MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,961
I suppose we should compose a FAQ. (CFL?)
Anyhow, just for the heck of it:
Debunking the "impossible eye evolution" argument.
Eyes, being delicate and perishable structures, are not well represented in the fossil record, so it is really not possible to document the evolution of this organ that way, but we don't need that to falsify the claim:
"The eye, with its many interdependent functions could not have come to existence through the essentially random process that evolution is claimed to be."
The claim presumes that an eye is only useful if it is complete with lids, lens, iris, retina, focus and light compensation and directional control. Thus, it is claimed that only if such a complete organ were to appear in one mutation, would it have been beneficial to the life-for aquireing it, and be selected in evolution.
Consequently, the claim can be falsified by showing that individual components of sight organs can appear and be beneficial, and for this we do not need to refer to the fossil record:
The most primitive sight organs we observe on extant life-forms are single light sensitive cells in the skin of certain flat-worms and other primitive non-vertebrates. These simple organs enable the creatures to distinguish between night and day, to determine if they are out in the open (and thus open to predators) and perhaps even to detect sudden changes on light that may indicate the presense of a predator. In other words, such an organ is beneficial.
Studying extant creatures, we can follow the entire development from these proto-eyes, over patches of sight-cells, cell-groups with primitive fixed lenses, lidless eyes, unmoving eyes, all the way to the complex sight organ of mammals and other highly evolved vertebrates.
On every single step, we can show how a single factor is added to an existing organ and is beneficial by improving it.
Hans
Anyhow, just for the heck of it:
Debunking the "impossible eye evolution" argument.
Eyes, being delicate and perishable structures, are not well represented in the fossil record, so it is really not possible to document the evolution of this organ that way, but we don't need that to falsify the claim:
"The eye, with its many interdependent functions could not have come to existence through the essentially random process that evolution is claimed to be."
The claim presumes that an eye is only useful if it is complete with lids, lens, iris, retina, focus and light compensation and directional control. Thus, it is claimed that only if such a complete organ were to appear in one mutation, would it have been beneficial to the life-for aquireing it, and be selected in evolution.
Consequently, the claim can be falsified by showing that individual components of sight organs can appear and be beneficial, and for this we do not need to refer to the fossil record:
The most primitive sight organs we observe on extant life-forms are single light sensitive cells in the skin of certain flat-worms and other primitive non-vertebrates. These simple organs enable the creatures to distinguish between night and day, to determine if they are out in the open (and thus open to predators) and perhaps even to detect sudden changes on light that may indicate the presense of a predator. In other words, such an organ is beneficial.
Studying extant creatures, we can follow the entire development from these proto-eyes, over patches of sight-cells, cell-groups with primitive fixed lenses, lidless eyes, unmoving eyes, all the way to the complex sight organ of mammals and other highly evolved vertebrates.
On every single step, we can show how a single factor is added to an existing organ and is beneficial by improving it.
Hans
)
