Evolution of the human eye

[Mr Laurier]

Two videos in which I talk about the evolution of the human eye
Both are short.
This...

And this...

The human eye was inherited from pre-human ancestors, who inherited eyes from their ancestors, and so on. Back to the Cambrian.
Its a generic primate eye, derived from the standard mammal eye, based on the standard reptile eye, based on the standard amphibian eye, which in turn is a variation on the standard fish eye.
An updated version of an updated version, of something that works.

 

[Landon Caeli]

Two videos in which I talk about the evolution of the human eye
Both are short.
This...

And this...

The human eye was inherited from pre-human ancestors, who inherited eyes from their ancestors, and so on. Back to the Cambrian.
Its a generic primate eye, derived from the standard mammal eye, based on the standard reptile eye, based on the standard amphibian eye, which in turn is a variation on the standard fish eye.
An updated version of an updated version, of something that works.

I love our synapsid ancestors. Our eyes came from them, who predated the dinosaurs.

...Whenever I look at my dog, I can't help but notice her synapsid roots.

Hello Grandpa..!

 

[Subduction Zone]

The misconception that the eye had to evolve countless times is an argument used by Ray Comfort. In the interest of facial safety I will not link any of his videos.

 

[renniks]

Two videos in which I talk about the evolution of the human eye
Both are short.
This...

And this...

The human eye was inherited from pre-human ancestors, who inherited eyes from their ancestors, and so on. Back to the Cambrian.
Its a generic primate eye, derived from the standard mammal eye, based on the standard reptile eye, based on the standard amphibian eye, which in turn is a variation on the standard fish eye.
An updated version of an updated version, of something that works.

Common Creator equals common similarities.

 

[Estrid]

Squids got a better design than people.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Common Creator equals common similarities.

No reason for that if the creator is omnipotent and omniscient. In fact since similarities leads to objects not working optimally your claim is an argument that the crreator is neither omnipotent nor omniscient.

[Edited autocorrect error]

 

[AV1611VET]

Two videos in which I talk about the evolution of the human eye.

It just baffles me as to why any creationist would wonder about the human eye.

Some do though, and I guess that's the bane that comes with embracing evolution.

 

[renniks]

No reason for that if the creeps omnipotent and omniscient. In fact since similarities leads to objects not working optimally your claim is an argument that the crreator is neither omnipotent nor omniscient.

Hogwash. It just points to a creative being who likes a bit of variety.
Why would you call the being that gave you life a creep?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hogwash. It just points to a creative being who likes a bit of variety.
Why would you call the being that gave you life a creep?

Sorry, that was my tablet's autocorrect. Let me fix it.

But no, you do not understand biology. The similarities are there because evolution works on "good enough". There are all sorts of examples of bad engineering that would show your version of a creator to not only not be omnipotent and omniscient, but your version of a creator is incompetent too. There are countless examples of "design" that could be improved on. But since evolution works only with what is already in existence and makes minor changes to that we are stuck with clear flaws.

 

[Occams Barber]

Sorry, that was my tablet's autocorrect. Let me fix it.

But no, you do not understand biology. The similarities are there because evolution works on "good enough". There are all sorts of examples of bad engineering that would show your version of a creator to not only not be omnipotent and omniscient, but your version of a creator is incompetent too. There are countless examples of "design" that could be improved on. But since evolution works only with what is already in existence and makes minor changes to that we are stuck with clear flaws.

After two surgeries for cataracts and one for a detached retina I'm pretty sure the Creator wasn't that hot on eye design.

OB

 

[AV1611VET]

After two surgeries for cataracts and one for a detached retina I'm pretty sure the Creator wasn't that hot on eye design.

Did it remind you of the Fall? or are you assuming we should still be living in the Garden of Eden right now?

 

[Speedwell]

Hogwash. It just points to a creative being who likes a bit of variety.
Why would you call the being that gave you life a creep?

Actually, it points either way, but evolution has a plausible mechanism and further corroborating evidence.

 

[Occams Barber]

Did it remind you of the Fall? or are you assuming we should still be living in the Garden of Eden right now?

Not really. It reminded me of built-in obsolescence.

OB

 

[Estrid]

After two surgeries for cataracts and one for a detached retina I'm pretty sure the Creator wasn't that hot on eye design.

OB

Letting nature take its course worked out the way it did.
For example, it made me adorable.

 

[AV1611VET]

Not really. It reminded me of built-in obsolescence.

You might think that for Eli:

1 Samuel 4:15 Now Eli was ninety and eight years old; and his eyes were dim, that he could not see.

But Moses was a different story:

Deuteronomy 34:7 And Moses was an hundred and twenty years old when he died: his eye was not dim, nor his natural force abated.

 

[AV1611VET]

Letting nature take its course worked out the way it did.

What Occam needs to understand is that God gifted us men to learn ophthalmology, so he can have good vision in his later years.

My eye doctor is a YEC.

 

[driewerf]

Common Creator equals common similarities.

Toyota cars and Mercedes cars share many similarities, yet were designed by different teams. Should we not embrace polytheism based on all the similarities we see in the Creation?

 

[renniks]

Sorry, that was my tablet's autocorrect. Let me fix it.

But no, you do not understand biology. The similarities are there because evolution works on "good enough". There are all sorts of examples of bad engineering that would show your version of a creator to not only not be omnipotent and omniscient, but your version of a creator is incompetent too. There are countless examples of "design" that could be improved on. But since evolution works only with what is already in existence and makes minor changes to that we are stuck with clear flaws.

You do realize that the creation model has a reason for the flaws, right?

 

[renniks]

Toyota cars and Mercedes cars share many similarities, yet were designed by different teams. Should we not embrace polytheism based on all the similarities we see in the Creation?

Why would an all-powerful being need help with designing a world that holds a variety of life forms?

 

[BNR32FAN]

Two videos in which I talk about the evolution of the human eye
Both are short.
This...

And this...

The human eye was inherited from pre-human ancestors, who inherited eyes from their ancestors, and so on. Back to the Cambrian.
Its a generic primate eye, derived from the standard mammal eye, based on the standard reptile eye, based on the standard amphibian eye, which in turn is a variation on the standard fish eye.
An updated version of an updated version, of something that works.

Doesn’t it seem odd that if man as we are today has existed for around 300,000 years that he has only advanced in technology in the last 4000 years? Almost no technological advancements for 296,000 years then all the sudden BAM he achieves everything we have today in the last 4000 years? Seems strange to me.