If anything Darwin talked about how complex the eye was and how he couldn't believe that it formed by gradual steps. The examples used are not proof of the evolution of the eye by small incremental steps. Evolutionist cite a few examples and what would be needed is 100s of examples. Because each stage of an eye is so complex even 100 stages wouldn't prove it. Unless each stage took on 100s of complex interconnecting parts in one go which would be incredible there can be no proof.
Just look at the neuron connects which show a web network of connects to different parts of the brain that control each part of the brain as one example that has 100s of small separate stages. That needs to come at the exact same time as the feature it controls otherwise there is no proper function and that would be rejected. They need to come at the same time as the cells and nervous system and that needs to come at the same time as tissues and blood vessels which all have many small stages.
So each stage would need 100s of chance undirected mutations to all work together fore the same end result purpose. It would be like throwing 1000 letters up in the air at the same time and they all come down to spell out a specific paragraph each and every time and at the same time as a second and third or even more sets coming down and spelling out other paragraphs which all work together to read out pages in a book which are in the right place and are coherent.
Even when evolutionist cite a creature with a certain level of eye sight as one of the stages that stage is so complex they forget that there is an incredible level of stages to even make that which needs to be explained. They think by finding a few stages that this is enough proof to use for evolution. All this can be is to show the great level of design and the stages that can be used for design within the overall plan of design.
This can be said for evolution as well and this is the problem, the interpretation of the evidence. When evolutionists use features for showing transitions its a matter of interpretation. There have been many examples where the features that were used for a transitional such as the skulls found at Dmanisi. It was found that all the ape skulls found around Africa and labeled new species were just a variation of the same species. So evolutionists are to quick to make new species out of any variation of features so that it creates new transitional links for their theory.
Rather than being separate species, the human ancestors found in Africa from the same period may simply be normal variants of H erectus.
http://www.geneticliteracyproject.o...s-the-same-species-homo-erectus/#.UwRlMc7GD_Q
See this is the blind belief that evolutionists have in their theory. Even the nerves for a blind creature are a complex system that just doesn't pop into existence in one go. If it does then evolution shows remarkable similarities to miracles. Then the rest of the systems, structures and small individual components of whatever those nerves are connected to have to be made in conjunction each even having a complex subsystem in place to operate them which seems incredible to be able to form in one go from chance mutations under a blind process that doesn't know what part is needed next. Each part not being able to work on its own and needing other complex things to work together.
Like some say its easy to cite a few examples and say that proves evolution because it shows a certain stage of the process. But each stage they show is full of other stages that are not accounted for. If you want to use that method then you need to show the thousands of stages. Otherwise you have to say that some of the complex things involved happened all at once. We are talking about the creation of complex things form something that was simple and didn't have the ingredients or information there in the first place to make. It follows the same sort of logic as making life from non life.
Ive already linked evidence of how complex the eye is. And the eye itself is a part of a greater system which needs to be explained as to how it can form by accident all being made in orchestration with each other. It makes any design we have ever tried to make look like child's play. I think its a denial or even culpable ignorance to not acknowledge the great design that is on display that goes beyond any naturalistic explanation.
Vision --
The Visual Pathway
The Human Eye
When we come to the human eye, it is even more fascinating. Apart from having auto-focus, auto-exposure, excellent low light response, excellent depth perception that no camera comes close, the eye can perceive: 1. Velocity, 2. Direction, 3. Location, 4. Texture, 5. Identity, and 6. Colour.
The visual pathway is unique in human anatomy with its cris and crosses. The visual cortex is now the subject of intensive research.
Functional MRI provides the best vehicle to study visual evoked brain responses in an awake subject. The primary visual cortex, V1, is "ignited" when the subject sees an object:
The most amazing finding is: if the subject is asked to project a mental image without any external visual stimulus, another part of the visual cortex, V5, is then "ignited"! If this particular mental image possess special qualities, then the corresponding physical response of the body will be triggered off. Fantasia!
Can evolutionist please explain such remarkable process.
http://www.hkam.org.hk/temp/counterevolution.html
Here is what makes up the eye with each and every part made up of smaller parts and systems. And even they are made up of further parts and systems each dependent on each other. Its when you get into the finer detail that the theory of evolution breaks down.
1.
vitreous body 2.
ora serrata 3.
ciliary muscle 4.
ciliary zonules 5.
Schlemm's canal 6.
pupil 7.
anterior chamber 8.
cornea 9.
iris 10.
lens cortex 11.
lens nucleus 12.
ciliary process 13.
conjunctiva 14.
inferior oblique muscle 15.
inferior rectus muscle 16.
medial rectus muscle 17.
retinal arteries and veins 18.
optic disc 19.
dura mater 20.
central retinal artery 21.
central retinal vein 22.
optic nerve 23.
vorticose vein 24.
bulbar sheath 25.
macula 26.
fovea 27.
sclera 28.
choroid 29.
superior rectus muscle 30.
retina
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_eye
Because of the way that these incredibly complex things are made. They dont just pop into existence in one go. Even the simplest ones cant do that. In many cases there would need to be many beneficial chance mutations happening at the same time. Test have been done to show how impossible it is for even a couple of mutations to happen at the same time. Because each mutation doesn't know what the previous one has started. So the following mutation is only a 1 in thousands if not millions of chances to get it right.
It will produce the many neutral and negative ones in between which have to be dealt with. Being that mutations can be very harmful to fitness and recent research has shown that they maybe mostly harmful this would be a unbelievable way to create something better and more functional that what was already made good. Remember mutations are basically copying mistakes.
Peer-Reviewed Science Has Now Demonstrated the Implausibility of Evolving New Proteins
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3249626/posts
![[serious]](/data/avatars/m/160/160873.jpg?1431539545){kind=avatar}
