Copyright © Built on Rock!
His hopes that a simple form of sight would be found was realised. All the quotes material that follows is from the website home page: The Emperor Has No Clothes by Sean Pitman MD.
‘There did in fact appear to be a good number of intermediaries that linked one type of eye to another type in an evolutionary pattern. Some of the most "simple” eyes are nothing more than spots of a small number of light sensitive cells clustered together. This type of eye is only good for sensing light from dark. It cannot detect an image. From this simple eye, Darwin proceeded to demonstrate creatures with successively more and more complex eyes till the level of the complexity of the human eye was achieved.’
The following is technical and is not reproduced so that it should be understood in any depth. The point is to demonstrate that there is no such thing as a simple way to produce even the most basic form of sight.
‘Even a simple light sensitive spot is extremely complicated, involving a huge number of specialized proteins and protein systems. These proteins and systems are integrated in such a way that if one were removed, vision would cease. 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, vision would not occur. For example, the first step in vision is the detection of photons. In order to detect a photon, specialized cells use a molecule called 11-
The question now of course is, how could such a system evolve gradually? All the pieces must be in place simultaneously. For example, what good would it be for an earthworm that has no eyes to suddenly evolve the protein 11-
So it seems that the most basic form of sight is anything but simple. Evolutionists assume that the light spot is on the bottom rung of an evolutionary ladder. But is this necessarily so? Why cannot it just be one of a great range of optical solutions that bears no relation to evolution or which came first? A multi-
The video below is from the Edinburgh Creation Group. Dr Marshall proves that Richard Dawkins knows less than he thinks and that he rarely gives credit to anything that does not suit his case. Dawkins has argued that if God had created the eye then why is it so badly designed. Good question! Here is a good reply.
The Problem of Sight and the Evolution of the Eye
According to Darwin the evolution of the eye, such is its complexity, was one of the great problems that needed solving.
He wrote: ‘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 certainly 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, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.’
|The Watch Maker|
|The Blind Watch Maker|
|Life as Digital Technology|
|The Problem of Sight|
|Multiple Failures of Darwinism|
|A Missing Link|
|Another Missing Link|
|The Incredulity Argument|
|Dawkins and Jesus|