Skip to comments.These Quotes Reveal The Credulity Of Evolutionists
Posted on 07/02/2005 7:47:33 PM PDT by DaveLoneRanger
click here to read article
Yes there is. Light-detecting neurons lining the nerve cord serve this purpose and they have the same topography as the photoreceptor cells on a developing vertebrate retina, and they point the same direction (backwards; a practical development for a simple lancelet-like chordate but hardly an "intelligent design" for a verterbrate).
The biochemical process in the eye does not compare to light sensative cellular structures.
What biochemical process are you referring to? Be more specific. The eye basically works like a camera, not by some mysterious unique biochemical process. Light enters the eye through the cornea; muscles contract the iris accordingly, then passes through a lens, through the vitreous humor (pretty much a near-transparent gel) and generates an image on the retina, which light-sensitive neurons, i.e. groups of cells, pass on to the brain. Yes, we have pupils that dilate and contract; we have rods and cones; we have a pigment epithelium; our eyes are definitely more complex than a lancelet's, but work the same way on some basic levels.
It's not an increasing sequence.
It is not a far stretch to consider subsequent evolution of additional structures in the eye. Rods and cones have analogous structures in the cilia of nerve cells. Lancelets have pigmented cells near the end of their eye spot very similar to the pigment epithelium that connects to the retina in the verterbrate eye. Membranes over the pigment cells could begin to take a lens shape, an obvious advantage of selection. Muscles developing to focus this lens would also confer an advantage.
Unfortunately, eyes do not fossilize well, so we may never know the sequence that particular developments of the modern vertebrate eye took place in, but eye evolution is definitely feasible. The argument of irreducible complexity holds no water here, as each of the aforementioned developments could result in an advantage in natural selection.
I don't need to. You asked what good 5% of an eye is, and I gave a good example. You just don't like it. There are others, though lancelets might be the most relevant in living biological species.
The still unanswered question:
What successful testable prediction has any competing theory against evolution ever made? (Evolution has made many).
It's spam. But it's really GOOD spam. 8^>
bump to read later
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.