Eugenie Scott's evolution of the eye:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOtP7HEuDYA&feature=related

Bang Goes the Theory: Richard Dawkins on Eye Evolution

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhDWCujcFEY

 

Is this a good presentation about how the eye evolved?

Views: 210

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Near the end at (7:26) the questioner asks the presenter who interviewed Richard Dawkins


“How long did it take to go from nothing to a working eye?”

The presenter replied


“about 400,000 generations to get from a simple light sensitive cell all the way to a fully functioning eye.”


The presenter failed to answer the question. She doesn’t start from nothing but begins from something, which she claims is a simple cell. So let’s look at what the presenter, Richard Dawkins and the other scientist kept secret in the video.

  1. If you start from nothing you always get nothing.
  2. To get from chemicals to a simple cell is impossible through mutations (the evolutionary means of incremental change); because mutations exist after the DNA and the structures of the cell is in-place. The simplest cell isn't simple at all but extremely complexed.
  3. If you start from a simple cell, we know that the simplest of cells are not simple but extremely complex. Inside the cell you have DNA which holds the information to create the eye or else the eye will have to re-evolve again and again because random chance doesn't walk straight from A to B the next time. So, the mechanism to hold the information as a code in order to get to B by transcribing it then translate it into proteins for the functions to be built has to be in-place right at the beginning.

    Some of the things which have to be in-place first before the very first function of the eye is produced are

    A.)Information to create the structures in the cell
    B.)A nucleus in the cell to protect the DNA that holds the information
    C.)RNA to transcribe and translate the amino acids into the codes for proteins
    D.)Ribosomes, the proteins factory, which reads the decoded DNA code and translates it and builds the structures
    E.) The different enzymes which are needed for the ribosomes to translate the information. The enzymes are themselves encoded in the DNA!


By no means are the above an exhaustive list.  The presenter and Richard Dawkins fail right from the start in their simplistic explanations. If we take it even further and introduce the mechanism of mutations, random chance and natural selection that they say causes these incremental changes (even thou they don't say it in the YouTube clip), we see a different story.


The majority of mutations are destructive, which means the information in the DNA is lost. The extremely rare beneficial mutations mainly arise through duplication and shifting of the information that's already there. So we are not seeing the thousands/millions of new information needed to be added to DNA in a coded form that can be interpreted and translated as a new function. The opposite is happening, that is, entropy, a loss of information. If you introduce the evolutionists ‘rescuing device’ of 'time' what we see is devolution caused by destructive mutations over time.

 

The video is selling its falsehood to a ready and willing audience who will only listen to what they are told and ignore the obvious i.e. “the Emperor has no Clothes”. So the answer is in the details and the details veer towards an intelligence that has produced the eye and a world that was perfect becoming corrupted.

David Menton has a great video on the creation of the eye:

 

http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/video/ondemand/seeing-eye/see...

 

It shows the absurdity of the belief that the human eye could have evolved.

Francis Crick on how we see things:

http://www.webofstories.com/play/51688

 

Wikipedia's attack on Irreducible Complexity and the evolution of the eye:

Maybe the Creationist & ID proponents need to contribute to the Wikipedia page entries and address these claims about of how complex systems work. I would like to see the two views side by side:

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity

Wiki's entry excluding paragraph attacking ID:

Since Darwin's day, the eye's ancestry has become much better understood. Although learning about the construction of ancient eyes through fossil evidence is problematic due to the soft tissues leaving no imprint or remains, genetic and comparative anatomical evidence has increasingly supported the idea of a common ancestry for all eyes.[56][57][58]

Current evidence does suggest possible evolutionary lineages for the origins of the anatomical features of the eye. One likely chain of development is that the eyes originated as simple patches of photoreceptor cells that could detect the presence or absence of light, but not its direction. When, via random mutation across the population, the photosensitive cells happened to have developed on a small depression, it endowed the organism with a better sense of the light's source. This small change gave the organism an advantage over those without the
mutation. This genetic trait would then be "selected for" as those with the trait would have an increased chance of survival, and therefore progeny, over those without the trait. Individuals with deeper depressions would be able to discern changes in light over a wider field than those individuals with shallower depressions. As ever deeper depressions were advantageous to the organism, gradually, this depression would become a pit into which light would strike certain
cells depending on its angle. The organism slowly gained increasingly precise visual information. And again, this gradual process continued as individuals having a slightly shrunken aperture of the eye had an advantage over those without the mutation as an aperture increases how collimated the light is at any one specific group of photoreceptors. As this trait developed, the eye became effectively a pinhole camera which allowed the organism to dimly make out shapes—the nautilus
is a modern example of an animal with such an eye. Finally, via this same selection process, a protective layer of transparent cells over the aperture was differentiated into a crude lens, and the interior of the eye was filled with humours to assist in focusing images.[59][60][61] In this way, eyes are recognized by modern biologists as actually a relatively unambiguous and simple structure to evolve, and many of the major developments of the eye's evolution are believed to have taken
place over only a few million years, during the Cambrian explosion.[62]

