Richard Dawkins' (sorry sage) flawed explanation of the evolution of the eye

[Hollie]

That's the point. We didn't evolve and vibrant as any other branch of life. We were created perfectly, but sin ruined us, e.g. our vision.

Jesus said, “If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell”

This is the wrong forum for Bible thumping.

 

[alang1216]

That's the point. We didn't evolve and vibrant as any other branch of life. We were created perfectly, but sin ruined us, e.g. our vision.

Not concerning the eye. The squid eye is perfect, the human eye an imperfect kluge of parts. Watch your own video.

So our eyes got redesigned after Adam's fall? Which chapter of Genesis is that in?

 

[james bond]

Not concerning the eye. The squid eye is perfect, the human eye an imperfect kluge of parts. Watch your own video.

So our eyes got redesigned after Adam's fall? Which chapter of Genesis is that in?

The squid eye isn't perfect for above water land with a small optic lobe while the human eye is perfect for it.

The previous video is one that compares just different eyes while...

"Even Charles Darwin conceded that “to suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.”1

Nonetheless, having abandoned his Christianity, Darwin was obliged to appeal to the “absurd” to account for the origin of the eye by random change and natural selection."

'

Looking Out a “Window”​

It is said that a camera is no better than its lens. How good is the lens of the human eye?

Actually, the human eye has two excellent lenses—the cornea and the lens proper. During our development in the womb, embryonic skin over the developing eye turns into a clear window. To be so crystal clear, this special type of skin lacks the blood vessels, hair, and glands in most other skin, though it contains many nerves (and is highly sensitive to touch).

Although we tend to think of the cornea as a protective window rather than a lens, it really functions as a lens. In fact, the cornea is about four times more powerful in bringing light to focus on our retina than the lens itself.

The “Rubber” Lens​

The lens proper, like the cornea, is also derived from embryonic skin and is marvelously transparent. Unlike the fixed cornea, however, the lens can change its focus. This automatic focusing function allows us to quickly focus on any object we look at. Most cameras focus by physically moving their hard lenses, but the lens of the eye is flexible like rubber and can quickly focus by changing its shape.

Since man’s fall into sin, much of God’s original creation is now less than perfect, and so the lens loses flexibility with age, reducing both its clarity and its ability to focus."'

Our eyes are also attached to our brain and is a muscular organ. It is one of the busiest muscular organs in our body. You can't describe how something like it developed thru evolution.


"

Your Brain Is Showing​

While the cornea and lens develop from embryonic skin, most of the eyeball develops in the embryo as a bud from the brain. Think of it, you can actually examine part of someone’s brain just by looking them in the eye!

The eyeball buds off the brain in just the right position for it to look out through the lens and cornea. It would be a shame to have eyes in our head, but no windows in the skin to look out through.

The Muscular Eye​

We don’t generally think of our eye as a muscular organ, but this small orb has some of the busiest muscles in the body. There are two sets of muscles inside the eye. One set opens and closes the iris diaphragm, admitting different amounts of light. The second set of muscles is attached by “strings” to the perimeter of the lens and changes its shape during focusing."

The Seeing Eye

“The hearing ear and the seeing eye, the Lord has made them both” (Proverbs 20:12).

answersingenesis.org

There's more to it than meets the eye, but I'm afraid you evolutionists would just have your brainz explode due to not being able to explain .

 

[alang1216]

The squid eye isn't perfect for above water land with a small optic lobe while the human eye is perfect for it.

Unless you don't think much of God as an engineer, you never say He designed a perfect human eye since it is BACKWARDS. Really evidence of evolution, not design.

"Even Charles Darwin conceded that “to suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.”1

Darwin wrote that about 150 years ago. We've learned much since. Are there any modern scientists that say similar nonsense?

 

[james bond]

Unless you don't think much of God as an engineer, you never say He designed a perfect human eye since it is BACKWARDS. Really evidence of evolution, not design.


Darwin wrote that about 150 years ago. We've learned much since. Are there any modern scientists that say similar nonsense?

I knew you couldn't explain using evolution. Instead, you put it on me that which I've already explained. Another day. Another victory for God and me.

Evos are such LOSERS ha ha.

