...open thine eyes... Proverbs 20:13
"The evolution of the eye has always been a dilemma for evolutionists from Darwin’s time to the
present. Although Darwin, Richard Dawkins and other evolutionists have tried to explain how an eye could evolve, their solutions are clearly unsatisfactory. Many kinds of eyes exist, but no progression of eye designs from simple to complex can be produced in the natural or fossil world. Furthermore, the simplest ‘eye’, the eyespot, is not an eye but pigmented cells used for phototaxis; yet even it requires an enormously complex mechanism in order to function as a vision system.
The concept of irreducible complexity (IC) has become an important tool in intelligent design theory. One of the best examples of IC is the design of the animal eye. Eyes are critical because, for the ‘vast majority of animals’, vision is their ‘most important link to the world’. Darwin vividly recognized the problem of eye evolution and the serious impediment that it was for his theory. In his words,
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 about540 million years ago. The fossil evidence shows that from the beginning of the fossil record eyes are very complex, highly developed structures. We also have ‘living fossils’, animals that have remained virtually unchanged since very early in history.
Sir Steward Duke-Elder, the preeminent ophthalmologist at the time of his death in 1979, acknowledged the sudden appearance of the perfected vertebrate eye, noting:
Another example is visual pigments. The presumably highest, most evolved form of life,
--the higher primates, have only two cone photoreceptors, blue and green,
--but birds have a total of six pigments: four cone pigments plus pinopsin (a pineal photoreceptive molecule) and rhodopsin for black and white vision.
Put another way, chickens, humans and mice all have the rhodopsin pigment;
--mice in addition have blue and green;
--humans have blue, green, and red;
--and birds have these three pigments plus violet and pinopsin.
For every color that humans perceive, birds can see very distinct multiple colors, including ultraviolet light. Birds use infrared light (which we sense as heat) for night vision, allowing them to rapidly visualize their young in a dense, dark tree.
According to neo-Darwinism, the simplest modern eye in living animals has had the same amount of time and evolutionary history as the most complex eye because life began about 3.5 billion years ago and all life today evolved from this point in history. Although Darwinists argue that many of these eyes are evolutionary dead ends, this would require an admission that these modern ‘simple’ eyes are only analogues or ‘similar’ to putative past ancestral eyes (to more complex modern types), which reduces their value as
evidence.
Cousins wrote:
Sinclair also concluded that vertebrates and most invertebrates, including insects and cephalopods (molluscs, including octopuses and squid), all have eyes with common visual elements, including ‘a similar photoreceptor design’, yet have a marked ‘dissimilarity of their appearance’.
Grassé in his discussion of Myrmelion (ant lion) anatomy:
Much disagreement exists about the hypothetical evolution of eyes, and experts recognize that many critical problems exist. For non-evolutionists there is no debate." ICR
"The evolution of the eye has always been a dilemma for evolutionists from Darwin’s time to the
The concept of irreducible complexity (IC) has become an important tool in intelligent design theory. One of the best examples of IC is the design of the animal eye. Eyes are critical because, for the ‘vast majority of animals’, vision is their ‘most important link to the world’. Darwin vividly recognized the problem of eye evolution and the serious impediment that it was for his theory. In his words,
‘To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivance 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.’Nonetheless, Darwin felt the seemingly insurmountable problem of the evolution of what he called an organ of ‘extreme perfection and complication’ could be solved. He included a three-page proposal of intermediate stages through which eyes might have evolved via gradual steps. These stages included the following:
- photosensitive cell
- aggregates of pigment cells without a nerve
- an optic nerve surrounded by pigment cells and covered by translucent skin
- pigment cells forming a small depression and then a deeper depression
- the skin over the depression gradually taking a lens shape
- evolution of muscles that allow the lens to adjust.
‘The increments between these steps are slight and may be broken down into even smaller increments. Natural selection should, under many circumstances, favor the increments. 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.’University of Chicago biology Professor Jerry Coyne wrote that human
‘ … eyes did not suddenly appear as full-fledged camera eyes, but evolved from simplerOthers are not so confident. Melnick concluded that the eye is a marvel and that ‘its immense complexity and diversity in nature, as well as its beauty and perfection in so many different creatures of the world, defies explanation even by macroevolution’s most ardent supporters.’eyes, having fewer components, in ancestral species. Darwin brilliantly addressed this argument by surveying existing species to see if one could find functional but less complex eyes that not only were useful, but also could be strung together into a hypothetical sequence showing how a camera eye might evolve. If this could be done—and it can—then the argument for irreducible complexity vanishes, for the eyes of existing species are obviously useful, and each step in the hypothetical sequence could thus evolve by natural selection.’
