There are dozens of different types of eyes and visions systems in nature but, strangely enough, the squid and the human, for example, share the same camera eye design. This striking similarity in such distant species is problematic for evolution because even if these camera eye designs could have evolved, they otherwise could not have been inherited from the squid-human common ancestor. One of the reasons for this is that the supposed common ancestor of such distant species would not possess a camera eye design. So instead, under evolution this striking and detailed camera eye design would have evolved at least twice, independently.
In other words, this design contradicts evolution’s common descent model. St. George Jackson Mivart was an early observer of this problem with evolutionary theory. He wrote in 1871:
“On this theory [Darwinism] the chances are almost infinitely great against the independent accidental occurrence and preservation of two similar series of minute variations resulting in the independent development of two closely similar forms. – MIVART 1871, PP. 71–72″
Mivart was on the right track, as later science would prove. Today, examples of this so-called “convergent” evolution are ubiquitous, including the camera eye design shared by the squid and human. This example surely would be appreciated by Mivart, given the significant differences between these species and their environments.Cornelius Hunter, “Why Junk Design Arguments Are Junk Science” at Evolution News and Science Today (January 24, 2022)
Funny that “junk” would develop twice like that, independently and be generally so useful. But people believe what they need to.
You may also wish to read: Nathan Lents argues that the human eye refutes design Cornelius Hunter thinks that Lents’s argument, as set out, is actually a blow to evolutionary theory.