Culture Darwinism Intelligent Design Religion

Eye evolution as a series of miracles of the Darwinian religion

Spread the love

Casey Luskin muses on the many hand-waving accounts of how the complexity of the eye developed by accident, for example:

Hyper-Simplistic Accounts

As a further example of these hyper-simplistic accounts of eye evolution, Francisco Ayala in his book Darwin’s Gift to Science and Religion asserts, “Further steps — the deposition of pigment around the spot, configuration of cells into a cuplike shape, thickening of the epidermis leading to the development of a lens, development of muscles to move the eyes and nerves to transmit optical signals to the brain — gradually led to the highly developed eyes of vertebrates and cephalopods (octopuses and squids) and to the compound eyes of insects.” (p. 146)

Ayala’s explanation is vague and shows no appreciation for the biochemical complexity of these visual organs. Thus, regarding the configuration of cells into a cuplike shape, biologist Michael Behe asks (in responding to Richard Dawkins on the same point):

“And where did the “little cup” come from? A ball of cells–from which the cup must be made–will tend to be rounded unless held in the correct shape by molecular supports. In fact, there are dozens of complex proteins involved in maintaining cell shape, and dozens more that control extracellular structure; in their absence, cells take on the shape of so many soap bubbles. Do these structures represent single-step mutations? Dawkins did not tell us how the apparently simple “cup” shape came to be. Michael J. Behe, Darwin’s Black Box: the Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, P. 15 (Free Press, 1996)”

An Integrated System

Likewise, mathematician and philosopher David Berlinski has assessed the alleged “intermediates” for the evolution of the eye. He observes that the transmission of data signals from the eye to a central nervous system for data processing, which can then output some behavioral response, comprises an integrated system that is not amenable to stepwise evolution…

Casey Luskin, “More Implausible Stories about Eye Evolution” at Evolution News and Science Today (April 8, 2022)

Surely the best approach is to see these convenient cascades of functional machinery as the miracle stories of Darwinism. They are not subject to criticism as to their probability, which is why no Darwinian need take such criticism seriously.

19 Replies to “Eye evolution as a series of miracles of the Darwinian religion

  1. 1
    Seversky says:

    This is an old story. Both Behe and Wells claimed the human eye was an example of irreducible complexity, that there was no way it could have evolved. Biologists from Darwin onward have offered a possible evolutionary pathway to the current human eye. The irreducible complexity claim is essentially an argument from incredulity. The proposed evolutionary pathway is plausible but has not been substantiated and may never be. So, as things stand, the position is that we simply don’t know.

  2. 2
    martin_r says:

    Seversky

    “the proposed evolutionary pathway is plausible …” only for people like biologists, natural science graduates, who never made anything. ( and of course, for their very naive religious followers like you, chuck and co. )

    PS: if people like you BELIEVE, that the eye evolution pathway proposed by natural science graduates is plausible, do you have any idea how an autofocus work ? Or how color image processing work ?

  3. 3
    martin_r says:

    Basically, biologists (natural science graduates) claim, that way advanced 4K camcorder evolved with no help from of engineers (teams of engineers from various fields). And of course, human vision is an irreducibly complex system, no matter what biologists say. A photo-sensor is one thing, but the most important part is an image processor (our brain). In our case, a COLOR image processor (RGB space). And, you also need a communication protocol – in other words, our brain needs to know what a particular signal received from retina (photo-sensor) means. When someone in 21st century believe, that a color image processor evolved by some blind unguided process, that person should see a doctor immediately….

    I doubt that there is a person on this forum who understands how an color image is being processed in our modern cameras/camcorders. Or how an autofocus works. No offence. (Including me, i have a rough idea, but i am mechanical engineer, so i am not familiar with this field of engineering)

  4. 4
    martin_r says:

    I like the title of the article “A Series Of Miracles”.

    That is exactly what alleged eye evolution is.

    Darwinism = lots of lucky accidents and always in right order.

  5. 5
    BobRyan says:

    Are Darwinists incapable of standing back and simply looking at something with awe?

  6. 6
    jerry says:

    Biologists from Darwin onward have offered a possible evolutionary pathway to the current human eye

    No they haven’t and you know this is not true.

    So the real question is why make such a ludicrous statement. Of course like all other statements you make they will never be defended.

  7. 7
    tjguy says:

    Yes, evolution is a series of miracles. Even Seversky admits that “we just don’t know.” And yet, I’m sure he BELIEVES the evolutionary origin scenario – so yup, he’s got faith too.

