The human eye: proof evolution is false (i mean this as a question not a statement)?

i was just doing a little reading.. and found this:





Darwin famously treated the subject of eye evolution in his Origin of Species:


';To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.';





what do you think?The human eye: proof evolution is false (i mean this as a question not a statement)?
Are you reading creationist websites? I saw you mention the immune system, the flagellum, and now this.





I think Adia nailed it in the first answer by giving the full quote.


I'm afraid the creationist websites don't keep up with the times, and if they do, they like to quote halfway (as in this case) or woefully out of context.





And much of their arguments can be reduced to the irreducible complexity thing, which is bunk.





Personally, I think your are much better off with the Talkorigins.org archives http://www.talkorigins.org





Flagellum:


http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB…


http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB…





Eye:


http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB…


http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/3/par…


http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA…





Immune system:


http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB…


http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/da…


http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/ics…The human eye: proof evolution is false (i mean this as a question not a statement)?
';that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist......';





*IF* is a big word here... its like saying IF i can find proof that ';x,y,and z'; exists well then i can prove it to be true...its possible.

Report Abuse

also.. in the link you gave me about the eye:


';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.';

Report Abuse

there just simply isnt enough efficient data, of course we cant say it hasnt happened, because there is no way of obtaining fossil records.





however, i will admit...

Report Abuse

...that D. E. Nilsson and S. Pelger's paper on the eye, make wonderful sense.


THE best argument i have read so far.


i am still reading from Kenneth R. Miller.. who so far makes an even better argument.

Report Abuse

As for the Flagellum argument.. i will admit (after a little more reading this morning) i was just plain out wrong. i was reading this:





http://www.pandasthumb.org/arc…

Report Abuse

and even with my disagreement in some of the choices of speech, he (nick matzke) does show that indeed its VERY possible.

Report Abuse

lastly for the immune system.. god i MUST have been out of it last night.. because even with just basic thought its VERY possible that the immune system evolves...


it would be ridiculous to believe it didnt.

Report Abuse

i was dipping in to Michael Behe works last night (and i will admit, it was very interesting to read another idea) but after doing even more reading this morning i have to agree with the others that label his science as ';Pseudoscience';

Report Abuse

that link you gave me about Mr. Rothschild's cross examination of him... i found it to be so interesting.. i would have loved to see a video of this.

Report Abuse

again i would like to apologize to anyone i might have upset.. i never really ever see a problem with asking any kind of question.. apparently this must be a sensitive subject for you....

Report Abuse

thank you for your links acid_zebra.. and i chose your answer because well.. yours basically sums up everyone else as well..

Report Abuse

I agree. The idea that the eye, either animal or human, came about by accident through natural selection is absurd. Also, the eye would have had to come about by accident in both the male and female, separately, at the same time.





Another absurdity that proves evolution is false is the idea that a completely functioning, living cell came about by accident when a lightening bolt hit the ocean. If ';life'; was created by this lightening bolt, it had to be a completely functioning cell that could reproduce itself, otherwise it would have died soon after it was created.





For a cell to be able to reproduce itself it has to have a semi-permeable membrane to enclose the cell but let nutrients in and waste products out. It would also have to have a nucleus within the cell with it's own semi-permeable membrane around it. In the nucleus there would have to be a very complex strand of DNA to tell the cell what to do.





It would also have to have RNA so that the DNA could be replicated and move over to the the other side of the nucleus. Then, the cell membrane would have to fold in on itself at the same time as the nuclear membrane did the same, and form 2 identical cells (mitosis).





The idea that this could have happened by lightning hitting an ocean is absurd and proves that evolution is false. It is especially absurd considering the fact that before there was any life on earth there would have been no dirt and that the earth's surface was composed of only rock and water (pure water- with nothing in it.). Not only no building blocks to join together but also, no nutrients for the cell to feed on.
And then he went on to say.....?