 

[Hollie]

The squid eye isn't perfect for above water land with a small optic lobe while the human eye is perfect for it.

The previous video is one that compares just different eyes while...

"Even Charles Darwin conceded that “to suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.”1

Nonetheless, having abandoned his Christianity, Darwin was obliged to appeal to the “absurd” to account for the origin of the eye by random change and natural selection."

'

Looking Out a “Window”​

It is said that a camera is no better than its lens. How good is the lens of the human eye?

Actually, the human eye has two excellent lenses—the cornea and the lens proper. During our development in the womb, embryonic skin over the developing eye turns into a clear window. To be so crystal clear, this special type of skin lacks the blood vessels, hair, and glands in most other skin, though it contains many nerves (and is highly sensitive to touch).

Although we tend to think of the cornea as a protective window rather than a lens, it really functions as a lens. In fact, the cornea is about four times more powerful in bringing light to focus on our retina than the lens itself.

The “Rubber” Lens​

The lens proper, like the cornea, is also derived from embryonic skin and is marvelously transparent. Unlike the fixed cornea, however, the lens can change its focus. This automatic focusing function allows us to quickly focus on any object we look at. Most cameras focus by physically moving their hard lenses, but the lens of the eye is flexible like rubber and can quickly focus by changing its shape.

Since man’s fall into sin, much of God’s original creation is now less than perfect, and so the lens loses flexibility with age, reducing both its clarity and its ability to focus."'

Our eyes are also attached to our brain and is a muscular organ. It is one of the busiest muscular organs in our body. You can't describe how something like it developed thru evolution.


"

Your Brain Is Showing​

While the cornea and lens develop from embryonic skin, most of the eyeball develops in the embryo as a bud from the brain. Think of it, you can actually examine part of someone’s brain just by looking them in the eye!

The eyeball buds off the brain in just the right position for it to look out through the lens and cornea. It would be a shame to have eyes in our head, but no windows in the skin to look out through.

The Muscular Eye​

We don’t generally think of our eye as a muscular organ, but this small orb has some of the busiest muscles in the body. There are two sets of muscles inside the eye. One set opens and closes the iris diaphragm, admitting different amounts of light. The second set of muscles is attached by “strings” to the perimeter of the lens and changes its shape during focusing."

The Seeing Eye

“The hearing ear and the seeing eye, the Lord has made them both” (Proverbs 20:12).

answersingenesis.org

There's more to it than meets the eye, but I'm afraid you evolutionists would just have your brainz explode due to not being able to explain .

This is another example of a dishonest ''quote mine''. The parsed, edited and altered ''quote'' is intended to deceive as the ''quote miner'' is simply an accomplice to fraud.

Cretinism or Evilution?: An Old, Out of Context Quotation

www.talkorigins.org

Charles Darwin in The Origin of Species, J. M. Dent & Sons Ltd, London, 1971, p. 167. (p. 18 of The Revised Quote Book)

Darwin is not a "modern source." Furthermore, this quotation has been lifted out of context. According to the edition of The Origin of Species published by Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1952 (in the Great Books series), here is the entire quotation in context:

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of Spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei ["the voice of the people = the voice of God "], as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certain the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, should not be considered as subversive of the theory."

 

[ReinyDays]

I don't want to know why you say we taste rancid but we're as evolved and vibrant as any other branch of life. We're the most successful large mammal on the planet.

Try watching birds ... they fly ... and they'll shit in your open mouth every chance they get ...

What do you consider "success"? ... the ability to kill off all the other large mammals, for sport? ... wolves eat the elk they kill, humans just chop off the antlers and leave the carcass behind ...

I'm using the metric of diversity, measuring the success of genus by how many species have radiated ... the Nightshade genus has over 1,300 species, more successful that the Human genus with the one species ... and of course, a reminder that humans were almost wiped out 50,000 years ago ... a sure sign a species is on the brink of extinction ...

The Theory of Evolution is supposed to give us an objective view of humanity, and humanity's place in nature ... and just maybe the Bible is wrong about humans being the "top-o'-da-heap" ...

You want success, you'll get success when the kid next door walks on the Moon ...

Nematode - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[ReinyDays]

Oh look, a video by a nonsecientist liar that you never watched.

