This is going to be my longest article because there is so much information and research done on the eye and it is so astounding. I have read maybe 100 articles about the eye and this post is hardly going to scratch the surface of the awesomeness of all the different types and abilities of the eyes in creation. I’m not even going to cover many of the amazing parts. I hope you can read to the end of this. I tried to make every paragraph succinct and educational.
The human eye can detect 7 to 10 million colors. That’s more than any machine known to man. All the colors we see are all within only 1.5% of the entire light spectrum.[1] By such an amazing accident (for evolutionists) or incredible design (for religious people) our eyes see exactly the wavelengths of light where the color is and not the others. Those colors that we are able to see happen to be truly marvelous.
Evolutionists also never talk about all the millions of colors. Did photoreceptors recognize just one color in the beginning and then “gradually over time” accidentally become able to tell the difference in all the millions of colors. That’s a hard one to believe because the ability to see any color at all is extremely complicated. [3]
Even if some first creature developed a photo receptor cell, so what? It would be pointless for survival unless it was somehow connected to a brain that was also connected to a muscle system to provide movement.
Evolutionists talk about the eye evolving to help the creature escape predators. Excuse me. If this is supposed to be the first eye to develop, then there are no predators with eyes yet. What are they escaping from?
Also, even having a photo receptor cell is not valuable for survival unless there is some way to tell which direction the danger is coming from so you can escape in the other direction. There are way too many logical holes in these evolutionist faith statements. Their faith in evolution is blind. They don’t even ask simple questions.
The retina of the human eye is made up of an average of 120 million rods and 6 million cones, each with their own neuron that carries messages to the brain. (Birds have 10 times that number.) The rods see in black and white for night vision and the cones see all the different colors. There are 3 types of cones that perceive different wave lengths. The retina is further divided into the macula, a small central area giving central vision, and the fovea, a small depression at the center of the macula which gives the clearest vision. In the fovea the blood vessels, nerves, and ganglion cells are all displaced for better vision. The area in the macula is 100 times more sensitive than the rest of the retina.
All eyes have a lens made out of a transparent protein substance found nowhere else in the body. This lens must necessarily be formed out of a flexible substance and it must have muscles to change its shape so it can alter the path of the incoming light and constantly re-focus it on receptor cells. If you can’t focus the light, you can’t see anything.
There are 12 muscles on the outside that move the eyeball around in the socket, including one that uses a pulley mechanism to swivel the eye (the Superior Oblique, see diagram). Eye muscles come in pairs to move your eyes up and down, left and right. If the muscles only turned your eyes to the right, they would be stuck there until many generations later when a muscle developed to pull them back left. The same is true if you only had a muscle to pull them up but not one to pull them back down.
Tilt your head and your eyes adjust so you can still see well.
Evolution hypothesizes that blind chance mutations have the amazing ability to come up with these changes so they can be selected for by natural selection. That’s total blind faith. How could the lens material and all those muscles happen accidentally, without any intelligent design at all? One small change at a time will never produce a continuously workable eye.
Recent discoveries have revealed that the muscles surrounding your eyes are amazing. They “jitter” at the rate of 30 to 70 microscopic movements per second all day every day. If the muscles did not do this, you would not be able to focus as well because your brain’s programming of the incoming signals removes any unchanging image.[4] These jitter motions come in 3 types, called drifts, tremors, and saccades. The ones named “tremors” move the cornea and retina about 0.001 millimeter (about 1/70th the width of a piece of paper). Our eyes do all this automatically.[5]
Here’s a fact you probably learned in grade school, the lens inverts all the images coming through so it hits your retina upside down. Your brain automatically turns it right side up. If your brain didn’t do that, you’d have a hard time escaping from any predators. The brain is taking upside down images from both your eyes, inverting them, and putting them together. Evolutionists don’t talk about that.
Another necessary part of the eye is the iris which opens and closes to let in varying amounts of light. Too much light and you are blinded. You are probably not aware of how much work your iris is doing all day long because it’s totally automatic. That sure is a nice ability to have or you might be blinded or in the dark most of the time.
And then there are also your eye lids, some pretty useful pieces of skin with their own sets of muscles. Each eye has over 50 glands in the eye lids for secreting oil for lubricating the eyes.
