How to Argue Against Evolution of Eyesight
Point out that clearly evolution if it works is by failure of a previously successful part or system in genetic accidents called mutations., "Describe a strictly reactive system that is disintegrated and lacking intelligence that forms...
Step-by-Step Guide
-
Step 1: Point out that clearly evolution if it works is by failure of a previously successful part or system in genetic accidents called mutations.
The fact that life in any form and the eye have highly interdependent, simultaneously successful systems may make evolution seem illogical or nonsensical.
There are many well known genetic system "crashes" (failing to work as usual) like down syndrome, Siamese twins, idiot savant... but there's more to consider like spina bifida--birth defect with an open spinal column or protruding nerve meninges
-- and births without appendages or with stubs.
Do these benefit the individual... but where are such obvious, but useful changes in the individual at those or nearby sites in the genetic codes... where is the occasional, super-ability (out of bounds in the positive direction)... -
Step 2: "Describe a strictly reactive system that is disintegrated and lacking intelligence that forms interdependent
Evolution could not work proactively, but by random chaos it would be able in one dimension or another to avoid falling into total failure although life was blind, deaf, brainless and even totally senseless at some original form in the eons of time according to evolution--call it a system of mistakes, ie: failing to work properly, and so that is success... , The retinal, photosensitive cells alone without millions of parallel nerve fibers connecting it to the brain, without the optic center processing millions of pulses of light, or how would there be any optical image processor in the brain without the rich blood supply to the retina.
Each part would have little if any value.
Such independent structures would have not aided survival.
Separately, such parts would not have any theoretical reason to exist (no benefit to life)! So were they or were they not multiple, interdependent, codependent systems? So clearly they were passed on to the next generations without purpose, and so they blindly improved by random chaos and by failing to connect...
Consider the pupil of the eye and the retina that did not exist at exactly the same moment--would they ever "get together" since they would neither have any correlation to each other nor help survival separately? If the focal distance and a workable shape of eye did not “come about” at the necessary distance from the photoreceptors in the retina, the eye nerves would neither have a reason to exist nor to even connect to the brain.
If the bag of fluid which forms the lens did not appear in the eye at the same time as photoreceptors regardless of the distance it would be useless to the individuals success.
If the retinal nerves network did not “exist” exactly at the same moment as the sclera (dense fibrous opaque white outer covering of the eyeball) and the part covered by the transparent cornea, iris and the pupil did, then the eye wouldn’t see.
The uncovered retinal nerves, not bathed in fluid, not protected from sunlight and air, would clearly either die from exposure or scar over and have no value--as exquisitely fragile.
An extremely large and uncorrelated nerve bundle alone has no value.
In fact if there were no already, successful eye, the optic nerve would not exist according to logic of evolution.
If the optic nerve (which carries the nerve signals of light “images”' to the brain) were not “involved/engaged properly” at exactly the same moment as the retinal nerve network, the eye wouldn’t see.
If the sight center of the brain that “sees” did not “begin” to correctly process sight at exactly at the same moment as the optic nerve, then the nerve would have no reason to transmit or to be attached to the brain and the eye wouldn’t see. , All of the necessary advanced functions, and their interdependent relationships are all required to exist (at the exact same instant), or the eye would have no function or reason to exist.
The parts would not work separately at the most rudimentary level (in some aquatic creature according to evolutionary theory) before it evolved into a mouse (shrew or what have you) and then to a monkey like creature, etc. according to a well known accident-and-systematic-failure-theory of origins ("evolutionary theory"). , -
Step 3: successful systems inadvertently--call it evolution."
-
Step 4: Examine a partly functional eye.
-
Step 5: Observe needed simultaneous existence of the entire eye and all its functions plus the optic nerve from the eye to the brain and especially the sight center in the brain itself.
-
Step 6: See that the a non-functional part of an eye would not enhance survival and so the eye should not exist at all as it is not logical to evolve in unsuccessful pieces.
Detailed Guide
The fact that life in any form and the eye have highly interdependent, simultaneously successful systems may make evolution seem illogical or nonsensical.
There are many well known genetic system "crashes" (failing to work as usual) like down syndrome, Siamese twins, idiot savant... but there's more to consider like spina bifida--birth defect with an open spinal column or protruding nerve meninges
-- and births without appendages or with stubs.
Do these benefit the individual... but where are such obvious, but useful changes in the individual at those or nearby sites in the genetic codes... where is the occasional, super-ability (out of bounds in the positive direction)...
Evolution could not work proactively, but by random chaos it would be able in one dimension or another to avoid falling into total failure although life was blind, deaf, brainless and even totally senseless at some original form in the eons of time according to evolution--call it a system of mistakes, ie: failing to work properly, and so that is success... , The retinal, photosensitive cells alone without millions of parallel nerve fibers connecting it to the brain, without the optic center processing millions of pulses of light, or how would there be any optical image processor in the brain without the rich blood supply to the retina.
Each part would have little if any value.
Such independent structures would have not aided survival.
Separately, such parts would not have any theoretical reason to exist (no benefit to life)! So were they or were they not multiple, interdependent, codependent systems? So clearly they were passed on to the next generations without purpose, and so they blindly improved by random chaos and by failing to connect...
Consider the pupil of the eye and the retina that did not exist at exactly the same moment--would they ever "get together" since they would neither have any correlation to each other nor help survival separately? If the focal distance and a workable shape of eye did not “come about” at the necessary distance from the photoreceptors in the retina, the eye nerves would neither have a reason to exist nor to even connect to the brain.
If the bag of fluid which forms the lens did not appear in the eye at the same time as photoreceptors regardless of the distance it would be useless to the individuals success.
If the retinal nerves network did not “exist” exactly at the same moment as the sclera (dense fibrous opaque white outer covering of the eyeball) and the part covered by the transparent cornea, iris and the pupil did, then the eye wouldn’t see.
The uncovered retinal nerves, not bathed in fluid, not protected from sunlight and air, would clearly either die from exposure or scar over and have no value--as exquisitely fragile.
An extremely large and uncorrelated nerve bundle alone has no value.
In fact if there were no already, successful eye, the optic nerve would not exist according to logic of evolution.
If the optic nerve (which carries the nerve signals of light “images”' to the brain) were not “involved/engaged properly” at exactly the same moment as the retinal nerve network, the eye wouldn’t see.
If the sight center of the brain that “sees” did not “begin” to correctly process sight at exactly at the same moment as the optic nerve, then the nerve would have no reason to transmit or to be attached to the brain and the eye wouldn’t see. , All of the necessary advanced functions, and their interdependent relationships are all required to exist (at the exact same instant), or the eye would have no function or reason to exist.
The parts would not work separately at the most rudimentary level (in some aquatic creature according to evolutionary theory) before it evolved into a mouse (shrew or what have you) and then to a monkey like creature, etc. according to a well known accident-and-systematic-failure-theory of origins ("evolutionary theory"). ,
About the Author
Kelly Peterson
Kelly Peterson is an experienced writer with over 11 years of expertise in lifestyle and practical guides. Passionate about sharing practical knowledge, Kelly creates easy-to-follow guides that help readers achieve their goals.
Rate This Guide
How helpful was this guide? Click to rate: