The eye is too complex to have evolved

From EvoWiki

Contents 1 Claim 2 Source 3 Responses 4 Fallacies contained in this claim 5 External Links 6 References 7 Further Reading 8 Related claims 9 See Also 10 Acknowledgments

Claim

The eye is too complex to have evolved.

Source

• Hitching, Francis, 1982. The Neck of the Giraffe, Meri dian, NY, pp. 66-68.
• Brown, Walt, n.d. 20 Questions for evolutionists. [1]

Responses

1. Charles Darwin already listed many different stages of eye evolution in the Origin of Species. Trying to picture the eye as far from any possible evolutionary path ignores well-known facts.
2. There is evidence that the eye in fact evolved. The squid and octopus have a retina that is the reverse of vertebrates' retinae. Our optic nerve and blood supply to the eye pass through the retina and feed it from the inside. The squid's eye is supplied and attached from the back. Squid and octopuses lack the blind spot that all vertebrates have due to the entry point of the nerve. The superficial similiarities of retinas between taxa, but structurally identical retinas within taxa is a good example of the type of hierarchy that common descent would produce.
3. Scientists' inability to explain eye evolution in detail does not demonstrate that the eye can't evolve or that the mechanisms of evolution are incapable of generating the complexity of the eye. This alleged inability also can not invalidate other examples of evolution, either.
4. Molluscan eyes alone, present a huge spectrum of both primitive and complex eyes, from the primitive eye-cups of limpets, the lens-less eyes of scallops, and the pin-hole camera eyes of the nautilus, to the lens-camera eyes of squid, octopi and murexes.
5. add more responses

Fallacies contained in this claim

• Argument from Ignorance (Scientists have difficulty explaining eye evolution, so it must be unevolvable)
• Non Sequitur (The eye is complex, so it must be unevolvable)
• Exclusion (intermediate eyes are ignored)
• Argument from incredulity (I can't understand how, so it can not be)
• God of the gaps (I can't understand how the eye evolved, so the eye was intelligently designed by God)
• add fallacies

External Links

• Lindsay, Don, 1998. How long would the fish eye take to evolve? [2]
• EMBL press release, Oct. 28, 2004. Darwin's greatest challenge tackled: The mystery of eye evolution. [3]

References

1. Darwin, C., 1872. The Origin of Species, 1st Edition. Senate, London, chpt. 6, [4]
2. Nilsson, D-E. & Pelger, S., 1994. A pessimistic estimate of the time required for an eye to evolve. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 256: 53-58.
3. Arendt D., Tessmar-Raible K., Snyman H., Dorresteijn A.W., Wittbrodt J. 2004.Ciliary photoreceptors with vertebrate-type opsins in an invertebrate brain. Science. 2004 Oct 29;306(5697):869-71.

Further Reading

• Land MF & Nilsson D-E (2001) Animal Eyes, Oxford University Press.

Related claims

• What use is half an eye?
• Complex organs couldn't have evolved
• The ear is too complex to have evolved
• The brain is too complex to have evolved
• The bombardier beetle is too complex to have evolved
• Butterfly metamorphosis is too complex to have evolved
• The giraffe neck couldn't evolve without a special circulatory system
• The woodpecker tongue couldn't have evolved
• Organs and organ systems would be useless until all parts are in place
• Snake venom and hollow fangs couldn't have evolved simultaneously
• Sex can't have evolved

See Also

• Why is Creationism not a Scientific Theory?

Acknowledgments