Yes, from the very beginning people have believed that evolution is a contradiction to monotheism. That still to some degree remains a problem today.
That just has nothing to do with what I said at all.
Peer reviewed articles is not hard "evidence" that eyes evolve. It amazing how many evolutionist think it does. There are a few atheist who can "see" that.
Eye Evolution-It's Impossible - YouTube
Pretty sure I've been through the exact same stuff with you before, but let's see what the first part of the video has to offer. All of the claims and questions below occur within the first 2:36:
(1) The "minimal visual system". Video author says a visual system requires a retina, an optic nerve, a visual cortex and a "complex code" (no idea what he means by that) at the minimum. Is that true?
No. The simplest "visual" systems occur in single cells. Even bacteria can sense light with pigments and react to it by, e.g., swimming out of the way. The simplest
animal visual system I know of is found in
jellyfish larvae and consists of a single pigmented cell equipped with a cilium for movement. It's a system capable of sensing and reacting to light without the need for a retina, a brain, an optic nerve or a "complex code" of any kind. A visual system doesn't have to perceive sharp images (or indeed
any images) to be useful!
(2) Accounts of eye evolution ignore the nerves. That's because
(a) Nerves are all over the place in most animals (especially in ones with diffuse nerve nets, like jellyfish). It really doesn't take much to hook one up to a photoreceptor in the skin. Nerves will take an electric signal from any source, so as long as the photoreceptor can generate a light-dependent ion flow, we're good.
(b) Creationists don't complain about the complexity of the optic nerve, eh? They're all over the eye. If you don't ask the question, don't complain when you don't get the answer.
(3) The code again. Maybe he explains what kind of "code" he's talking about later in the video, but certainly not in the part I've seen. Is he just trying to suggest there's a problem without having any idea what he's talking about??
(4) Which part evolved first?
Photoreceptors, since they don't need any of the other parts to be useful. Then the rest coevolved. If you have photoreceptors, hooking them up to an integrating/processing apparatus (i.e. a nervous system) might be beneficial by giving you more sophisticated, global control over your reactions. Once you have the nervous system to process visual information, it opens the way to more complex eyes that collect more of it. With more information, it can be advantageous to upgrade the nervous system again. And so on.
(5) How did mutations keep track of what was already evolved?
They didn't. They just didn't have an advantage, and therefore didn't spread through the population, "before their time". A mutation that makes a patch of skin dimple in is pretty useful if you already have light sensitive cells there. In that case, it'll make a simple eye cup that's better at telling the direction of light than a flat eye patch. Otherwise, there's no advantage and the mutation simply drifts into oblivion. We're not talking about earth shattering mutations that will only arise once in a billion years here...
(5b) How did the 3 million retinal cells already there know that another 3 million are still needed?
The monster of teleology rears its ugly head again. Nothing knew anything in this whole process. The genome of some random little worm 600 million years ago wasn't striving to spit out a camera eye. If more photoreceptors benefited the animal, animals with more photoreceptors just ended up reproducing more successfully than their less visually acute conspecifics. That's it.
(5c) How did evolution know that two eyes are necessary for depth perception? (Or teleology rears higher)
It didn't. Bilaterian animals have a tendency to have pairs of eyes because they are, well, bilaterally symmetrical. If you asked the same question about kidneys or lungs, it'd immediately sound silly - there's no special need for two of either of these organs, they just occur in pairs because of general body symmetry.
Also, two is the
minimum number of eyes required for depth perception. Quite a few animals have other numbers of eyes, even if we count a compound eye as a single eye. In fact, even many vertebrates have three, though the
parietal eye is not image forming and mainly acts as a daily timekeeper. Lancelets, our distant relatives, have a single frontal eye that
shares molecular and structural similarities with vertebrate eyes. My good old friend, the stem arthropod
Opabinia had five eyes just in case it wasn't weird enough already.
Scallops have whole series of eyes inside the edges of their shells. The same box jellyfish whose larvae we met under point (1) have four sets of six eyes, two of which are
complex eyes with a lens and everything.
Once again, I find that actually knowing a little bit about the real diversity of life is death to arguments from ignorance. A lot of the "problems" creationists find with evolution stem from a limited knowledge of the natural world. If your education in zoology ends with your dog, of course you'll have a hard time imagining functioning animals wildly different from it.