless (i will admit) set the pattern for more research.

sometimes i think you people take things WAY too serious.. especially for the internet. and jesus im not trying to debunk any of your ideas.. i was merely asking a question. was i rude in ANY WAY? if i was i apologize.

Answer 1

Are you reading creationist websites? I saw you mention the immune system, the flagellum, and now this.

I think Adia nailed it in the first answer by giving the full quote.
I'm afraid the creationist websites don't keep up with the times, and if they do, they like to quote halfway (as in this case) or woefully out of context.

And much of their arguments can be reduced to the irreducible complexity thing, which is bunk.

Personally, I think your are much better off with the Talkorigins.org archives http://www.talkorigins.org

Flagellum:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200_1.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200_1_1.html

Eye:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/3/part8.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA113_1.html

Immune system:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200_4.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day12pm.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/icsic.html

Answer 2

I agree. The idea that the eye, either animal or human, came about by accident through natural selection is absurd. Also, the eye would have had to come about by accident in both the male and female, separately, at the same time.

Another absurdity that proves evolution is false is the idea that a completely functioning, living cell came about by accident when a lightening bolt hit the ocean. If "life" was created by this lightening bolt, it had to be a completely functioning cell that could reproduce itself, otherwise it would have died soon after it was created.

For a cell to be able to reproduce itself it has to have a semi-permeable membrane to enclose the cell but let nutrients in and waste products out. It would also have to have a nucleus within the cell with it's own semi-permeable membrane around it. In the nucleus there would have to be a very complex strand of DNA to tell the cell what to do.

It would also have to have RNA so that the DNA could be replicated and move over to the the other side of the nucleus. Then, the cell membrane would have to fold in on itself at the same time as the nuclear membrane did the same, and form 2 identical cells (mitosis).

The idea that this could have happened by lightning hitting an ocean is absurd and proves that evolution is false. It is especially absurd considering the fact that before there was any life on earth there would have been no dirt and that the earth's surface was composed of only rock and water (pure water- with nothing in it.). Not only no building blocks to join together but also, no nutrients for the cell to feed on.

Answer 3

There is no particular reason Darwin's opinion is any more valuable than any other's on the subject. He introduced the idea of natural selection, but what he was introduced as a far from perfect idea, not nearly as complex as the idea that modern science has developed from it.

Answer 4

And then he went on to say.....?

This is where most Creationists and Evolutionists clash. Bear in mind that creationists reckon it all happened in the space of about 10,000 years,as in (perhaps) "Blink, ta-daah, one eye, complete and unadulterated"

The evolutionists suggest that the eye was formed (perhaps) over many millions of years, perhaps taking several thousand "generations" to get it to its present state of perfection. What we actually see now is no-where near what the eye was when it first started to exist.

Evolution is still a theory, and it can still be proved wrong, if anyone has an acceptable alternate theory which will debunk it. Problem is, that answer is NOT going to come from people who just throw their hands in the air and say "God did it!" The very same people would have kept telling you the world was flat, until science proved otherwsie.

I'll go with evolution - until something better comes along.

Answer 5

Now let me make you look silly.

What you said is this:

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."


BUT, after that is:

"Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound."


=)

Answer 6

Reading lying low life scum creationist web sites have you? You do know that creationist take quotes out of context don't you?

You left out the part that comes after that portion you quoted. If you had ever read any of Darwins work you would know that his writing style was to pose problems and then would continue by answering the objections he posed.

"Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound. "

Answer 7

I already knew about that, so now we know that evolution (as producing species) not the variation in genetic frequency of allelles (proved and happens everytime any species mates).

We have to understand some other scientific facts, which God has to revealed to us in his last and final revelation.

Here is 3 points which are clear evidence to the miraculous nature of the Qu'ran

1) The creation of the universe is explained by astrophysicists in a widely accepted phenomenon, popularly known as the “Big Bang.” It is supported by observational and experimental data gathered by astronomers and astrophysicists for decades. According to the “Big Bang,” the whole universe was initially one big mass (Primary Nebula). Then there was a “Big Bang” (Secondary Separation), which resulted in the formation of Galaxies. These then divided to form stars, planets, the sun, the moon, etc. The origin of the universe was unique and the probability of it occurring by “chance” is zero.

The Quran contains the following verse, regarding the origin of the universe:

[021:030] Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens and the earth were joined together as one united piece, then We parted them? And We have made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?

The striking congruence between the Quranic verse and the “Big Bang” is inescapable! How could a book, which first appeared in the deserts of Arabia 1400 years ago, contain this profound scientific truth?

2) In 1925 an American astronomer by the name of Edwin Hubble provided observational evidence that all galaxies are receding from one another, which implies that the universe is expanding. The expansion of the universe is now an established scientific fact.

This is what the Quran says regarding the formation of the universe:

[051:047] With power did We construct the heaven. Verily, We are Able to extend the vastness of space (thereof),

Stephen Hawking, in his book A Brief History of Time, says: “The discovery that the universe is expanding is one of the great intellectual revolutions of the 20th century.” The Quran mentioned the expansion of the universe before man even learnt to build a telescope!

3) Scientists say that before the galaxies in the universe were formed, celestial matter was initially in the form of gaseous matter. In short, huge gaseous matter or clouds were present before the formation of the galaxies. To describe initial celestial matter, the word “smoke” is more appropriate than gas.

The following Quranic verse refers to this state of the universe by the word dukhan which means smoke:

[041:011] Then He rose over towards the heaven when it was smoke

Again, this fact is a corollary to the “Big Bang” and was not known to mankind during the time of the Prophet Muhammad

What then, could have been the source of this knowledge?

Answer 8

Since that time science has learned of things in nature far more complex than the eye. Yet to those who believe, nothing is too complex to not have happened by chance.

Whatchagonnado????

Answer 9

think of what we do with micro scopes teliscopes eye glasses
evolution has had plenty of time to evolve
the eye is basic stuff
yet where is its evolutionary ''steps''
thoery of evolution is not a science

Answer 10

Sounds like Darwin was more candid than his slavish disciples.