    But his faith is in the god of Chance, upon whom he and all atheists must rely on to produce countless timely miracles whenever they are needed. As long as you don’t look at the details, it may sound “plausible” to some, but scientists have been wrong in the past. Evolutionary history is littered with false predictions, wrong ideas, and mistaken beliefs. [How often have you read the words “…. than previously thought.” ie. “older than previously thought.”] In other words, their thoughts/beliefs were wrong.

    If the best we can say about the evolution of the eye is that “it sounds plausible” to believers in evolution, wow, then I guess that applies to a lot of other evolutionary changes as well. Is science objective or subjective? This is the problem with historical science where we are restricted from using the scientific method to test our “beliefs”. This kind of subjectivity and uncertainty kind of throws evolution into a totally different light, eh?

    “The proposed evolutionary pathway is PLAUSIBLE…” hmmmm. Not very convincing, but honest for sure!

  8. 8
    chuckdarwin says:

    The words “I don’t know” aren’t in the ID lexicon…..

  9. 9
    OldArmy94 says:

    The evolutionary account for the development of the eye sounds like a step-by-step instruction list for a designer to follow, which ironically reveals that Darwinists are incapable of even imagining how the process could occur without the hand of a creator.

  10. 10
    martin_r says:

    chuck,

    I DON’T KNOW how our Creator did it.. but i know, he did it (because i am an engineer. i would stake my life on it. Would you on Darwin?)

    Talking about miracles, of course, it is not only about human vision …

    As a Darwinist, your faith has to be very strong, basically, you have to be sort of religious fundamentalist :))))) Because …. you have to believe in a series of miracles after a series of miracle after a series of miracles – don’t forget, there are 4 other senses – hearing, smell, touch and taste …

    Now scientists even claim, that “you’ve actually got about 14 to 20 senses”. So way more series of miracles :))))))

    This is only when you consider humans. Counting in various animals’ senses, you get a whole new level of series of miraculous events you have to believe in :))))))))))))))

    https://bigthink.com/surprising-science/think-you-have-only-5-senses-its-actually-a-lot-more-than-that/

  11. 11
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Surely the best approach is to see these convenient cascades of functional machinery as the miracle stories of Darwinism. They are not subject to criticism as to their probability, which is why no Darwinian need take such criticism seriously.

    That’s the beauty of it. Nobody has to give any probability measures. The only evidence that is required exists in the imagination. Why the inexplicably complex apparatus of the eye is even required in the mundane search for nutrition and reproductive success need not be discussed. Bacteria really needed something to eat (there was a huge shortage of food on planet earth) so obviously, they evolved into kola bears, lobsters, pine trees, bengal tigers and Mozart.
    If you were a hungry bacterium, wouldn’t you do the same?

  12. 12
    Querius says:

    The traditional view is that some skin became light sensitive and that this light sensitive area evolved to be contained within a small depression. Further changes “musta” made the depression deeper into a something like a primitive box camera. And so on.

    Dr. Behe presented the chemical cycles required for a “light sensitive area,” which are extremely complex.

    Darwinists would claim, “Oh, but this pathway to functional eyes ‘musta’ occurred because here we are (ta-da) and we have functional eyes (yay). ”

    Dr. Tour would typically say, “Ok, show me how.”

    Darwinists, like the alchemists of old, would reply . . .

    “Oh, but eyesight is inevitable. We just haven’t found the right sequence of reagents and reactions yet (in lab-level purity, correct concentrations, and raised or lowered temperatures for each step, and all within a short-enough time to prevent everything from falling apart), but our top people are working on it . . . TOP people!”

    -Q

  13. 13
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Q

    Further changes “musta” made the depression deeper into a something like a primitive box camera. And so on.

    That’s where Berlinski’s comment comes in: “the transmission of data signals from the eye to a central nervous system for data processing, which can then output some behavioral response, comprises an integrated system that is not amenable to stepwise evolution…”

    There has to be a mental process capable of processing images and passing information to behavior – at the same time the image is captured. The image without the mental capacity to understand it will be useless.

  14. 14
    martin_r says:

    SA @11

    . Bacteria really needed something to eat (there was a huge shortage of food on planet earth) so obviously, they evolved into kola bears, lobsters, pine trees, bengal tigers and Mozart.
    If you were a hungry bacterium, wouldn’t you do the same?

    yes, “it makes lots of sense” to evolve into a bengal tiger …. now you need way more food :))))))
    But this is Darwinism …

  15. 15
    martin_r says:

    Querius @12

    The traditional view is that some skin became light sensitive

    yes, and then, some skin became sound sensitive, and some other skin taste sensitive and some other skin sensitive to touch, and some other skin sensitive to smell and so on … a miracle after a miracle after a miracle …. this is Darwinism.

