Evolution or Creationsim?

Question

For an eye to work , it needs all its part to come in function all at once , if even one single part is remaining then entire eye would die . But we still have our eyes working means everything must have had came in function all at onces rather then "evolving" over time.... how do you explain this?

Answer 1

I'm afraid you don't know enough about evolution to explain it in terms you would understand, dear.

There are many creatures with "eyes" far less complex than ours.

This page may help you: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html

Answer 2

Creationism and Evolution can co-exist. I know that I am one who believes in Creationism but I also believe in Evolution. Evolution is inevitable. Take the difference between Eskimos and Indiginous peoples of South America. Also take a look at the size of people in the 1800s compared to those of the 21st century (birth size and statistics not obesity). Speciation is really where the line can be drawn, but that may even exist. A lot of people get caught up in Evolution but leave out Speciation which is the whole monkey human thing. No where does it say God said creatures must stay the same and no where does it say that creatures will evolve. All thats stated is that a Divine Being created the world. Other than our souls its left up to nature.

SO come on and stop nit picking. Wouldnt you rather of been thought up and created special or just been crated by chance. I would think the egos that scientist have now would rather have been planned then random.

Answer 3

You're comparing two ideas of how the world functions and exists that are mutually exclusive in their strict and extreme forms. Creationism can have support, but cannot be absolutely proven by our current methodology (i.e. scientific method) due to the spiritual side of things. Evolution does exist, no matter how many preachers, priests, and ministers would love to debunk the fact. The context by which it came about depends on the faith of the person looking at the world.

Two Russian pilots, upon their return from space, were asked whether they saw God while they were in space. The first said no, he only saw outer space. The second said he saw God everywhere.

It is the precondition of the mind to decide whether or not God created our eyes in such a way as for them to be imperfect, or that evolution has not adaptively allowed us to become the superior organisms on this planet in regards to eyes. Some men, the deeper they immerse themselves into science see less and less of God; others see more and more.

Answer 4

I am afraid I have to strongly agree with Lab Grrl...

The thing in evolution is that today is built upon the past!

An eye like any other structure DOES NOT evolve at ONCE!

We have to examine the history of organisms which have far simpler structures than the complex eye (DESPITE ALL IT"S PROBLEMS...which by the way is NOT perfect ..) So we look at the progression of organisms which have a region of photosensitive cells to photoreceptors eventually developing different kinds of eye structures which work.

The best examples for the EVIDENCE SUPPORTING evolution is the fact that there are so many structures that are IMPERFECT.. for example the Panda's Thumb... which really isn't a thumb at all ...but a mutation in the bone structure of the wrist causing it to stick out of one side.. and allows the Panda to strip the leaves off a Bambo branch. The Panda looks like it has a pair of mittens as it tries to feed upon the leave, however without it the Panda wouldn't be able to eat Bambo.. If god had created the Panda from the beginning would he have made the Panda's thumb perfect?? The reality is that the Panda had evolved to be a carnivore... It is a bear! And like all carnivores the claws had been adapted to kill other organism.. not to grab but then when the habitat changed.. and the only Panda's that could survive where the ones with this type of mutation which allowed them to feed upon Bambo plants.... this is more along the lines of what evolution really is like.

Answer 5

Look at comparative morphology for your answer. Each step in the evolution of a vertebrate eye is adaptive in its own right. First you have a single nucleobase mutation producing the asemblage of an opsin protein. Then opsin proteins concentrated in a photosensitive cell, then photosenstivive cells in an eye cup, then an eye cup with a pinhole opening serving as a crude lens, etc., etc. We can find all these "steps" leading to a vertebrate eye in simple invertebrates living today.

Answer 6

Your metaphor would not adventure with the certainty of evolution technological information. there are a number of holes in the belief of evolution. as a exchange of permitting your strategies to discover opportunities you have set a straw guy argument on your head and you're optimistic that that's so a techniques as you're able to bypass. yet, evaluate here: The transition from one species to a diverse isn't documented via fossil information. What led to the cambrian explosion? making use of "survival of the fittest" how do you get from sightless to imaginative and prescient in small unintentional steps. As a scientist, i do no longer know the solutions, yet i know that the Evolutionary thought would not answer them. Your loss of humility is retaining you from being a solid scientist.

Answer 7

Now, if you would really happen to be serious in asking this question, listen to those answers suggesting you read something by Dawkins.

Don't listen to those like SmoothD who has such a short view of life on earth that he thinks M.A.S.H. was about the Viet Nam war and not the Korean War.

If you are not seriously looking for good answers, go to the religion questions.

Answer 8

Richard Dawkins (I know you probably hate him - but bear with me) has written an entire chapter in Climbing Mount Improbable based on debunking this idea.

Eyes evolved from simple light-sensitive patches (as in Eeuglena; useful for orienting oneself in the seas) to pits (in Planaria; some directionality added) to a "pinhole camers" (in Nautilus; more detail resolvable) to having lenses (in us; controlled focussing possible). The steps each produce a more *functional* eye, but each eye still works as far as it can.

Answer 9

Not true at all. Ancient cataract surgery involved removing the lens. It restored sufficient sight.

Creatures with a variety of "partial" eyes exist.

This Creationist lie is easily debunked.

Answer 10

Evolution or Creationism? Did we come from monkeys or did we just "show up"? How about this......instead of choosing either evolution or creationism.....how about we choose both! Yeah, ever think that the so called monkeys the evolutionists think we came from come from the "God" or the "Higher Power" that the creationists believe in. Anytime someone say we can came from a primate I say, "And where did that come from?" They tell me from the salamader....."Where did that come from?"......from the lizard....."Where did that come from?" See my point? All the way back to the simplest form of hydrogen that evolutionists say created the "big bang"........The hydrogen had to come from somewehre......it just wasn't always here. So instead of arguing back and forth lets think that maybe we all did "evolve" from a much basic life form.....but that life form was "created" by "God" or "a Higher Power". Also, for you Bible quoters....the Genesis book in the Bible was a story....and parable....an easy way to explain to the little Hebrew children about the creation of the earth and the universe. Using the Bible to support scientific research is like using the TV show "M.A.S.H." to teach college students about the Vietnam War.