Do You Honestly Believe The Human Eye Developed By Chance?

It seems absurd to me, to believe that the Human eye, considered one of the most complex organs of the body, developed by chance.

To quote Charles Darwin himself, "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." 

No I beleive it developed through varible replication guided by natural selection.

And if you finish the Darwin quote you have an entirely different picture.

It seems absurd to me, to believe that the Human eye, considered one of the most complex organs of the body, developed by chance.

To quote Charles Darwin himself, "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." 

Lansdowne5

you realy should look up what the term "Quote mining" means since you seem to do it quite a lot. (I guess you get these quotes from certain websites, I realy advise you to look them up from the actual source and compare what the web page says and what the actual source says in contex. Besides isn't that basicly lying? Giving the makers of the web page a one way ticket to hell by your believes?)

Hey Lansdowne.

Yes I do believe that the human eye developed by chance and I'm afraid that irreducible complexity is quite a half baked effort at disproving evolution. I'll get back to you on this one because I'm pressed for time right now.

@Sitri: I've never heard of varible replication, could you summarize the basis for it? 

@Enosh: I wasn't mining for a good quote, and it wasn't as if that was even the backbone of my argument, all I was demonstrating was how absurd it seemed, before you go into all of the but-ifs, and the theories, and general imaginative speculation. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "giving them a one way ticket to hell", but regardless of that I didn't get it from a website anyway. 

@Domatron: Excellent, I love it when two atheists have different takes on what entails 'chance' in terms of Evolution. Clearly you believe it did take chance.

Now there's actually quite a few reasons why, by mathematical probability anyway, the eye could not possibly have developed by chance.

Firstly, most Evolutionists agree that the eye is a product of mutation. For this to be true, EVERY part of the eye would have had to have evolved at the same time, or else they would not be in harmony with each other. For instance, to function, the eye needs to be moist, therefore tear glands are needed. The cornea, has to be transparent, for light to pass through into the pupil. The light is then reflected onto a lense, which, when the 130 million rods behind it interpret the different colours, the image is sent to the brain. ALL of this, has to be in place, for the eye to work. It's either perfect, or perfectly useless.

Now, I guess to you, it may still seem plausible that this did indeed evolve all at the same time. But going back to mathematical probability for a second, the chance of every part of the eye evolving at the same time to be able to function in harmony with each other, goes beyond what's generally considered human reason. So really, you need pure faith to believe in this. 

Because Evolution only works on the basis that changes happen gradually over time, this development would have to, by Evolutionist standards, have taken millions and millions of years to develop. A blemish to and eye.

So, to believe the eye evolved by chance, you need to believe that over a period of millions and millions of years, the cornea developed by complete chance, the living tissue which makes up the cornea developed by chance, the blood vessels to keep blood flowing throughout it developed by chance, blood cells to protect against disease developed by chance (all happening to be exactly the right type of course), the secretion gland developed by chance, the fluid surrounding the eye developed by chance, and furthermore the eyelid to evenly distribute it developed by chance, which happens to protect the eye in all kinds of conditions, and just so happens to work automatically, and, most amazing of all, two of these string of evolutionary coincidences occurred at the same time!

To quote Robert Jastrow - "It is hard to accept the evolution of the eye as a product of chance; it is even harder to accept the evolution of human intelligence as the product of random disruptions of brain cells in our ancestors."

Remember, we're talking about just the most basic functions of the eye. All of this, would have to be in complete harmony with the millions of other corresponding functions of the body. And it all happened by accident, without any element of design involved whatsoever. To put this into perspective, it would be more likely that a harrier jump jet would build itself over a period of time with aeroplane parts laying in a field, without any intelligent life form to design it, than all of this happening by chance.

Believe if you want, that this all happened by chance. But almost every aspect of this is screaming DESIGN!

The truth of the matter is, our human body is far too complex to have evolved gradually over time. The only way the eye can function is if every mechanism is working at the same time, indicating all parts were created at once.