Why do these folks always start with the human eye ... the product of 4.6 billion years of evolution ... the OP's video starts with microbes and light-sensitive patches ...

How many generations of microbe per day? ... because we have 1.2 x 10^12 days ... there's dozens of reasons light sensitive patches improve reproductive chances ...

 

[alang1216]

Try watching birds ... they fly ... and they'll shit in your open mouth every chance they get ...

I have no idea what that means?

What do you consider "success"? ... the ability to kill off all the other large mammals, for sport? ... wolves eat the elk they kill, humans just chop off the antlers and leave the carcass behind ...

Sport is a recent luxury for humans. (Do cats also do it?)

I'm using the metric of diversity, measuring the success of genus by how many species have radiated ... the Nightshade genus has over 1,300 species, more successful that the Human genus with the one species ... and of course, a reminder that humans were almost wiped out 50,000 years ago ... a sure sign a species is on the brink of extinction ...

Diversity is a great measure and by that we are fabulously successful. Man lives on just about every continent and dominates almost every ecosystem. You are too limited in your view of diversity. We may have little biological diversity but we have enormous cultural diversity.

The Theory of Evolution is supposed to give us an objective view of humanity, and humanity's place in nature ... and just maybe the Bible is wrong about humans being the "top-o'-da-heap" ...

You want success, you'll get success when the kid next door walks on the Moon ...

I think our biological evolution has ceased since we have defeated must natural selection pressures. On the other hand our cultural and technological evolution is racing along.

 

[ReinyDays]

I have no idea what that means?

Boy, sucks to be you then ... if you don't think flight provides reproductive advantage then we've nothing to discuss ...

But at least we cornered the Bible-thumper's position ... it's difficult for evolutionists to agree humans are just one part of the web-of-life ... we're nothing special from a scientific point-of-view ... at least we shouldn't be ... it's not always easy to think of ourselves as something less than "God's perfect image of Himself" ...

Human's use guns ... and that's cheating goddamit ...

 

[alang1216]

Boy, sucks to be you then ... if you don't think flight provides reproductive advantage then we've nothing to discuss ...

It obviously does since it evolved so many times. You were less than clear in your reply.

Human's use guns ... and that's cheating goddamit ...

No, it is what makes us human: tools.

 

[james bond]

This is another example of a dishonest ''quote mine''. The parsed, edited and altered ''quote'' is intended to deceive as the ''quote miner'' is simply an accomplice to fraud.

Cretinism or Evilution?: An Old, Out of Context Quotation

www.talkorigins.org

Darwin is not a "modern source." Furthermore, this quotation has been lifted out of context. According to the edition of The Origin of Species published by Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1952 (in the Great Books series), here is the entire quotation in context:

C'mon, you have less than alang1216. Might as well chalk up another loss for you.

 

[Hollie]

C'mon, you have less than alang1216. Might as well chalk up another loss for you.

You're perfectly happy with perpetrating a fraud?

 

[alang1216]

You're perfectly happy with perpetrating a fraud?

james bond doesn't even have to think about it, the Bible is all he needs. Thinking might only get him in trouble

 

[james bond]

james bond doesn't even have to think about it, the Bible is all he needs. Thinking might only get him in trouble

Of course, I am thinking and that's why you keep losing. No point making posts to Hollie as she never has anything but ad hominems.

I haven't seen much thinking from you lately, so it's easy to defeat you.

 

[Hollie]

Of course, I am thinking and that's why you keep losing. No point making posts to Hollie as she never has anything but ad hominems.

I haven't seen much thinking from you lately, so it's easy to defeat you.

It's not an ad hominem to call out dishonest copying and pasting of edited, parsed and altered ''quotes''.

 

[james bond]

It goes to show Richard Dawkins had a flawed explanation for the evolution of the eye.

 

[Hollie]

It goes to show Richard Dawkins had a flawed explanation for the evolution of the eye.

It goes to show that religious extremists will perpetrate a fraud when it suits their extremist agenda.

 

[fncceo]

 

[alang1216]

Of course, I am thinking and that's why you keep losing. No point making posts to Hollie as she never has anything but ad hominems.

I haven't seen much thinking from you lately, so it's easy to defeat you.

It's hard to defeat you since you just declare victory whatever the actual score.