The Eye Proves Creationism

rockytopva · Oct 23, 2016

1. The organic chemistry needed to lubricate the eyes in the form of tears
2. The filling of the eye allowing light to go through uninhibited, keeping the eye round and in perfect geometry, even when there is changes in the pressure of the atmosphere. Vitreous: clear, jelly-like substance that fills the middle of the eye.
3. The precise location of rods and cones.
4. The ability of the mind to build an imagination from what it received through the rods and the cones.
5. The lens, transparent structure inside the eye that focuses light rays onto the retina
6. Cornea: clear front window of the eye that transmits and focuses light into the eye
7. Iris: colored part of the eye that helps regulate the amount of light that enters
8. Pupil: dark aperture in the iris that determines how much light is let into the eye
9. Macula: small central area in the retina that contains special light-sensitive cells and allows us to see fine details clearly
10. Optic nerve: connects the eye to the brain and carries the electrical impulses formed by the retina to the visual cortex of the brain

All of which is provided by intelligent design.

Armoured · Oct 23, 2016

Nope. We understand eye evolution quite well. No intelligent design required. Sorry.

rockytopva · Oct 23, 2016

Armoured said:
Nope. We understand eye evolution quite well. No intelligent design required. Sorry.

I think 'we' have over active imaginations and understand nothing about organic chemistry.

JackRT · Oct 23, 2016

This is the quintessential example of the argument from incredulity. The source making the claim usually quotes Darwin saying that the evolution of the eye seems "absurd in the highest degree". However, Darwin follows that statement with a three-and-a-half-page proposal of intermediate stages through which eyes might have evolved via gradual steps (Darwin 1872).

photosensitive cell

aggregates of pigment cells without a nerve

an optic nerve surrounded by pigment cells and covered by translucent skin

pigment cells forming a small depression

pigment cells forming a deeper depression

the skin over the depression taking a lens shape

muscles allowing the lens to adjust

All of these steps are known to be viable because all exist in animals living today. The increments between these steps are slight and may be broken down into even smaller increments. Natural selection should, under many circumstances, favor the increments. Since eyes do not fossilize well, we do not know that the development of the eye followed exactly that path, but we certainly cannot claim that no path exists.

Evidence for one step in the evolution of the vertebrate eye comes from comparative anatomy and genetics. The vertebrate βγ-crystallin genes, which code for several proteins crucial for the lens, are very similar to the Ciona βγ-crystallin gene. Ciona is an urochordate, a distant relative of vertebrates. Ciona's single βγ-crystallin gene is expressed in its otolith, a pigmented sister cell of the light-sensing ocellus. The origin of the lens appears to be based on co-optation of previously existing elements in a lensless system.

Nilsson and Pelger (1994) calculated that if each step were a 1 percent change, the evolution of the eye would take 1,829 steps, which could happen in 364,000 generations.

From http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html

dysert · Oct 23, 2016

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that even though someone presents an argument from incredulity, that does not mean that the incredible thing is actually wrong. If eyes were so easy to make, why don't humans also have eyes in the back of our heads? Certainly that would provide an advantage over folks who could only see toward the front.

JackRT · Oct 23, 2016

The eye also has a fundamental "design flaw". The light sensitive cells in the eye are the rods and cones which make up the retina. The nerve fibers which connect these cells to the optic nerve actually run across the front of the retina. This leads to a loss of visual acuity and a blind spot in the retina where all these nerve fibers come together. Such defects are not unexpected in the theory of evolution but any competent engineer or optometrist could have come up with a better design.

Strathos · Oct 23, 2016

dysert said:
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that even though someone presents an argument from incredulity, that does not mean that the incredible thing is actually wrong. If eyes were so easy to make, why don't humans also have eyes in the back of our heads? Certainly that would provide an advantage over folks who could only see toward the front.

Because there is no mechanism for such to reasonably arise via mutation? Evolution can only work with what is available to it. It can't make any living thing perfect.