First off, I think it's hard to be certain to explain exactly how evolution formed an eye, whether it by chance or by design and even if so, how that design was implicated whether it be by a natural force or a force in direct violation of scientific laws. If it is the latter, then it will be very difficult to support any evidence. Either side suffers from the argument from ignorance. In fact, other fallacies that suggest that the eye was created by design would include non sequitor, argument from incredulity, and God of the gaps. Some of these are inclusive to both sides. If, the design was to argue against evolution, then it is also excluding intermediate eyes.

What I believe is that I don't know. I think it could be chance and it could be design but it most certainly was performed via evolution, but is a flip of a coin chance if you can affect its trajectory, the rate at which it spins, and how far it falls in a manner that can already determine the result simply by predesigned instinct? It's an interesting question.

Living replicators such as DNA do not carry a 100% fidelity.  Mutations occur along the way.  Some mutations happen only at the genetypic level and any evolutions of the species are merely academic changes.  However if a phenotypic change occurs (alteration in observable characteristics) then selection can start to take hold.  If this change makes a species more fit for its surroundings it carries a higher probability of passing on those new and improved replicators to offspring.  If that change is detrimental to its fitness then it is less likely to pass on those traits.  If there is a new stronger mutant in the works passing on its genes, then each of its offspring represent a growing population with those same exponential potential of passing on that characteristic.  Do mutations happen by chance?  Well in the way that if you continually throw a dice you will eventually get a six; there is a probability involved that will inevitably be met by a larger number of possible attempts.  Did the eye evolve by chance? No.  If it is a good mutation, selection pressures reward the change, if not, not.  The eye is the result of the systematic rewarding and punishing of alterations over time by natural selection.  

The eye can be traced as a series of smaller steps gradually evolving into the types we see today.  In fact there are many intermediate eyes in other species which give us an exact picture of how it was done.  You can google "evolution of the eye" to get days worth of reading and it is clear that the eye is not an example of irreducible complexity.  For an abbreviated explanation just check out the image results for the same search.  

@Enosh: I wasn't mining for a good quote, and it wasn't as if that was even the backbone of my argument, all I was demonstrating was how absurd it seemed, before you go into all of the but-ifs, and the theories, and general imaginative speculation. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "giving them a one way ticket to hell", but regardless of that I didn't get it from a website anyway. 

Lansdowne5

yes you did, you took a quote by charles darwin and put it ON PURPUOSE out of the contex in order to support your claim, you even wrote that this is a quote by Darwin, which has no other intention than to discredit evolution. If you would have just been demostrating how absurd it is you could have quoted any of the creationist out there but you took the quote by Darwin, without even looking what he wrote in the next paragraph (since you said you didn't the quote from a web page I can only asume you have the book at home or you looked it up in the library), that is a strong display of ignorance on your part.

@Sitri: I've never heard of varible replication, could you summarize the basis for it? 

@Enosh: I wasn't mining for a good quote, and it wasn't as if that was even the backbone of my argument, all I was demonstrating was how absurd it seemed, before you go into all of the but-ifs, and the theories, and general imaginative speculation. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "giving them a one way ticket to hell", but regardless of that I didn't get it from a website anyway. 

@Domatron: Excellent, I love it when two atheists have different takes on what entails 'chance' in terms of Evolution. Clearly you believe it did take chance.

Now there's actually quite a few reasons why, by mathematical probability anyway, the eye could not possibly have developed by chance.

Firstly, most Evolutionists agree that the eye is a product of mutation. For this to be true, EVERY part of the eye would have had to have evolved at the same time, or else they would not be in harmony with each other. For instance, to function, the eye needs to be moist, therefore tear glands are needed. The cornea, has to be transparent, for light to pass through into the pupil. The light is then reflected onto a lense, which, when the 130 million rods behind it interpret the different colours, the image is sent to the brain. ALL of this, has to be in place, for the eye to work. It's either perfect, or perfectly useless.