Everybody has tear ducts that come in mirror image sets for each eye. How does something like that happen by accident? Like every other detail of your eyes, you will find your tear ducts are like a miracle if you read up on the research to understand what they do and how they do it. Not only do you cry when something gets in your eye, but your tear ducts also work when you are emotionally moved. How do evolutionists explain that?
Another essential ingredient to being able to see is the optic nerve. This statement is from Wikipedia: “Each human optic nerve contains between 770,000 and 1.7 million nerve fibers, which are axons of the retinal ganglion cells of one retina. In the fovea, which has high acuity, these ganglion cells connect to as few as 5 photoreceptor cells; in other areas of retina, they connect to many thousand photoreceptors.”[6] On top of everything else that happened by accident for evolutionists, you also have to add the accidental development of an optic nerve which would have no purpose unless there were photoreceptor cells on one end and the brain on the other. Of course, there is an optic nerve coming from each eye, thus doubling the number of nerve fibers to the brain which interprets the signals.
Even if the eye developed and then for some reason started sending electrical impulses to the brain, probably the most remarkable achievement of all is how the brain translates those impulses into “seeing” colors and then translating those colors into shapes and giving them meaning?
Darwin himself recognized that the unbelievable complexity of the eye was a problem for his theory, but then he went ahead and ignored it and assumed evolution anyway. “The eye to this day gives me a cold shudder” [7] The idea of natural selection producing the eye “seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.” [8] He went ahead and believed in his evolution theory anyway. Today, after all the scientific discoveries since Darwin, I think his comment about “absurd in the highest possible degree” is more applicable to his theory.
There are lots of diagrams you can find of the supposed evolution of the eye, but they are pure imagination (emphasis mine). If you read the explanations carefully, you will always discover that they are an hypothesis… in other words complete conjecture. There is absolutely no fossil evidence for these diagrams. The diagrams are always described as “likely”, “probably”, or “possibly”. In other words they are pure speculation and totally from the artist’s imagination. They ASSUME evolution before they even draw the first stage. Evolutionists always talk like it’s the “gospel”. But it’s blind faith.
Look at this diagram below. See how they make huge leaps and changes in the design because they know where they want to get to. But all you have to do is use the old “slow and gradual” argument that they themselves espouse and think about the real world. Every single minor change means a significant number of changes in DNA. How many generations need to live and die between the changes in the pictures? Remember these are animals with only partial eyes that have to find a mate somehow. They have to pass the “improvement” to the next generation and not lose it. That means both the male and female have to have it AND it has to pass to all future generations and never get weeded out. If Natural Selection really works, it works both ways. Not only does it improve things, it should also eliminate unnecessary, non-functional parts, or those that are a hindrance.
Even if one eye could evolve, which is an unbelievable stretch, how do you account for two eyes right next to each other. That’s got to be statistically hundreds of times more difficult. Most evolutionists make up an explanation for one eye and then stop. They still have to explain how did we get two so perfectly connected and coordinated eyes working in harmony and also connected into the brain in order to give us parallax vision and 3-dimensional mental images?
Evolutionists have two main techniques to try to explain eye evolution. Logically they fall apart because both techniques assume evolution before they start their explanation. This is called circular reasoning, using evolution to prove evolution. The most common is to notice other eye-like structures in nature and assume they were one of the steps in a long process that has never, ever been seen. A helicopter may look like an intermediate step from a car to an airplane, so what? Applying true logic reveals the false assumptions.
Just because simple eyes exist and complex eyes also exist in nature, that is no proof that complex eyes evolved from simple eyes. Cars did not evolve from soap box racers or skate boards just because there are design similarities.
Secondly, evolutionists look in the womb and see the eye develop in stages which they call evolutionary stages. They may say that a seed growing is evolution, but it’s not. Why is the growth process in the womb necessarily the explanation of the process that took millions of years? Also, a seed already has the full complement of DNA structure. It’s not evolving, it’s fulfilling instructions which are already there.