Behe maintains that the complexity of light sensitivity at the molecular level and the minute biochemical reactions required for those first "simple patches of photoreceptor[s]" still defies explanation. Other intelligent design proponents have pointed to the difficulty of the entire visual system evolving rather than the eye alone.[63]

Mainly story telling without demonstration of how eyes actually evolved or work in the real world on a day to day bases.

 

 

 

There is http://wiki.creation.org which it looks like ultimately scientific information on creation might be held there.

The eye is a functional unit like a camera, but much more complicated. It can be broken down in smaller parts, just as an airplane can. But these parts at their lowest irreducible level must be in place before they become useful for natural selection to do its part. The lowest level of the eye is the differentiation of light. Until you can differentiate light in the simplest of eyes it is useless and natural selection will get rid of it and the mutation process must start again at point zero. A list of problems is given below; problems 2, 3,4,6,7 can be found here http://www.detectingdesign.com/humaneye.html in more detail.

 

Eye Problem 1 (Information, DNA, Cell Structure)

Earlier I replied about the complexity of getting a simple cells structure in place
1. The initial information,
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/itbwi
2. DNA double helix structure,
3. Nucleus to protect the DNA information in the cell,
4. MRNA to translate and transcribe,
5. Ribosomes proteins factory,
6. Enzymes
7. and more...
8. with all the above held as coded information in the double helix itself!!
In other words, for the miracle of vision to occur, even for a light sensitive spot, a great many different proteins and systems would have to evolve simultaneously, because without them all there at once, elementary vision would not occur. The above has to be in place before the lynch-pin of evolution i.e. mutations and natural selection can get involved.

 

Eye Problem 2 (Detection of Photons)

The first step in vision is the detection of photons. In order to detect a photon, specialized cells use a molecule called 11-cis-retinal. When a photon of light interacts with this molecule, it changes its shape almost instantly. It is now called trans-retinal. This change in shape causes a change in shape of another molecule called rhodopsin. The new shape of rhodopsin is called metarhodopsin II. Metarhodopsin II now sticks to another protein called transducin forcing it to drop an attached molecule called GDP and pick up another molecule called GTP. The GTP-transducin-metarhodopsin II molecule now attaches to another protein called phosphodiesterase. When this happens, phosphodiesterase cleaves molecules called cGMPs. This cleavage of cGMPs reduces their relative numbers in the cell. This reduction in cGMP is sensed by an ion channel. This ion channel shuts off the ability of the sodium ion to enter the cell. This blockage of sodium entrance into the cell causes an imbalance of charge across the cell's membrane. This imbalance of charge sends an electrical current to the brain. The brain then interprets this signal and the result is called vision. Many other proteins are now needed to convert the proteins and other molecules just mentioned back to their original forms so that they can detect another photon of light and signal the brain. If any one of these proteins or molecules is missing, even in the simplest eye system, vision will not occur

 

Eye Problem 3 (The Brain)

The eye is an extension of the brain. In order to take any advantage of improved visual acuity within the eye, the brain must also change in such a way that it is able to interpret the information the eye is sending it. Otherwise, if the brain is still set up to appreciate only differences in light from dark sent from the eye, without being able to interpret specific patterns of light and dark on the retina, there would be no selective advantage from a dimpled vs. a flat eyespot. Because of this requirement, whatever evolution happens to take place in the eye, must be backed up by equivalent evolution in brain development and interpretive powers.

 

Eye Problem 4 (Genetic Population of flat eyespots with dimpled eyespots)

No population of creatures with flat eyespots shows any sort of intra-population range like this where even a small portion of the population has dimpled eyespots to any selectable degree.

 

Eye Problem 5 (Mutations, increase in amount of DNA not new information)

http://creation.com/dawkins-and-the-origin-of-genetic-information
http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-2-chapter-5-argument-some-mu...
http://creation.com/meta-information
The evolution of a microbe into a complex organism such as rice or a human requires the addition of new genes. For example, the simplest single-celled organism has about 500 protein-coding genes and humans have over 20,000. So, if we began as microbes in some primordial soup, as evolutionary theory posits, then a lot of new genes had to be added by mutations—the only game in town for the evolutionist. There have to be a lot of mutations that add such new genes, not just twiddle with the existing ones. For example, the genes that make nerves and all the enzymes that enable nerves to operate are absent from microbes. They have to be created de novo if we evolved from them. There are many gene families in humans that are completely missing from microbes, so there has to be a viable mechanism for adding this genetic information if evolution is to be feasible. And mutations (accidental changes) of one form or other are the only mechanism for Darwinism.
Evolutionists claim that genes can be duplicated and this is an increase in information. But if you write an essay of 5,000 words and it needs to be 10,000 words, you won’t get any credit for photocopying (duplicating) the 5,000 to get the 10,000. That’s what evolutionists are claiming when they say that virus transfer or duplication ‘increases information’. All examples of supposed mutations adding new information are of mistakes in the DNA that’s already there.