Now, I guess to you, it may still seem plausible that this did indeed evolve all at the same time. But going back to mathematical probability for a second, the chance of every part of the eye evolving at the same time to be able to function in harmony with each other, goes beyond what's generally considered human reason. So really, you need pure faith to believe in this. 

Because Evolution only works on the basis that changes happen gradually over time, this development would have to, by Evolutionist standards, have taken millions and millions of years to develop. A blemish to and eye.

So, to believe the eye evolved by chance, you need to believe that over a period of millions and millions of years, the cornea developed by complete chance, the living tissue which makes up the cornea developed by chance, the blood vessels to keep blood flowing throughout it developed by chance, blood cells to protect against disease developed by chance (all happening to be exactly the right type of course), the secretion gland developed by chance, the fluid surrounding the eye developed by chance, and furthermore the eyelid to evenly distribute it developed by chance, which happens to protect the eye in all kinds of conditions, and just so happens to work automatically, and, most amazing of all, two of these string of evolutionary coincidences occurred at the same time!

To quote Robert Jastrow - "It is hard to accept the evolution of the eye as a product of chance; it is even harder to accept the evolution of human intelligence as the product of random disruptions of brain cells in our ancestors."

Remember, we're talking about just the most basic functions of the eye. All of this, would have to be in complete harmony with the millions of other corresponding functions of the body. And it all happened by accident, without any element of design involved whatsoever. To put this into perspective, it would be more likely that a harrier jump jet would build itself over a period of time with aeroplane parts laying in a field, without any intelligent life form to design it, than all of this happening by chance.

Believe if you want, that this all happened by chance. But almost every aspect of this is screaming DESIGN!

The truth of the matter is, our human body is far too complex to have evolved gradually over time. The only way the eye can function is if every mechanism is working at the same time, indicating all parts were created at once.

Lansdowne5

1. Evolution does not happen by chance, but by natural selection (and no, it doesn't matter if another  Evolution"ist" uses the word chance out of simple confusion of semantics). What are the chances of a blue SUV passing by your house at 4:15 PM on a Saturday driven by one Caucasian woman in her mid-30's and carrying two boys who each have 6 letters in their first name, and a girl with her hair in pigtails whose birthday is in 2 days? Astronomically slim? Yes. Impossible? Not at all. Chance and probability only apply to situations with controlled variables and a limited number of possible outcomes, not any given event at any time in the entire world.

2. How complex is "too complex", and what other universe are you using as your basis of comparison?

3. Your argument essentially amounts to an Argument From Incredulity, a logical fallacy that if YOU can't understand HOW something happened that means it didn't. Even if Scientists don't know how the eye evolved (which they might, but you'll never find out by getting your "information" from Creationist literature) it wouldn't matter because we have overwhelming evidence that it DID. Not knowing how Stone Henge was accomplished doesn't mean it was put their by aliens.

4. Also, "Evolutionist" isn't really a word. If you're talking about "people who believe in Evolution", you might instead use terms like "Biologist", "Paleontologist", "Anthropologist", "Geneticist", "Geologist", "Botanist", "Taxonomist", "Virologist", "Scientist", or "Person living in a developed country other than the United States". Evolution is Universally Accepted in the Worldwide Scientific Community, so you might as well invent monikers like "Gravitationalist", "Atomicist" or "GeoSphericist".

5. And now, to end this.

Eye evolved through gradual changes and is in fact an on going process because the human eye isn't even the best one of the bunch, from some standpoints and there are obvious room for improvements.

For example:

Blood vessels run across the surface of the retina instead of beneath it, it's easy for the vessels to proliferate or leak and impair vision. So, the evolution theorists say, the anti-evolution argument that life was created by an "intelligent designer" doesn't hold water: If God or some other omnipotent force was responsible for the human eye, it was something of a botched design.

