Darwinism, for160 years, has been unsuccessful in showing how complex biological adaptations evolved. No clear step-by-step pathways between different structures performing different functions have ever been found. No paths have been found; this means no validation of Darwinism exists. Circumstantial evidence isn’t enough; direct evidence of evolution is required. There is no immediate experimental confirmation that Darwin got it right.
There are no details of how the human eye evolved. Eyes of many different complexities exist in nature. No gradual step-by-step evolutionary paths that connect them exist. Homologous genes and similar proteins appear among differing eyes with similar structures. Eyes must be designed with embryological development; evolution can’t do that. A gradual step-by-step evolutionary process can’t produce complex biological systems. Randomness can’t do Multiple coordinated mutations cannot be reduced to small mutational steps. The result would be evolutionary discontinuity. An irreducibly complex system has core components that can’t be removed. The system will lose its original function. No plausible pathways exist to hold the complex system in place while an upgrade occurs.
The eyes of vertebrate animals are so complex that creationists have long argued that they could not have been formed by natural selection.
The first eyes appeared about 541 million years ago, at the beginning of the Cambrian period, when complex multicellular life took off. At that time, the code from the creation software module kicked in (it had been embedded in all of the single-cell life forms). Multi-cell life forms were evolving. The eyes were off and running. The changes were underway. The coding within the eyes caused light-sensitive spots to grow into retinas. Over time a lens formed at the front of the eye. The essential eye molecules were installed in the metazoan development phase (when cells differentiate into tissue and organs).
Darwin himself had confessed that it was absurd to propose that the human eye evolved through spontaneous mutation and natural selection. The embedded creation software within the human eye developed the lens, retina, and vitreous humor. The photoreceptor proteins were sensitive to light and saw shapes and colors. The early two light-sensitive cells, rhabdomeric and ciliary, remain in place today.
Soft tissues rarely fossilize. But by comparing eye structures and embryological development of the eye in vertebrate species, scientists have gained crucial insights into the organ’s origin.
These findings suggest that our camera-style eye has surprisingly ancient roots and that before acquiring the elements necessary to operate as a visual organ, it functioned to detect light for modulating our long-ago ancestors’ circadian rhythms.
The human eye is an exquisitely complicated organ.
Conversely, the Darwinian argument for the evolution of the eye is this:
Eyes are the adaptive responses shaped by natural selection over hundreds of thousands to hundreds of millions of years of working on species to meet changing environmental circumstances. Evolving eyes is relatively easy to do in an evolutionary sense. People argue that processes of random variation guided by natural selection could not possibly lead to the natural evolution of organs as complex as the vertebrate eye. They say there is no possibility of intermediate structures that would be adaptive to the organisms possessing them. Therefore, such designs must have been engineered by an intelligent designer. All that is required to make it happen is energy and the laws of physics, chemistry, and non-equilibrium thermodynamics. In multicellular organisms, the most superficial photosensory organ consists of photosensitive cells in the epidermis that are connected to some nerve net that controls the speed and direction of orientation. It doesn’t need a brain to function.
The eyes of vertebrate animals are so complex that creationists have long argued that they could not have been formed by natural selection.
A genetic or historical evolutionary sequence from primitive to advanced, as each species in the structural series, lives today and has visual capabilities sufficient to their needs.
There is a considerable developmental cost and no advantage to having an image-forming eye if the nervous system can’t process the image and make decisions relating to it. It is easy to consider that changed circumstances would lead to selective pressures to advance or regress from any point along the scale of examples.
The design of our eye is not intelligent, but it makes perfect sense when viewed in the light of evolution. yEAH, RIGHT.
Science makes statements like this, with no experimental results and with no proof, Just with a declarative word salad. The attitude of I’m a scientist; I couldn’t possibly be wrong.
I’ll leave it to you to finally decide. Is everything random? Or is everything designed?