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
Sir Steward Duke-Elder, the preeminent ophthalmologist at the time of his death in 1979, acknowledged the sudden appearance of the perfected vertebrate eye, noting:
‘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. There is no long evolutionary story as we have seen among invertebrate eyes, whereby an intracellular organelle passes into a unicellular and then a multicellular eye, attaining by trial and error, along different routes an ever-increasing degree of complexity. Within the vertebrate phylum the eye shows no progress of increasing differentiation and perfection as is seen in the brain, the ear, the heart and most other organs. In its essentials the eye of a fish is as complex and fully developed as that of a bird or man.'Although many kinds of very different eyes are known, no direct evidence exists to support the evolution of the eye and its accessory structures. Furthermore, much evidence contradicts such evolutionary beliefs. For example, the number of myelinated fibers in the optic nerve does not correlate with putative evolutionary development. A pigeon has almost as many fibers as a human. Many birds, such as the eagle and hawk, have excellent vision yet have half as many fibers as a domestic pig.
Another example is visual pigments. The presumably highest, most evolved form of life,
--the higher primates, have only two cone photoreceptors, blue and green,
--but birds have a total of six pigments: four cone pigments plus pinopsin (a pineal photoreceptive molecule) and rhodopsin for black and white vision.
Put another way, chickens, humans and mice all have the rhodopsin pigment;
--mice in addition have blue and green;
--humans have blue, green, and red;
--and birds have these three pigments plus violet and pinopsin.
For every color that humans perceive, birds can see very distinct multiple colors, including ultraviolet light. Birds use infrared light (which we sense as heat) for night vision, allowing them to rapidly visualize their young in a dense, dark tree.
According to neo-Darwinism, the simplest modern eye in living animals has had the same amount of time and evolutionary history as the most complex eye because life began about 3.5 billion years ago and all life today evolved from this point in history. Although Darwinists argue that many of these eyes are evolutionary dead ends, this would require an admission that these modern ‘simple’ eyes are only analogues or ‘similar’ to putative past ancestral eyes (to more complex modern types), which reduces their value as
Cousins wrote:
‘ … the crucial importance of this requirement to the theory of evolution was fully understood by Darwin, who stated that, in searching for the gradations through which an organ in any species has been perfected, we ought to look at its lineal progenitors. Indeed we ought; though he himself could not do so. It is deceptive to the reader to create a seriation beginning with eye spots as seen in unicellular organisms and call them, as does Duke-Elder (1958), the earliest stage of evolution.’Croft concluded that the claim that we can line up eyes in an evolutionary sequence from very simple to very complex is false because research on the developmental history of the eye in widely differing species finds
‘ … it remarkably similar. Indeed the basic features of the eye in different vertebrates are very much the same despite great variations in their mode of life and adaptation to habitat. Furthermore, unlike other organs such as the heart, there is no long evolutionary history with the eye. In essence the eye of a newt is as complex and fully developed as that of a man.'
Sinclair also concluded that vertebrates and most invertebrates, including insects and cephalopods (molluscs, including octopuses and squid), all have eyes with common visual elements, including ‘a similar photoreceptor design’, yet have a marked ‘dissimilarity of their appearance’.
Grassé in his discussion of Myrmelion (ant lion) anatomy:
‘Have you ever seen a mutation simultaneously affecting two separate components of the body and producing structures that fit one another precisely? … have you ever beheld three, four or five simultaneous mutations with matching structures producing coordinating effects? … These are vital questions that demand an answer. There is no way of getting around them, or evading the issue. Every biologist who wants to know the truth must answer them, or be considered a sectarian and not a scientist. In science there is no “cause” to be defended, only truth to be discovered. How many chance occurrences would it take to build this extraordinary creature [Myrmelion formicarius]’?An organ that did not aid the animal’s survival would use scarce energy, nutrients and body space and, if the organ were not used, would be at high risk for problems such as infection.
Much disagreement exists about the hypothetical evolution of eyes, and experts recognize that many critical problems exist. For non-evolutionists there is no debate." ICR