Some animals have eye design that are, in some way, superior to human eye. So it seems that human eyes could still improve in some sectors such as: capability to see far greater shades of colour, capability to see far away objects more clearly and ability to work under water with the kind of ease it enjoys on land.

Some earlier forms of organisms didn't have eyes but simple mechanisms that meets the most basic criterias of a typical vision enabler. LINK. If an intelligent designer is behind all these, why would he put less functional design in them if he had better versions at his disposal?

I know what sitri_ wrote is a bit long but at least have the patience to read. 

Also try reading this.It should give you a substantial idea.

@Sitri: I've never heard of varible replication, could you summarize the basis for it? 

@Enosh: I wasn't mining for a good quote, and it wasn't as if that was even the backbone of my argument, all I was demonstrating was how absurd it seemed, before you go into all of the but-ifs, and the theories, and general imaginative speculation. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "giving them a one way ticket to hell", but regardless of that I didn't get it from a website anyway. 

@Domatron: Excellent, I love it when two atheists have different takes on what entails 'chance' in terms of Evolution. Clearly you believe it did take chance.

Now there's actually quite a few reasons why, by mathematical probability anyway, the eye could not possibly have developed by chance.

Firstly, most Evolutionists agree that the eye is a product of mutation. For this to be true, EVERY part of the eye would have had to have evolved at the same time, or else they would not be in harmony with each other. For instance, to function, the eye needs to be moist, therefore tear glands are needed. The cornea, has to be transparent, for light to pass through into the pupil. The light is then reflected onto a lense, which, when the 130 million rods behind it interpret the different colours, the image is sent to the brain. ALL of this, has to be in place, for the eye to work. It's either perfect, or perfectly useless.

Now, I guess to you, it may still seem plausible that this did indeed evolve all at the same time. But going back to mathematical probability for a second, the chance of every part of the eye evolving at the same time to be able to function in harmony with each other, goes beyond what's generally considered human reason. So really, you need pure faith to believe in this. 

Because Evolution only works on the basis that changes happen gradually over time, this development would have to, by Evolutionist standards, have taken millions and millions of years to develop. A blemish to and eye.

So, to believe the eye evolved by chance, you need to believe that over a period of millions and millions of years, the cornea developed by complete chance, the living tissue which makes up the cornea developed by chance, the blood vessels to keep blood flowing throughout it developed by chance, blood cells to protect against disease developed by chance (all happening to be exactly the right type of course), the secretion gland developed by chance, the fluid surrounding the eye developed by chance, and furthermore the eyelid to evenly distribute it developed by chance, which happens to protect the eye in all kinds of conditions, and just so happens to work automatically, and, most amazing of all, two of these string of evolutionary coincidences occurred at the same time!

To quote Robert Jastrow - "It is hard to accept the evolution of the eye as a product of chance; it is even harder to accept the evolution of human intelligence as the product of random disruptions of brain cells in our ancestors."

Remember, we're talking about just the most basic functions of the eye. All of this, would have to be in complete harmony with the millions of other corresponding functions of the body. And it all happened by accident, without any element of design involved whatsoever. To put this into perspective, it would be more likely that a harrier jump jet would build itself over a period of time with aeroplane parts laying in a field, without any intelligent life form to design it, than all of this happening by chance.

Believe if you want, that this all happened by chance. But almost every aspect of this is screaming DESIGN!

The truth of the matter is, our human body is far too complex to have evolved gradually over time. The only way the eye can function is if every mechanism is working at the same time, indicating all parts were created at once.

 

Lansdowne5

Way to go with your charity of interpretation Lansdowne. I was using "chance" as a synonym for evolution by natural selection in my comment because I figured that that is what you were referring to.

