Talk:The eye is too complex to have evolved
From EvoWiki
Some stupid smartass vandal blanked most of this page, but when I tried to revert it, the spam-filter won't let me put it back because "Meri" + "dian" produces part of a word in the filter. --Mr A. 02:04, 3 July 2006 (BST)
Regarding evolutionist defenses of Darwin's arguments about the eye
First, evolutionists need to explain how the trilobite first emerged in the Cambrian age some 550 million years ago already possessing highly complex eyes.
Response 1: Darwin didn’t list stages of eye evolution. He listed different living organisms (i.e. not evolved from one another) with different kinds of eyes. Moreover, he didn’t prove anything either logically or scientifically, but was merely speculating and he said so himself. He admitted to being stumped several times, both in Origin of the Species and in correspondence with friends.
Response 2: You use exactly the same technique as Darwin. This is speculation, not proof. If you were saying humans evolved from squid and could prove it, you might have something.
Response 3: It is true that evolutionists’ inability to explain eye evolution doesn’t demonstrate that the eye can’t evolve, but that is by far not the only argument or even the main argument. The onus is on evolutionists to prove evolution scientifically because they claim the theory is scientific.
Response 4: Both simple and complex eyes are found in mollusks and that proves the eye evolved – see responses 1 and 2.
As for the fallacies: Creationists claim the eye is unevolvable. I can’t speak for all creationists (hope you don’t either), but the argument is that the eye didn’t evolve by natural selection over hundreds of millions of years. Variation within species is known to occur.
Non sequitur – see ‘Fallacy 1. Creationists don’t reject the evolution of the eye because the eye is complex. They reject evolution theory on the evolution of all organisms, both simple and complex. Variation within species does occur, and new species do evolve though not from other species as evolution declares but “each after its kind or species”.
Exclusion: No, intermediate eyes are not ignored. You have not proved those eyes are intermediate stages in a process of evolution.
Argument from incredibility. Not sure which creationists argue “I can’t understand how, so it cannot be evolvable”, but I can respond that evolutionists argue, “We can’t understand or explain how, but it has to be evolvable”.
God of the gaps. "Creationists don’t understand how the eye evolved, so it must have been designed by God." First, this sounds like the classic, “You’re stupid and ignorant if you don’t believe us” argument many evolutionists use. But creationists do understand. They simply don’t believe you. Second, why do creationists need to understand something they believe never happened and that evolutionists admit they can’t explain? Third, they don’t believe in God because evolutionists can’t explain evolution. They believe in God for reasons you may not personally understand, reasons that existed long before evolution came along. rufrankarl@yahoo.com, Nov. 17, 2007.
