"Evolutionists are hard-pressed to explain the step-by-step accidental development of the human eye, which is characterized by a staggering complexity. Furnished with automatic aiming, automatic focusing, and automatic aperture adjustment, the human eye can function from almost complete darkness to bright sunlight, see an object the diameter of a fine hair, and make about 100,000 separate motions in an average day, faithfully affording us a continuous series of color stereoscopic pictures. All of this is performed usually without complaint, and then while we sleep, it carries on its own maintenance work.
The human eye is so complex and sophisticated that scientists still do not fully understand how it functions. Considering the absolutely amazing, highly sophisticated synchronization of complex structures and mechanisms that work together to produce human vision, it is difficult to understand how evolutionists can honestly believe that the eye came about through a step-by-step, trial and error evolutionary process. This is especially true when we realize that the eye would be useless unless fully developed. It either functions as an integrated whole or not at all. Clearly, the piecemeal evolution of the human eye is a completely outlandish and unreasonable notion."
(Scott M. Huse, "The Collapse of Evolution," pp. 23,26)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
The idea that ”…the that the eye would be useless unless fully developed.” Is absolutely obtuse. There are many creatures with different variables in their ability to see. By stating that even part of an eye, limb, wing, etc. it useless IS a completely outlandish and unreasonable notion. There are millions of people with vision impairments who use what eyesight they have to navigate or see movement. My neighbor’s dog has cataracts. She can only see splotches of light and colors but can navigate around the house just fine without bumping into everything. While your at it why don’t you tell an amputee that instead of removing a few fingers, a hand, or your foot, we are just going to remove the whole limb right up to the torso because you know…It would be useless.
"The type of scientific evidence that explains how the eye could have evolved is strictly speculation with no hard evidence to support it. In fact, the hard evidence goes against those speculations. The fossil record shows no evidence of transitional forms that would be voluminous if macroevolution were true. Also, the extensive fruit fly experiments to show how random mutations combined with natural selection could make positive improvements in the fruit fly or form a new species from a fruit fly, were a complete failure.
Alternatively, hard science like the fossil record, the Cambrian explosion, the mathematical impossibility of original life forming by chance from chemicals, and no evidence that any specific species has ever evolved to another species with or without man’s help, supports creation and refutes evolution.
The Urey/Miller experiments -- designed to show how the chemicals that are the building blocks for life could be generated naturally in a reducing environment with an electric spark -- were also a complete failure even though originally touted as a success."
from:
http://www.allaboutcreation.org/evolution-of-the-human-eye-faq.htm
After reading your first statement and what most of your other posts have been stating I believe it is in order to clarify our nomenclature.
the·o·ry 5: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena.
2: abstract thought : speculation
spec·u·late
transitive verb 1: to take to be true on the basis of insufficient evidence : theorize
Scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable
evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[1] A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.[2]
Theory of evolution and Natural Selection which is to be understood as two separate things.
Evolution as theory and fact
I will take this in parts, You said:
"The type of scientific evidence that explains how the eye could have evolved is strictly speculation with no hard evidence to support it. In fact, the hard evidence goes against those speculations."
Of course it is speculation. You statement means nothing. That's what a theory is by definition. Saying it is based on no "hard" evidence though, is the same as saying it 'IS' a theory based on evidence, just not convincing enough in ones opinion, that it alters ones preconceived beliefs, or perhaps beyond the intelligence and understanding of an individual to grasp. Much like the use of computers to some older generation of people who refuse to admit that keeping records in a computer database is much faster and easier to look up information then their three office rooms full of filing cabinets of paperwork from the past 11 years. Remember card catalogs at the library? Thing of the past, but I digress.
"The fossil record shows no evidence of transitional forms that would be voluminous if macroevolution were true."
Here are few examples against that:
Evolution of the horse
Evolution of cetaceans
Evolution of mammalian auditory ossicles
" Also, the extensive fruit fly experiments to show how random mutations combined with natural selection could make positive improvements in the fruit fly or form a new species from a fruit fly, were a complete failure."
1.This argument ascribes a false assumption of worthlessness to the enormous number of experiments performed on fruit flies, including the study of the properties and behavior of chromosomes, Mendelian genetics, the examination of (insect) HOX genes, as well as insect behavior.
2.There are numerous known species of Drosophila fruit flies (the genus currently contains about 2,600 species). "Still fruit flies" covers an immensely large number of species.
3.This argument also makes a false assumption that the scientists studying fruit flies, be they entomologists or geneticists, made failed attempts to develop a new kind of insect from their test subjects.
4.Researchers learned a lot about genetics in fruit fly experiments. The purpose of many fruit fly experiments was not to transform them into new and different organism, but to manipulate their genes in order to discover what the functions of these genes are.
5.In such experiments, researchers manipulate the genes that produce or regulate the growth of already existent structures in fruit flies (wings, eyes, antennae, etc). The researchers can not manipulate fruit fly genes in order to cause non-arthropod features (horns, bones, feathers, molluscan radulas, etc) to manifest in fruit flies (or other arthropods for that matter). The purpose of these experiments was/is to demonstrate what each gene in the fruit fly genome does, not to create a fly with horns, bones, feathers or a radula.
"Alternatively, hard science like the fossil record, the Cambrian explosion, the mathematical impossibility of original life forming by chance from chemicals, and no evidence that any specific species has ever evolved to another species with or without man's help, supports creation and refutes evolution."
Ok, let me guess. This last statement was thrown in there to prove something I'm guessing, and in doing so failed miserably in content and in meaning. Let me take a stab at it. Fossil records are one of the main supporting evidence for evolution. What about the Cambrian explosion are you suggesting? I admit there are a few questions about that era, but nothing is by no means conclusive nor is it proof against. Mathematical impossibilities: You are confused with mathematical improbabilities. Statistically high yes, but the numbers are also dependent on the variables you put into the equation, but not impossible. Remember it would only take one 'chemical' reaction for 'life' to catalytically take off and start replication. None of this supports creationism in any way nor does it refute evolution as you have stated.
The Urey/Miller experiments -- designed to show how the chemicals that are the building blocks for life could be generated naturally in a reducing environment with an electric spark -- were also a complete failure even though originally touted as a success."
How where they a complete failure? They proved what they set out to prove and discovered a few interesting things along the way. It is apparent the speaker here is just propagating lies and who jaded or has no concept on the topic.
I am assuming by your response you find nothing wrong with my original comment to this topic. Stating that an eye not fully developed is still "useful", the same as is with a partial limb or a wing. Instead of supporting you case or admitting to the validity of my point, you have seemed to just gone off on some random retort as is the case of most creationist and their tautological logic.
Thank you for admitting outright that Evolution is pure speculation.
You've made my point for me.
Post a Comment