Anyways you're thinking of this in a very ego-centric kind of way, as if the human eye was the end result of something that evolution was consciously striving to form. There's no such thing as a finished product in evolution. You've got to realise that the development of the human eye was based around sight (or photosensitivity of some form) not the eye itself.

yes you did, you took a quote by charles darwin and put it ON PURPUOSE out of the contex in order to support your claim, you even wrote that this is a quote by Darwin, which has no other intention than to discredit evolution. If you would have just been demostrating how absurd it is you could have quoted any of the creationist out there but you took the quote by Darwin, without even looking what he wrote in the next paragraph (since you said you didn't the quote from a web page I can only asume you have the book at home or you looked it up in the library), that is a strong display of ignorance on your part.

Enosh88

I didn't put it out of context, I used that part of the quote to show the obvious absurdity before you try and go into a speculative explanation. It makes sense if you already know what he goes on to say. Yes, I could have quoted any creationist, but Darwin just so happened to have a good quote on the subject, so I used it as a demonstration. Ignorance on my part, or misunderstanding of the quote's actual purpose on your part?

Way to go with your charity of interpretation Lansdowne. I was using "chance" as a synonym for evolution by natural selection in my comment because I figured that that is what you were referring to.

Anyways you're thinking of this in a very ego-centric kind of way, as if the human eye was the end result of something that evolution was consciously striving to form. There's no such thing as a finished product in evolution. You've got to realise that the development of the human eye was based around sight (or photosensitivity of some form) not the eye itself.

domatron23

That's not the point, the point is that for this process to have happened it must have happened gradually over millions of years. Yet for the eye to function, all parts must be actively working in conjuction with each other. If each part developed gradually, the eye would not be able to function, and therefore the animal would have no sight, inevitably dieing out because of it. 

Living replicators such as DNA do not carry a 100% fidelity.  Mutations occur along the way.  Some mutations happen only at the genetypic level and any evolutions of the species are merely academic changes.  However if a phenotypic change occurs (alteration in observable characteristics) then selection can start to take hold.  If this change makes a species more fit for its surroundings it carries a higher probability of passing on those new and improved replicators to offspring.  If that change is detrimental to its fitness then it is less likely to pass on those traits.  If there is a new stronger mutant in the works passing on its genes, then each of its offspring represent a growing population with those same exponential potential of passing on that characteristic.  Do mutations happen by chance?  Well in the way that if you continually throw a dice you will eventually get a six; there is a probability involved that will inevitably be met by a larger number of possible attempts.  Did the eye evolve by chance? No.  If it is a good mutation, selection pressures reward the change, if not, not.  The eye is the result of the systematic rewarding and punishing of alterations over time by natural selection.  

The eye can be traced as a series of smaller steps gradually evolving into the types we see today.  In fact there are many intermediate eyes in other species which give us an exact picture of how it was done.  You can google "evolution of the eye" to get days worth of reading and it is clear that the eye is not an example of irreducible complexity.  For an abbreviated explanation just check out the image results for the same search.  

Sitri_

Yes, it's all very interesting, of course there's no way this can possibly be known, because it can neither be studied nor tested. What we do know however, is that there is no record of indifferently designed eyes.

I fully get the 'idea' of intermiate stages of the eye throughout evolutionary history. But how do you explain the aggregate eye? Creatures which supposedly died out millions of years ago, such as marine athropods, which are mistakenly thought to be 'primitive' creatures have eyes constructed on the basis of precise optical engineering principles which people only discovered a few centuries ago. How do you explain that?

[QUOTE="domatron23"]

Way to go with your charity of interpretation Lansdowne. I was using "chance" as a synonym for evolution by natural selection in my comment because I figured that that is what you were referring to.

Anyways you're thinking of this in a very ego-centric kind of way, as if the human eye was the end result of something that evolution was consciously striving to form. There's no such thing as a finished product in evolution. You've got to realise that the development of the human eye was based around sight (or photosensitivity of some form) not the eye itself.

