[newguy357]

So, for those that say the eye could not have evolved because it is too complicated, be aware that it has now been shown that our eyes have de-evolved from non-mammilian vertebrates.

Huh? I don't follow your progression in this sentence. If someone doesn't believe the eye evolved, what does the second part of your sentence do to convince him otherwise?

[GourmetDan]

*If* human eyes have 'devolved', how does an evo think that it is evidence that these *higher forms* of eyes 'evolved'?

Decline (that supposedly doesn't exist) is now considered evidence *supporting* evolution.

That's one confused set of believers.

[doc30]

Huh? I don't follow your progression in this sentence. If someone doesn't believe the eye evolved, what does the second part of your sentence do to convince him otherwise?

My point is that evolution can produce what we would call forward and backward changes. If adaptation to a simpler form is beneficial, it can be selected naturally. In other words, evolution is not a one-way street. My point behind the eye discussion is that many creationists claim eye complexity discredits evolution. The example for humans shows that eye complexity can be reduced by evolution. The article did not also meantion the lack of color filtering oils in mammilian vision. These oil droplets in non-mammilian eyes actuially increases color acuity and contrast. So human eyes have lost 2 major components for color vision.