JackRT · Oct 23, 2016

Only two eyes are required for all round vision. Most prey animals have eyes on either side of the head. This provides virtually 360 degree range of vision but very poor depth perception. Predator animals have both eyes in the front of the head to provide binocular vision with excellent depth perception. Some snakes have a "third eye" that is sensitive to body heat thus giving them an ability to hunt in darkness.

rockytopva · Oct 23, 2016

My family has dry eye. As we age our eye looses the ability to lubricant and the eyes will burn. There is nothing like the natural chemistry God designed for the eyes!

JackRT · Oct 23, 2016

rockytopva said:
My family has dry eye. As we age our eye looses the ability to lubricant and the eyes will burn. There is nothing like the natural chemistry God designed for the eyes!

That begs the question "Why didn't God design eyes that did not lose the ability to lubricate themselves?"

rockytopva · Oct 23, 2016

JackRT said:
That begs the question "Why didn't God design eyes that did not lose the ability to lubricate themselves?"

For the same reason Paul received a thorn in the flesh!

rockytopva · Oct 23, 2016

JackRT said:
Only two eyes are required for all round vision. Most prey animals have eyes on either side of the head. This provides virtually 360 degree range of vision but very poor depth perception. Predator animals have both eyes in the front of the head to provide binocular vision with excellent depth perception. Some snakes have a "third eye" that is sensitive to body heat thus giving them an ability to hunt in darkness.

Infrared

JackRT · Oct 23, 2016

rockytopva said:
Infrared

Exactly.

Armoured · Oct 23, 2016

rockytopva said:
I think 'we' have over active imaginations and understand nothing about organic chemistry.

You can think that all you like. Actual scientific evidence says otherwise.

pat34lee · Oct 26, 2016

JackRT said:
From http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html

Fairy tales are made to sound convincing. And that's
just what Dawkins spun about eye formation; a fairy
tale. Different types of vision are not stackable. They
work completely differently, using different signal
pathways and different parts of the brain. So instead
of evolving one eye, he evolves several, magically
transforming between them at need.

pat34lee · Oct 26, 2016

JackRT said:
The eye also has a fundamental "design flaw". The light sensitive cells in the eye are the rods and cones which make up the retina. The nerve fibers which connect these cells to the optic nerve actually run across the front of the retina. This leads to a loss of visual acuity and a blind spot in the retina where all these nerve fibers come together. Such defects are not unexpected in the theory of evolution but any competent engineer or optometrist could have come up with a better design.

The blind spot is not a design flaw or mistake.
https://answersingenesis.org/human-body/eyes/the-human-retina-shows-evidence-of-good-design/

Paul of Eugene OR · Nov 1, 2016

rockytopva said:
For the same reason Paul received a thorn in the flesh!

Uh . . . that reply doesn't share what the reason is.

Paul of Eugene OR · Nov 1, 2016

pat34lee said:
The blind spot is not a design flaw or mistake.
https://answersingenesis.org/human-body/eyes/the-human-retina-shows-evidence-of-good-design/

In that case, the bad design is, instead, present in squids and octopi who have no such blind spot and so they are stuck with the bad consequences of not having a blind spot.

Uh . . . what were those consequences, again?

JackRT · Nov 1, 2016

pat34lee said:
The blind spot is not a design flaw.

I agree. Evolution does not require design.

yeshuaslavejeff · Nov 1, 2016

pat34lee said:
The blind spot is not a design flaw or mistake.
https://answersingenesis.org/human-body/eyes/the-human-retina-shows-evidence-of-good-design/

There is no flaw in all of YHWH'S WORK and CREATION !
Y'SHUA'S REVELATION
to each and every ecclesia, echad, is shalom, perfect and wondrous and beautiful and perfectly completely whole and right and true.

The Eye Proves Creationism

Love to pray! :)

So is America great again yet?

Love to pray! :)

Well-Known Member

Member

Well-Known Member

No one important

Well-Known Member

Love to pray! :)

Well-Known Member

Love to pray! :)

Love to pray! :)

Well-Known Member

So is America great again yet?

Messianic

Messianic

Finally Old Enough

Finally Old Enough

Well-Known Member

simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency