Evolution Disproven

[loveofourlord]

Another thing that disproves evolution - the human eye. The only way that humans at any stage of development from single cell microbes is once they became humanoid they needed to have sight, but if the human eye evolved along with the species, then for thousand if not millions of years they would have been blind until the human eye had reached completion. And natural selection would have wiped the species out if the dinosaurs received their sight before partly formed humans, though having a simpler eye structure that evolved more quickly; because they dinosaurs would have seen blind humanoids as "lunch!"

yeah I mean it's not like we don't have dozens of independant eyes forming in the fossil record, or examples of living animals with only half a eye and such :> I'm just going to call poe as this is too big of a PRATT not to be one.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

yeah I mean it's not like we don't have dozens of independant eyes forming in the fossil record, or examples of living animals with only half a eye and such :> I'm just going to call poe as this is too big of a PRATT not to be one.

When I was living at home in Blenheim NZ in the province of Marlborough, there was always rivalry between Marlborough rugby players and Canterbury ones. I have often joked about one-eyed Canterbury rugby referees! I wonder if they are incomplete evolutionary specimens??

 

[Speedwell]

Another thing that disproves evolution - the human eye. The only way that humans at any stage of development from single cell microbes is once they became humanoid they needed to have sight, but if the human eye evolved along with the species, then for thousand if not millions of years they would have been blind until the human eye had reached completion. And natural selection would have wiped the species out if the dinosaurs received their sight before partly formed humans, though having a simpler eye structure that evolved more quickly; because they dinosaurs would have seen blind humanoids as "lunch!"

Humans inherited a working eye from their primate ancestors, who inherited a working eye from their mammalian ancestors, and so on.

 

[loveofourlord]

When I was living at home in Blenheim NZ in the province of Marlborough, there was always rivalry between Marlborough rugby players and Canterbury ones. I have often joked about one-eyed Canterbury rugby referees! I wonder if they are incomplete evolutionary specimens??

eyes developed long before any of the more complex life forms that we think of today, they are the earliest things in the fossil record, and what good is half a eye? Better then no eye, the eye is one of the better understood evolutionary paths.

 

[Kylie]

eyes developed long before any of the more complex life forms that we think of today, they are the earliest things in the fossil record, and what good is half a eye? Better then no eye, the eye is one of the better understood evolutionary paths.

Exactly. Even if a primitive eye isn't able to form an image as clear as the ones we see, it can still detect the difference between light and shadow and thus give an indication of when a predator is about to attack. Many sea creatures like clams have such eyes to give them warning when to close their shells.

 

[lasthero]

Exactly. Even if a primitive eye isn't able to form an image as clear as the ones we see, it can still detect the difference between light and shadow and thus give an indication of when a predator is about to attack. Many sea creatures like clams have such eyes to give them warning when to close their shells.

It’s also telling that there are animals who do have eyes, but can’t use them and don’t need them.

 

[Kylie]

It’s also telling that there are animals who do have eyes, but can’t use them and don’t need them.

It's almost as if they are descended from species that had eyes but then moved to environments where eyes were not required...

Weird that...

 

[Jimmy D]

Another thing that disproves evolution - the human eye. The only way that humans at any stage of development from single cell microbes is once they became humanoid they needed to have sight, but if the human eye evolved along with the species, then for thousand if not millions of years they would have been blind until the human eye had reached completion. And natural selection would have wiped the species out if the dinosaurs received their sight before partly formed humans, though having a simpler eye structure that evolved more quickly; because they dinosaurs would have seen blind humanoids as "lunch!"

Yikes! You've got to be joking?

 

[xianghua]

the eye is one of the better understood evolutionary paths.

and what if i will show you that its not?

 

[HitchSlap]

and what if i will show you that its not?

Don't waste our time. You have no idea what evolution is, or why it's a theory.

 

[loveofourlord]

and what if i will show you that its not?

cute you think you could, it's already well shown beyond a shadow of a doubt but try.

 

[Subduction Zone]

and what if i will show you that its not?

One must first understand the basics of science to be able to do that and I doubt if you have even those down.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Yikes! You've got to be joking?

No. That's not joking; But the unsuccessful blind Scottish hunter went out into the fog and mist. Now, that's joking!

 

[Subduction Zone]

No. That's not joking; But the unsuccessful blind Scottish hunter went out into the fog and mist. Now, that's joking!

"The Human Eye" is a result of hundreds of millions of years of evolution. Even the first "fish" would have had eyes. New parts do not need to re-evolve with every speciation event, there are only very small difference if any in individual organs as species evolve. So your eye would be almost identical to that of your Home heidelbergensis ancesotrs and theirs was little different from their Homo erectus ancestors etc. and so on until you get all the way back to a primitive light patch. And that only takes a concentration of nerve tissue. There is a rather old Dawkins video I could hunt up for you that explains roughly how it would have happened.

 

[Kylie]

and what if i will show you that its not?

Are you going to ask us something about robotic penguins?

You've never been able to show that evolution is wrong before. You just ask us to accept a strawman argument that doesn't actually have anything to do with reality.

 

[Ophiolite]

No. That's not joking; But the unsuccessful blind Scottish hunter went out into the fog and mist. Now, that's joking!

That's funny haar, haar!

 

[Bungle_Bear]

and what if i will show you that its not?

Fame and, potentially, fortune would await. If you can overturn ToE you'd be the father of "xianghuaism". I just can't wait!

 

[Skreeper]

and what if i will show you that its not?

Does that include showing us a picture of a penguin and claiming it's basically a self-replicating robot?

 

[xianghua]

cute you think you could, it's already well shown beyond a shadow of a doubt but try.

so you want to discuss about it or not?

 

[loveofourlord]

so you want to discuss about it or not?

Given your track record probably more chicken chess, but give it a shot, give your best effort.