Originally posted by Marc11
A constant downside to the theory of evolution is the creation of the eye. If we came from a cell how is it possible for us to see? Any doctor can
tell you that there are many components that make up the eye. Without one you can't see, every part of the eye is just as important as the other.
For us to be able to see all of the parts of the eye must have came together at one exact time. Then all of the sudden we went from not seeing to
This is one of the classics of creationists' arguments, and it's been so thoroughly debunked that most of the creationists advise not using it in
any argument on evolution.
It relies on your not reading about or not knowing anything about how organisms develop. It relies on your not reading anything about fossils,
paleontology, geology, or much about science.
It also relies on your being so against the idea of evolution that you haven't read anything about any research or writing done since Darwin's book
came out, some 150 years ago and that science hasn't progressed any in that time period.
It also relies on your believing that science is ineffective because after we make a discovery, we test it, modify it (the areas that are wrong), and
build on it as we did with the notion that "diseases are caused by bad air." It puts science as being weaker because (unlike religion) it doesn't
make a statement and stick by it, but constantly tests and therefore expands and sometimes overturns other theories.
Those are pretty bad assumptions.
With that kind of assumption, the first time the creationist comes up against someone who knows their science, they get a rather rude shock as they
get pummeled by evidence (including cases where a species (the blind cave fish) will lose its eyes because of the environment.)
I'll just add a few points:
* The time span is over six billion years. Organisms didn't "just suddenly" develop anything. Humans can breed dogs with almost no nose on their
faces (bulldogs)... why is it so impossible that natural selection might do something similar if there was an advantage to lifeforms that had this
* Primitive light sensing mechanisms are present in a lot of life forms (including the very simplest ones.)
* Eyes do get more complex as you go to more advanced life forms.
* Bats, as others have said, most certainly do see and they do have eyes. You can see them here:
Here's the basics of what you need to understand in order to be able to debate this topic well:
And the common (and not really used any more) first approaches to debating the topic by creationists
Many of us here are very familiar with the TalkOrigins site... it's used by almost everybody in doing Apologetics (religious argument... not
"apologizing") and one you should be familiar with if you're debating the topics.
[edit on 30-10-2004 by Byrd]