    Is this really happening in 21st century ???? Please wake me up…

  16. 16
    martin_r says:

    SA @13

    the transmission of data signals from the eye to a central nervous system for data processing,

    most lay people and even some well educated people think, that we see with our eyes.
    It is like saying, that a camcorder records the image with the lens and photosensor.

    Of course not.

    Every camcorder needs a very fast microprocessor (a computer) to process all the signals incoming from the photosensor. Especially these days, when we talking about 4K resolution and above. The amount of data which needs to be processed IN REAL TIME are very difficult to imagine. It is HUGE.

    And, a 4K or 8K resolution is nothing compared to the amount of data human retina (photosensor) is sending to our brains. I can recall a research where scientists estimated, that human eye/retina communicates with the brain at ethernet speed.

    With about 1,000,000 ganglion cells, the human retina would transmit data at roughly the rate of an Ethernet connection, or 10 million bits per second.

    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/07/060726180933.htm#:~:text=With%20about%201%2C000%2C000%20ganglion%20cells,10%20million%20bits%20per%20second.

    I am not surprised, to be honest, i think this number is a bit underestimated, when you consider, that human retina is about 500 megapixels. To process IN REAL TIME such an amount of data, it requires a very speedy microprocessor. This system is irreducible complex no matter what Darwinists say. If the brain would be slower, our vision wouldn’t work – would freeze. So one thing is to have a 4K image sensor but you also have to have an appropriate and powerful enough microprocessor to process all the data IN REAL TIME.

    And, of course, you need to have some communication protocol, TO KNOW HOW TO PROCESS ALL THE DATA INCOMING FROM RETINA.

    How a rational 21st century person, can even think, that all these very sophisticated features evolved by blind unguided process without any knowledge of physics, math, data processing, image processing and so on … because a biologist, natural science graduate SAYS SO ?

  17. 17
    Silver Asiatic says:

    martin

    yes, “it makes lots of sense” to evolve into a bengal tiger …. now you need way more food :))))))

    That gave me a very pleasant laugh this morning – thank you!

    yes, and then, some skin became sound sensitive, and some other skin taste sensitive and some other skin sensitive to touch, and some other skin sensitive to smell and so on … a miracle after a miracle after a miracle …. this is Darwinism.

    I read somewhere that carnivorous plants had a “meat sensitive” spot. 🙂

    Is this really happening in 21st century ???? Please wake me up…

    It does seem hard to believe. Enormous problems with the theory are either ignored or embraced.

  18. 18
    martin_r says:

    SA

    That gave me a very pleasant laugh this morning – thank you!

    you welcome.

    This is my favorite one:

    The American Pygmy Shrew (Sorex hoyi) – Every day it eats three times its own weight. To do so it needs to constantly eat and never sleeps for more than a few minutes. An hour without food would mean certain death.

    or a hummingbird

    With its heart beating up to 20 times a second during hovering flight, humming birds need lots of food to maintain their phenomenal flight engines powering their wings which can flap up to 80 times a second. They eat up to twice their weight in nectar every day making them not only the hungriest birds but the hungriest animals outside the insect realm.

    what sense does it make to be so hungry ? From evolution, i would expect the contrary… e.g. something like snakes do, to eat once per month or so … that would make sense.

    PS:

    carnivorous plants had a “meat sensitive” spot

    yes, i am aware of that :)) just another series of Darwinian miracles …

    The trichomes are incredibly sophisticated as they can distinguish between living or inanimate objects very easily – whether it’s a drop of rain or the shell of a nut.
    https://www.ambius.com/blog/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-venus-fly-trap/

  19. 19
    Silver Asiatic says:

    martin_r

    what sense does it make to be so hungry ? From evolution, i would expect the contrary… e.g. something like snakes do, to eat once per month or so … that would make sense.

    All that is required is some imaginary scenario where the organism actually was more fit for the environment by having to consume more resources – and the ones that didn’t need as much to survive and reproduce died off. I will never underestimate the power of Darwinian imaginary explanations.

    The evolution of peacocks was mentioned in another thread. So the ornate, delicate and non-functional tail feathers were required to that male peacocks could find a mate.
    Bacteria had a real problem trying to reproduce so they evolved into peacocks so they could actually find mates and thus survive.
    … that’s what we’re supposed to believe, anyway.

Leave a Reply