absolutely not. I would agree that parts are more than functionally interrelated, but then you go on to say that evolved separately. You can't do that, as the structure falls apart on every level. How could any development in eye be functional without corresponding changes in brain to make it useful? Yet we see almost every form of eye in the earliest fossil records, many of which are just as complex and require brain/structure interaction.
We, as humans, are holistically designed. A vast number of our functions are commanded by interdependent organs releasing hormones that produce rapid responses....reactions to glucose, CO2 levels in blood for example by liver, pancreas, lungs, brain, kidneys....all to form homeostasis. How did these complex relationships evolve? Darwin thought some of these were vestigial organs, totally debunked idea now, although you evolutionists still strive to promote that myth. Who needs a thryoid? There is no organ left without function and left with just minor tissues. A fold or muscles in ear...or the bump in eye, which is where tear ducts flow out of and incredibly useful to get things out of eye.
Then we could on to talk about ecology that dependent systems need a bare minimum of service providers to survive, so by evolution, they had to evolve at once with minimum number of providers...aka things like pollinators and flowers, fungus and plant roots in soil, gut bioemes and vertebrates. One can't survive without the other, but there are multiple overlapping providers in any ecosystem, take a minimum away and can't survive. So a large number must have been present in any ecosystem instantly or in very very short period of maybe days. Yeah every try to grow plants? Most die, because necessary providers are not present in soil or environment.
(Which agnostics?)