Evolutionists like to use what I’ll call “magic words”. They sound nice but they are totally unscientific and no respectable scientist uses them. Here are examples that you’ll find all the time: “selective pressures”, tinker, suggest, at some point, scenarios, hypothesizes, diverging, proliferated, arose, favored, modified, emerged, developed, etc. And the biggest one of all is “may have”. Those are not words used by real scientists with solid evidence. Passive, unthinking processes cannot do intelligent things. Evolutionists are really only telling a story that they already believe. They can make it up as they go along whenever there is an objection.
Another problem that evolutionist believers have is their so-called tree of life where all species developed from a single cell. Since mammals, fish, birds, insects, amphibians, etc. all have different types of eyes and are on different “branches” of the tree, therefore the evolution faith requires that all the different types of eyes “evolved” independently of each other. The Wikipedia article states that complex eyes have evolved between 50 and 100 separate times in evolution. [9] Imagine of the mathematical odds against that, can you? Evolutionists are forced to believe that eyes not only evolved one time in history but 50 to 100 separate times. To make it even more impossible, almost always the animal developed exactly two of them.
Wikipedia quietly admits that “Since the fossil record, particularly of the Early Cambrian, is so poor, it is difficult to estimate the rate of eye evolution.”
The fossil record only shows eyes already developed. “The oldest eye in the fossil record, that of a trilobite, is a very complex faceted compound eye that ‘dates’ back to the Cambrian, conventionally dated about 540 million years ago.”[10] Did you get that, the oldest fossils with eyes (trilobites) already have a fully developed complex faceted compound eye. [11]
Another way that I could put it is that there is no fossil record at all to support evolution of the eye. Or, also, you could say that any evolution of the eye is pure speculation.
Here is another statement admitting that evolutionists have no idea how it happened. “The curious thing, however, about the evolution of the vertebrate eye is the apparent suddenness of its appearance and the elaboration of its structures in its earliest known stages.”[12] They just DO NOT know where eyes came from or how.
Remember, I've only cover some of the amazing aspects of the eye.
The eye was awesomely designed, but Evolutionists just won’t accept it.
There truly is a God.
_____________________________________________
[1] Some great fun facts: http://www.chemistryland.com/CHM107Lab/Exp7/Spectroscope/Spectroscope.html
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoreceptor_cell
[3] Wikipedia: Color Vision. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_vision
[4] http://creation.com/an-eye-for-detail
[5] Tom Wagner,, Darwin Vs. the Eye. Sept. 1, 1994
[6] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optic_nerve.
[7] Award-winning science writer Carl Zimmer explains the “creation” of the organ so complex that it baffled even Darwin. The New York Academy of Sciences Magazine. October 9, 2009.
[8] Award-winning science writer Carl Zimmer explains the “creation” of the organ so complex that it baffled even Darwin. The New York Academy of Sciences Magazine. October 9, 2009.
[9] Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye
[10] http//creation.com/did-eyes-evolve-by-dawinian-mechanisms
[11] Did Eyes Evolve By Darwinian Mechanisms?, Jerry Brergman
[12] Duke-Elder, S.S., System of Ophthalmology, Volume 1: The Eye in Evolution. p. 237.
good article. i have some interesting points about too :
ReplyDeletefor example: scientists found a motor in bacteria called bacterial flagellum
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-j5kKSk_6U
we know that a motor is evidence for design. even if its very small and made from organic matter and have a self replicating system. lets say that scientists will create an ape-like robot with dna and self replicating system. we will agree that this kind of robot is evidence for design. so why not the ape itself that is much more complex then this kind of speciel robot?
evolutionists claiming that small steps in milions of years will create a big steps. but according to this a lots of small steps in self replicat car (with dna) will change into an airplan.
but there is no step wise from car into an airplane. so its impossible actually to change one kind into another.
evolutionist claim that common similarity is evidence for common descent. but according to this if we will see 2 similar (self replicating or not) cars we will need to conclude that they evolved from each other and not made by a designer.
about order in fossils record- we can make order in cars. for exmaple: a car--> a jeep--> a truck. but its not prove that they evolve from each ohter
also- according to atheism a car can evolve in a close room. because if a bacteria can evolve into a human. then if we will close a giant room for a bilions of years- the bacteria inside the room can eolve into a human that will make a car= a car evolved in a close room. but we know it seems impossible.
have a nice day