Lansdowne5

That's not the point, the point is that for this process to have happened it must have happened gradually over millions of years. Yet for the eye to function, all parts must be actively working in conjuction with each other. If each part developed gradually, the eye would not be able to function, and therefore the animal would have no sight, inevitably dieing out because of it. 

This is what I mean by ego-centric thinking. Don't think about how the eye developed think about how sight developed and you will see (unintentional pun).

Regarding topic: I find it absurd that you DON'T believe in things that seem, to me, to be simple logic and part of ACTUAL REALITY. Evidenced simply by my interaction with my experience in life and the world so far. I mean that in the least offensive way possible my friend.

I believe in evolution. I believe in science. I believe in mathematics, logic and process of elimination. I believe in what I can sense via my 5 senses. I believe in what I cannot "see" but CAN learn about via processes like atom smashing. Things that, while unseen have an obvious affect. I have FAITH that scientists are telling the world what they believe to be the truth (when they don't have an agenda). I like the humbleness of the PURE practice of science. Never claiming anything to be 100% fact but only the most probable theory. I like how a true scientist isn't just trying to prove them-self right, but always trying to prove their theory wrong. Searching not for glory or power but simply for truth. Lastly, I find it sad that "religious" people usually do not have the same humility to put aside dogma and TRULY open their minds. Fundamentalism of any kind is never a good thing.

"The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing" - Socrates

Anyhoo, does any of that make sense? :P

Hard to believe, of course. But I find it exponentially more difficult to accept that all of humanity is the result of the union of the first (and in that myth, the only) human couple, or that a god of some sort simply willed everything we know into existence, now that is absurd.

The fact remains that as complicated as the human eye, respiratory system, or circulatory system is, the most logical and so-far most logical explanation is evolution. And to be honest, I expect that to remain a fact, as the opposing claims continue to assault evolution, while continuously lacking the evidence to back up any of their claims. Do Creationists not see the growing futility of their argument?

Oh, and kudos to sitri_ and creepy_mike, interesting posts.

Yes, it's all very interesting, of course there's no way this can possibly be known, because it can neither be studied nor tested. What we do know however, is that there is no record of indifferently designed eyes.

I fully get the 'idea' of intermiate stages of the eye throughout evolutionary history. But how do you explain the aggregate eye? Creatures which supposedly died out millions of years ago, such as marine athropods, which are mistakenly thought to be 'primitive' creatures have eyes constructed on the basis of precise optical engineering principles which people only discovered a few centuries ago. How do you explain that?

Lansdowne5

.....It has been studied and tested ad nausem.  Did you look up Evolution of the Eye?

I am not sure what you mean by there is no record of indifferently designed eyes?  Natural selection is not an entirely indifferent process, it is driven by fittness in relation to outside pressure.

The varied stages of the eyes today are based on different relative selection pressures and mutation at the species level.  Newly found creatures with the more primitive eye either never received that mutation at a species level or when they did the added effect of some graduated step did not promote the fitness in relation to selection pressures imposed on that creature enough to overcome the effects of random drift on small population.  IE if the octopus gets along just as well with eye 2.7 as 2.8, those 2.8 models likely don't out-breed the 2.7s enough to make a permanent change in the population and the trait is lost.  Random drift can compete with natural selection; the smaller the population, the greater the effect of random drift.

That it seems absurd to you is irrelevant.Funky_Llama

I never claimed it wasn't. . . . 

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]That it seems absurd to you is irrelevant.Lansdowne5

I never claimed it wasn't. . . . 

[QUOTE="Lansdowne5"]

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]That it seems absurd to you is irrelevant.Funky_Llama

I never claimed it wasn't. . . . 

Why would I imply that 'my' opinion was relevant? It has no bearing on the topic at all. . . :|

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="Lansdowne5"]

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]That it seems absurd to you is irrelevant.Lansdowne5

I never claimed it wasn't. . . . 

Why would I imply that 'my' opinion was relevant? It has no bearing on the topic at all. . . :|