The evolution of the eye

[shunyadragon]

Simple logic.

Simple logic.

You mean simpleton logic without knowledge of science!

What are your qualifications to make these absurd outrageous ignorant objections to the science of evolution?

I still need peer reviewed scientific references and research by recognized scientists in genetics, paleoboiology and related biology fields.

Still waiting . . .

Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.

 

[shawn001]

"Generations of creationists have tried to counter Darwin by citing the example of the eye as a structure that could not have evolved. The eye's ability to provide vision depends on the perfect arrangement of its parts, these critics say. Natural selection could thus never favor the transitional forms needed during the eye's evolution--what good is half an eye? Anticipating this criticism, Darwin suggested that even "incomplete" eyes might confer benefits (such as helping creatures orient toward light) and thereby survive for further evolutionary refinement. Biology has vindicated Darwin: researchers have identified primitive eyes and light-sensing organs throughout the animal kingdom and have even tracked the evolutionary history of eyes through comparative genetics. (It now appears that in various families of organisms, eyes have evolved independently.)"

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

150 years after Darwin wrote his book, not a single counterexample of evolution has ever been found, but creationists keep on trying anyway, while science just keeps confirming it.

 

[shunyadragon]

But, if you see an eye just lying on the beach, would you assume that it had evolved there, or that someone is walking around with an empty eye socket?

God wins again.

Someone lost an eye. I would look around for the poor fellow needing medical attention.

God does not need to win anything.