[Junior]

When you can see one version of an eye is just a step removed from another version, and you can trace these steps through all the extent versions, it gives a pretty good approximation of how the most complex of the series could have evolved from the least complex, even if the eyes' owners are not even related. In other words, IR says complex eyes could not have evolved that way. Darwinism says they can and shows, by example, the steps required to reach the most complex eyes. Seems to me, Darwinism wins that one hands down.

[Alberta's Child]

IR says complex eyes could not have evolved that way.

No, IR says that complex eyes could not have evolved that way in such a short period of time (relatively speaking, of course). If we assume that there IS a direct relationship between a human eye and an eagle's eye, why isn't there any evidence of it?