“Here’s how some scientists think some eyes may have evolved: The simple light-sensitive spot on the skin of some ancestral creature gave it some tiny survival advantage, perhaps allowing it to evade a predator. Random changes then created a depression in the light-sensitive patch, a deepening pit that made “vision” a little sharper. At the same time, the pit’s opening gradually narrowed, so light entered through a small aperture, like a pinhole camera.”
“Random changes” caused this?
How did “random changes” create a “depression”?
What caused these “random changes” that supposedly caused a “depression”?
How did a “pit” “evolve”?
What caused the “pit”?
Lots of supposition here ... that is not realistic. You can't honestly believe this? They eye is more complicated than that.
I do give you credit for having the courage to post your reply. It doesn't add up and minimizes the sophistication and completely of the eye but at least you gave an explanation.
There is no way that the explanation you gave explains how the eye works. It's full of weasel words and science fiction and suppositions for an outcome based result - “evolution”. It's how all evolutionists go about their hypothesis.
Here is how the eye actually works:
How does the eye work
by Dr. Stephen Westland
Almost the whole of the interior of the spherically-shaped eyeball is lined with a layer of photosensitive cells known collectively as the retina and it is this structure that is the sense organ of vision. The eyeball, though no mean feat of engineering itself, is simply a structure to house the retina and to supply it with sharp images of the outside world. Light enters the eye through the cornea and the iris and then passes through the lens before striking the retina. The retina receives a small inverted image of the outside world that is focused jointly by the cornea and the lens. The lens changes shape to achieve focus but hardens with age so that we gradually lose our accommodation. The eye is able to partially adapt to different levels of illumination since the iris can change shape to provide a central hole with a diameter between 2mm (for bright light) and 8mm (for dim light).
The retina translates light into nerve signals and consists of three layers of nerve-cell bodies. Surprisingly the photosensitive cells, known as rods and cones, form the layer of cells at the back of the retina. Thus, light must pass though the other two layers of cells to stimulate the rods and cones. The reasons for this backward-design of the retina are not fully understood but one possibility is that the position of the light-sensitive cells at the back of the retina allows any stray unabsorbed light to be taken care of by cells immediately behind the retina that contain a black pigment known as melanin. The melanin-containing cells also help to chemically restore the light-sensitive visual pigment in the rods and cones after it has been bleached by light.
The middle layer of the retina contains three types of nerve cells: bipolar cells, horizontal cells, and amacrine cells. The connectivity of the rods and cones to these three sets of cells is complex but signals eventually pass to the front of the retina and to the third layer of cells known as retinal ganglion cells. The axons from retinal ganglion cells collect in a bundle and leave the eye to form the optic nerve. The backward-design of the retina means that the optic nerve must pass through the retina in order to leave the eye and this results in the so-called blind spot.
The rods and cones contain visual pigments. Visual pigments are much like any other pigments in that they absorb light with absorption sensitivities that are wavelength-dependent. The visual pigments have a special property, however, in that when a visual pigment absorbs a photon of light it changes molecular shape and at the same time releases energy. The pigment in this changed molecular form absorbs light less well than before and thus is often said to have been bleached. The release of energy by the pigment and the change in shape of the molecule together cause the cell to fire ¾ that is, to release an electrical signal ¾ by a mechanism that is still not completely understood.
http://www.ct.gov/BESB/cwp/view.asp?a=2849&q=331482
Again, there is no way that this was a “random” event that “evolved” over millions or even billions of years! It's sheer impossible!
BTW, they still don't fully understand how the eye works and yet evolutionists will try and tell you they know how it "evolved" - again without fully comprehending how the eye works. It's amazing that they have the gall to claim how it originated but don't understand how the eye works TODAY. It's a pity ... that "evolution" tries to pass itself off as "science". Evolution is merely a hypothesis by definition. It is not a theory, since it has not been proven.
Once again you stumble over the most basic tenets of the scientific method. How are you going to impress your audience if you keep getting the basics wrong?
Please take a look at these definitions.
Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses. Addendum: Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws.Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. [Source]
When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.
Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices."
Proof: Except for math and geometry, there is little that is actually proved. Even well-established scientific theories can't be conclusively proved, because--at least in principle--a counter-example might be discovered. Scientific theories are always accepted provisionally, and are regarded as reliable only because they are supported (not proved) by the verifiable facts they purport to explain and by the predictions which they successfully make. All scientific theories are subject to revision (or even rejection) if new data are discovered which necessitates this.
Proof: A term from logic and mathematics describing an argument from premise to conclusion using strictly logical principles. In mathematics, theorems or propositions are established by logical arguments from a set of axioms, the process of establishing a theorem being called a proof.
The colloquial meaning of "proof" causes lots of problems in physics discussion and is best avoided. Since mathematics is such an important part of physics, the mathematician's meaning of proof should be the only one we use. Also, we often ask students in upper level courses to do proofs of certain theorems of mathematical physics, and we are not asking for experimental demonstration!
So, in a laboratory report, we should not say "We proved Newton's law" Rather say, "Today we demonstrated (or verified) the validity of Newton's law in the particular case of..." Source.
I give up. You are blind by choice, ignorant out of desire. Keep your superstitions. Pray that the ghosties and ghoulies and things that go bump in the night do not get you.