 

Eye Problem 6 (Mutations and Dimplex effect e.g. flatworms)

The problem is getting thousands of light-sensitive cells to work together in coordination at the same time to produce a dimpled effect. What sort of simple mutation would produce such an effect among thousands of cells where each must be specifically oriented relative to all the others to form a "dimple" instead of a "protrusion" or some sort of other irregular surface? - at exactly the right spot to affect the light-sensitive spot in an orderly manner? Some argue that one or two mutations can and often do produce large morphologic changes. The problem with this argument is that all examples of large morphologic changes that result from small mutations are based on losses in pre-established morphologic features. There simply are no examples where a small mutation produces a large morphologic difference where an entirely new unique system of function is produced or a new structural modification, not just a loss of pre-existing structures, actually results in an improvement of function. When it comes to producing actual gains in novel beneficial structural alterations involving large numbers of cells (or even subcellular building blocks) the underlying coded information involved simply isn't that simple. The same thing is true for producing a lens or lens-like structure - even a "primitive" one. Getting a bunch of translucent epithelial cells to form a spherical structure and then to develop an increased refractive index isn't so easy - to any selectable level of improved visual acuity.

 

Eye Problem 7 (paper theory not science)

Testing this theory that Dawkins proposes isn't so hard to do. All that would have to be done is to take a creature with a flat eyespot and have it produce a bunch of offspring, artificially select the offspring with the most dimpled eyespots, have them produce the next generation, again select those offspring with the most dimpled eyespots, and so on. Very quickly, within a few generations, it should be very easy to demonstrate the evolution of dimpled eyespots and to show that these eyespots are actually functionally advantageous with respect to localizing sources of light vs. the use of a simple flat eyespot in the evolved creatures. 
It isn't really a true scientific theory since it hasn't actually been subject to any potentially falsifying real life test. It remains, therefore, a working hypothesis - a paper theory at best.

 

Eye Problem 8 (Entropy)

http://creation.com/the-evolution-trains-a-comin
Whenever we study mutations, they invariably turn out to have lost or degraded the information. This is so even in those rare instances when the mutational defect gives a survival advantage—e.g. the loss of wings on beetles on windy islands. As creatures diversify, gene pools become increasingly thinned out. The more organisms adapt to their surroundings by selection, i.e. the more specialized they become, the smaller the fraction they carry of the original storehouse of created information for their kind. Thus, there is less information available on which natural selection can act in the future to ‘readapt’ the population should circumstances change. Less flexible, less adaptable populations are obviously heading closer to extinction, not evolving.
Evolutionary belief teaches that once upon a time, there were living things, but no eyes—eyes had not evolved yet, so there was no DNA information coding for eye manufacture. Somehow this program had to be written. New information had to arise that did not previously exist, anywhere.

Later, there were eyes, but no feathers anywhere in the world, thus no genetic information for feathers. Real-world observation has overwhelmingly shown mutation to be totally unable to feed the required new information into the system. In fact, mutations overall hasten the downward trend by adding genetic load in the form of harmful mutations, of which we have all accumulated hundreds over the generations of our ancestry.

In other words, populations can change and adapt because they have a lot of information (variety) in their DNA ‘recipe’. But unless mutations can feed in new information, each time there is variation/adaptation, the total information decreases (as selection gets rid of the unadapted portions of the population, some information is lost in that population). Thus, given a fixed amount of information, the more adaptation we see, the less the potential for future adaptation. The train is definitely headed downhill, destined to fall off the jetty of extinction.
Examples that are given whether antibiotic resistance or changes in fish growth rates, not one single one supports evolution going forward, but rather the reverse. Not one involves a gain of information; all show the opposite, a net loss.

 

Conclusion
The irony is that the eye is for seeing and the question is why can’t they see it? It’s obvious, isn’t it? That God through his infinite intelligence created all.