This is where most Creationists and Evolutionists clash. Bear in mind that creationists reckon it all happened in the space of about 10,000 years,as in (perhaps) ';Blink, ta-daah, one eye, complete and unadulterated';





The evolutionists suggest that the eye was formed (perhaps) over many millions of years, perhaps taking several thousand ';generations'; to get it to its present state of perfection. What we actually see now is no-where near what the eye was when it first started to exist.





Evolution is still a theory, and it can still be proved wrong, if anyone has an acceptable alternate theory which will debunk it. Problem is, that answer is NOT going to come from people who just throw their hands in the air and say ';God did it!'; The very same people would have kept telling you the world was flat, until science proved otherwsie.





I'll go with evolution - until something better comes along.
I already knew about that, so now we know that evolution (as producing species) not the variation in genetic frequency of allelles (proved and happens everytime any species mates).





We have to understand some other scientific facts, which God has to revealed to us in his last and final revelation.





Here is 3 points which are clear evidence to the miraculous nature of the Qu'ran





1) The creation of the universe is explained by astrophysicists in a widely accepted phenomenon, popularly known as the “Big Bang.” It is supported by observational and experimental data gathered by astronomers and astrophysicists for decades. According to the “Big Bang,” the whole universe was initially one big mass (Primary Nebula). Then there was a “Big Bang” (Secondary Separation), which resulted in the formation of Galaxies. These then divided to form stars, planets, the sun, the moon, etc. The origin of the universe was unique and the probability of it occurring by “chance” is zero.





The Quran contains the following verse, regarding the origin of the universe:





[021:030] Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens and the earth were joined together as one united piece, then We parted them? And We have made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?





The striking congruence between the Quranic verse and the “Big Bang” is inescapable! How could a book, which first appeared in the deserts of Arabia 1400 years ago, contain this profound scientific truth?





2) In 1925 an American astronomer by the name of Edwin Hubble provided observational evidence that all galaxies are receding from one another, which implies that the universe is expanding. The expansion of the universe is now an established scientific fact.





This is what the Quran says regarding the formation of the universe:





[051:047] With power did We construct the heaven. Verily, We are Able to extend the vastness of space (thereof),





Stephen Hawking, in his book A Brief History of Time, says: “The discovery that the universe is expanding is one of the great intellectual revolutions of the 20th century.” The Quran mentioned the expansion of the universe before man even learnt to build a telescope!





3) Scientists say that before the galaxies in the universe were formed, celestial matter was initially in the form of gaseous matter. In short, huge gaseous matter or clouds were present before the formation of the galaxies. To describe initial celestial matter, the word “smoke” is more appropriate than gas.





The following Quranic verse refers to this state of the universe by the word dukhan which means smoke:





[041:011] Then He rose over towards the heaven when it was smoke





Again, this fact is a corollary to the “Big Bang” and was not known to mankind during the time of the Prophet Muhammad





What then, could have been the source of this knowledge?
There is no particular reason Darwin's opinion is any more valuable than any other's on the subject. He introduced the idea of natural selection, but what he was introduced as a far from perfect idea, not nearly as complex as the idea that modern science has developed from it.
Since that time science has learned of things in nature far more complex than the eye. Yet to those who believe, nothing is too complex to not have happened by chance.





Whatchagonnado????
Now let me make you look silly.





What you said is this:





';To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.';








BUT, after that is:





';Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound.';








=)
I think it's a meow-thful
think of what we do with micro scopes teliscopes eye glasses


evolution has had plenty of time to evolve


the eye is basic stuff


yet where is its evolutionary ''steps''


thoery of evolution is not a science
Dude, you're straw clutching. Give up. You're fighting a tsunami with a bucket! Be at peace with Atheism. It is after all, a natural state of mind.
Reading lying low life scum creationist web sites have you? You do know that creationist take quotes out of context don't you?





You left out the part that comes after that portion you quoted. If you had ever read any of Darwins work you would know that his writing style was to pose problems and then would continue by answering the objections he posed.





';Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound. ';
Try reading about the box jellyfish and the story it reveals about the evolution of the eye.


http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comme…
Sounds like Darwin was more candid than his slavish disciples.