“Could the eye have evolved from a single light-sensitive spot, as evolutionists claim? First, even a ‘simple’ light sensitive spot that can actually discern and interpret light is incredibly complicated and could not have evolved by chance. Biologist Michael Behe observes: ‘We are invited by Dawkins and Darwin to believe that the evolution of the eye proceeded step-by-step through a series of plausible intermediates in infinitesimal increments. But are they infinitesimal? Remember that the ‘light-sensitive spot’ that Dawkins takes as his starting point requires a cascade of factors, including 11-cis-retinal and rhodopsin, to function. Dawkins doesn’t mention them. And where did the ‘little cup’ come from? A ball of cells--from which the cup must be made--will tend to be rounded unless held in the correct shape by molecular supports. In fact, there are dozens of complex proteins involved in maintaining cell shape, and dozens more that control extracellular structure; in their absence, cells take on the shape of so many soap bubbles. Do these structures represent single-step mutations? Dawkins did not tell us how the apparently simple cup shape came to be. And although he reassures us that any translucent material would be an improvement we are not told how difficult it is to produce a simple lens. In short, Dawkins’ explanation is only addressed to the level of what is called gross anatomy. Biochemistry has demonstrated that any biological apparatus involving more than one cell (such as an organ or a tissue) is necessarily an intricate web of many different, identifiable systems of horrendous complexity. Not only is the eye exceedingly complex, but the light-sensitive spot with which Dawkins begins his case is itself a multi-celled organ, each of whose cells makes the complexity of a motorcycle or television set look paltry in comparison. Richard Dawkins can simplify to his heart’s content, because he wants to convince his readers that Darwinian evolution is a breeze. In order to understand the barriers to evolution, however, we have to bite the bullet of complexity’ (Behe, Darwin’s Black Box). Second, the eye appears in the fossil record in great variety and amazing complexity (e.g., trilobite and shrimp eyes), far beyond a ‘simple light spot.’ There is zero evidence that complex eyes evolved from simple eyes. Further, not only does sight require exceedingly complicated biological machinery, but there must be the accompanying intelligence to interpret the light signals and this must be coordinated with further complex systems that enable the creature to do something with the information. Darwinists have never demonstrated how these things evolved. They only propose ‘just-so’ stories.” Seeing the Non-existent: Evolution’s Myths and Hoaxes, David Cloud Comments are closed.
|
Archives
February 2020
|