Don Smith said:

Francis Crick on how we see things:

http://www.webofstories.com/play/51688

 

Wikipedia's attack on Irreducible Complexity and the evolution of the eye:

Maybe the Creationist & ID proponents need to contribute to the Wikipedia page entries and address these claims about of how complex systems work. I would like to see the two views side by side:

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity

Wiki's entry excluding paragraph attacking ID:

Since Darwin's day, the eye's ancestry has become much better understood. Although learning about the construction of ancient eyes through fossil evidence is problematic due to the soft tissues leaving no imprint or remains, genetic and comparative anatomical evidence has increasingly supported the idea of a common ancestry for all eyes.[56][57][58]

Current evidence does suggest possible evolutionary lineages for the origins of the anatomical features of the eye. One likely chain of development is that the eyes originated as simple patches of photoreceptor cells that could detect the presence or absence of light, but not its direction. When, via random mutation across the population, the photosensitive cells happened to have developed on a small depression, it endowed the organism with a better sense of the light's source. This small change gave the organism an advantage over those without the
mutation. This genetic trait would then be "selected for" as those with the trait would have an increased chance of survival, and therefore progeny, over those without the trait. Individuals with deeper depressions would be able to discern changes in light over a wider field than those individuals with shallower depressions. As ever deeper depressions were advantageous to the organism, gradually, this depression would become a pit into which light would strike certain
cells depending on its angle. The organism slowly gained increasingly precise visual information. And again, this gradual process continued as individuals having a slightly shrunken aperture of the eye had an advantage over those without the mutation as an aperture increases how collimated the light is at any one specific group of photoreceptors. As this trait developed, the eye became effectively a pinhole camera which allowed the organism to dimly make out shapes—the nautilus
is a modern example of an animal with such an eye. Finally, via this same selection process, a protective layer of transparent cells over the aperture was differentiated into a crude lens, and the interior of the eye was filled with humours to assist in focusing images.[59][60][61] In this way, eyes are recognized by modern biologists as actually a relatively unambiguous and simple structure to evolve, and many of the major developments of the eye's evolution are believed to have taken
place over only a few million years, during the Cambrian explosion.[62]

Behe maintains that the complexity of light sensitivity at the molecular level and the minute biochemical reactions required for those first "simple patches of photoreceptor[s]" still defies explanation. Other intelligent design proponents have pointed to the difficulty of the entire visual system evolving rather than the eye alone.[63]

Mainly story telling without demonstration of how eyes actually evolved or work in the real world on a day to day bases.

 

 

 

The presenter in the 'Bang Goes The Theory' clip starts by acknowledging the issue, then stating that she's on a mission to prove Darwin right.

Imagine if Darwin had concluded that teleology was the best answer and wrote a book supporting it. I wonder if the other material produced by his contemporaries in support evolution, would have endured as long.
At the heart of the matter is a spiritual one. (Ephesians 6:12). Its not about the facts. The concept of evolution comes first, then the evidence has to be made to fit.

Could you imagine trying explain the concept of the light sensitive spot if there were no eyes to see it?
Its easier to start with a created eye that is fully functional (bearing in mind that they tend to come in pairs), then devolve it with defects in the copying process, than it is to argue no eye, to a fully functional one.

I was wondering if anyone has or has come across any new arguments that haven't been refuted yet . I'm in the midst of a discussion/ debate & I find myself at an impasse. So, anyone with any new facts or evidence that undermines evo that is fallacy free would be greatly appreciated. Anything coming from a non-creationist that's bias free would be double gold ... Thanks.

I was wondering if anyone has or has come across any new arguments that haven't been refuted yet.

 

Sounds like an arbitrary statement. How has the eye problems been refuted?

 


Anything coming from a non-creationist that's bias free would be double gold

 

This statement makes no logical sense. Shouldn't it be anything coming from a non-creationist, non-atheist, non-evolutionist, non-theist, etc that's bias free?


A (hypothetical) "neutral" view is a worldview in it's on right. If the "neutral" interpretation of some data is incorrect, then why should we trust it to reliably point to any of the above? Alternatively, if the "neutral" interpretation is correct, then obviously all above worldview interpretations are wrong.

 

Everyone must have an ultimate standard by which evidence is evaluated. That ultimate standard cannot itself be judged by a lesser "neutral" standard, otherwise it would not be the ultimate standard!' Clearly, a "neutral" position is logically flawed.

Reply to Discussion

RSS

About CC

Connecting Christians who believe in Biblical Creation — discussing beliefs, sharing ideas, and recommending evolution-free resources. Please keep all posts relevant to the topics of this community.

Rules of Engagement
Zero Tolerance Policy
Statement of Faith
Creation Terms
FAQ

Homeschool Curriculum

Members

Creation Conversations 2018

What's new @ CC for 2018? 

Creation networking and much more in store for Creation Conversation Members. You'll not want to miss this new year!

© 2019   Created by Creation Conversations.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service