Quote:
Originally Posted by stuck_in_chuk
And the vast majority of extinct species that have ever lived on this planet argues against the higher power. What is it, more than 99% of all species that have ever lived are extinct?
|
That same argument is used to point to a huge climate altering event namely: a flood. The fossil record is a record of extinction. Mass extinction starting right after the flood and then slowing but continuing to this day.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stuck_in_chuk
It also needs to be pointed out that the human heart may be a beautiful and complex creation, but that precursors over time were simpler and less 'beautiful'. The eye is a good example of something that seems impossibly complex, but which is well understood through the process of natural selection. Here is a quick video explaining the evolution of the eye. No creator necessary.
In short, we (and our individual components) are so complex as a result of our extinct ancestors being less complex. |
Embryological evolution was something that was considered a solid proof of evolution when I went to school. They had discovered that in the early stages of human development the embryo has what appears to be a tail. It later disappears. The thought of the day was that they were seeing a glimpse of the tail mankind sported earlier in his development. Turns out they were wrong. What they thought was a tail was part of the spinal column. The developing legs move down the body. The "tail" doesn't disappear at all but rather the body grows around it. Hopefully the powers that be have gotten around to correcting the text books.
The eyes develop in the embryo as part of the brain and move out towards the eye sockets later in the developing baby. They are not part of the spinal cord or the nervous system. The problem with the supposed links to the developing human eye is that none of them originate anywhere near the brain. They can't be part of the development of the human eye. Actually even if they had a direct connection to the brain it would be a huge jump to consider them as links to the development of the eye. The eye works differently. The theory that the eye evolved relatively quickly is being flogged because there is no evidence of said development. One would expect to see evidence of development if millions of years were involved. Also two holes in the skull are hardly a beneficial trait for survival. Anything less than functioning eyes in those holes would be a distinct disadvantage in nature.
Bottom line: Believing science has found plausible evidence of the development of the human eye is akin to believing Christ made an appearance in your cheese grilled sandwich. You've got to use your imagination, look at it from just the right angle, and really want it to be true.