Eye Evolution 1of5

One of the most common and dishonest quote mines by creationist cult organisations is in relation to Charles Darwin and the evolution of the eye. Darwin is quoted as saying,

"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances 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."

Creationist cult leaders and their indoctrinated followers point to this as an admission from Darwin that the eye could not have evolved. There could be nothing further from the truth.

The immediately following paragraph from Darwin is suspiciously excluded.

"Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound."

Darwin then spends a number of pages describing a sequence of intermediate stages which we already have examples of in nature.

This series is courtesy of the history Channel. Please subscribe to their YouTube channel and cable channel if available in your area.

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=EE260884740154AA

Category:

Education

Tags:

• eye
• evolution
• evolve
• evolving
• darwin
• dawkins
• creation
• creationism
• intelligent
• design
• dinosaur
• dinosaurs
• retina
• cornea
• lens
• iris
• optic
• nerve
• yt:stretch=16:9

[mejc2]

Too bad, the video must be remade. Australian teem found complex eyes in the early Cambrian. So much for slow changes through genetic mutations filtered by natural selection.

[djarm67]

@mejc2 You have misunderstood the findings. These were arthropod eye impression suggesting incomplete sclerotisation. Their disarticulation allowed for phosphatisation with no evidence of biomineralisation indicating chitin.

There is no issue for eye evolution with this discovery.

[mejc2]

@djarm67

You misunderstand the finding. This discovery changes the entire theory. It eliminates slow primitive adaptations through mutation and natural selection. It forces you to change to rapid changes. Not only do these eyes suggest more advanced vision than previously predicted, they also insinuate advanced locomotion, predatory instincts, digestion systems, advanced neural connections and brain activity. All produced in a geologic twinkling of an eye.

[djarm67]

@mejc2 lol. No it doesn't. The finding is completely consistent with evolutionary theory. Your source is misleading you.

[mejc2]

@djarm67

The finding is completely inconsistent with the Darwinian process. However, no worries. Evolutionists will make up a new story to fit the evidence. They are already claiming super fast evolution occurred in the Cambrian period. Their evidence is the advanced forms found in the lower levels. No slow gradual primitive adaptations, Sudden appearance. So Super fast evolution is the answer obviously. However this is not science, this is man making up stories to support their beliefs.

[djarm67]

@mejc2 Your misunderstanding of the Emu Bay fossils is understandable when your sources are misrepesenting them to you. The fossils are completely consistent with what we expect.

[RottenNinja]

Plz keep ur god and jesus crap our of these science forums plz..

[85Aheadstix]

@bluemime86 Hahaha, deny evolutiuon?, so what your gonna deny Dr Francis collins?, the head of the Human genome?, who i might add is a christian with ph.D in Bio chemisty and genetics, he accredits God for designing the DNA, he says no random chance made something that complex, its IMPOSSIBLE!

you might wanna check out Dr Michael denton ph.D in Bio chemisty and M.D, he says there is no substantial evidence for evolution, and hes an evolutionist!.

You know nothing!, dawkins fanboy.

[The1andOnlyCG]

@85Aheadstix ahh so there must be a magical infinite god who just popped out of nowhere and exists in a non-physical spiritual world which is totally undetectable on any basis and defies everything we know about the universe to a ridiculous extent but we KNOW its there because an ancient book told us.

[The1andOnlyCG]

@hisham031170 remember its a TV show, meant to be interesting to watch to the general public.

they can't make it too complicated otherwise only a few people would watch it

[ratxt1]

god just reading these comments depresses me. What has this world come too. I think all people who don't believe in evolution, shouldn't be allowed to use any of the scientific achivements, acomplished because of the understanding of evolution. Like most modern medicine for example.

Go do your own research instead of listening to the stupid propaganda your church or whatever gives you.

[hisham031170]

How explaining the variety of eyes, benefits of eyes and increase in survival, prove evolution at all?? In part 1, the narrator said "Scientists don't know why they evolve light sensitive eyes". In Part 4 it says "eyes are connected to the brain". And that's it. They should discuss about optic nerves and visual cortex more, or the interpretation of signal and impulse that create image. They have 45 minutes and it's more than enough but they opted to discuss it in 3 seconds.

[Scyllax]

Why do you care? I am perfectly willing to accept that I am "star-stuff" given order and meaning by random chance, but, out of that same order, we then feel compelled to give order and meaning to that random chance because we have to feel that our tiny lives have significance outside ourselves? It IS frightening to be a mote on a speck lost in eternity, but it is the case, and, sorry for the inconvenience, that's all there is.

[85Aheadstix]

Hahaha, this is a joke!, the eye did not evolve!, it was designed!, Natural seclection has no increase of DNA!, that debunks darwins theory right there!, Also genes cannot meutate indefinetly!

darwinism is fraud people!.

[stupidtrooper501]

@mejc2 a geologic twinkle of an eye is still millions of years

[stevew1904]

A response follows in 5 parts. I used to believe this argument and others like it that support Evolution. But then I decided to study the arguments in closer detail. What I found was that there are gaping holes which are just glossed over by those proposing the arguments. People who really want to believe Evolution are happy to accept these arguments as being “scientific and therefore valid”. The fact that there are animals today with eyes varying from simple to highly complex, does not prove

[stevew1904]

Part 2 that one has, or even could, evolve from the other.

Let me ask you a question: How does the change from a fixed eye, consisting of a spherical indentation lined with light sensitive cells, into a swivelling eye consisting of a ball in a socket, take place by natural selection? The changes involved are huge. This alone would take countless generations and each minute development would be meaningless to the animal concerned. Consider what is necessary.