.
.
S i t e  S e a r c h

A_B_C_D_E_F_G_H_I_J_K_L_M_N_O_P_Q_R_S_T_U_V_W_XYZ

List of Topics__Ask Suby__Free Stuff__Questions Lists
Terms of Use__________________Privacy Policy

C r e a t i o n  I n d e x

C r e a t i o n  p a g e  4 4

Where is the evidence in the scientific literature that natural selection working on mutation can produce an eye? How many times did the eye develop? And why different each time? Why didn't evolution stop at one that worked? And then, why would it develop the same ability different ways?.Psalms 2:4 "He that sits in the heavens shall.(word 'shall' not in Bible, in the original, anywhere).laugh. The Lord shall have them in derision."

The marvelous eye with its ability to adjust, recognize colors, respond to intensities, detect contrast, delineating depth and edges.(or you might not become aware of the danger when approaching a precipice), maintain clarity whether the object of attention is motionless or moving. Amazing!

Try it! Look at a parked car. Then at one moving. It seems simple enough until one considers the underlying mathematical complexities.

The Creator designed our systems to provide as little concern to us as possible as we express through the part of us we call a physical body, so that we could concentrate on the why of being here. But instead we press on with research to understand all the fine points of existence. An example.

Peoples' living conditions in many parts of the world remain severely impaired, yet hundreds of millions of dollars continue to pour into projects such as war to bring peace and poisons to bring health, like duh! What wisdom is shown in so many of man's projects? Poisons to bring health? Hmmm!

An understanding of the Creator would enable a large chunk of research money to be directed towards the eradication of poverty, ill health and insufficient living conditions.

Darwin didn't understand many underlying complex factors supporting the mechanism of the eye, such as how to account for the properties of retinal.ganglion cells. But, we do today!

It is said that there would be at least forty different stages of evolution required for the eye to come into being. What possible benefit could there be for the first 30 stages? If they were sufficient, why the need for more change? And if rudimentary, then Darwinian evolution would remove these 'inferior' physical precursor types, since serving no presently useful purpose within the evolutionary framework renders them unnecessary. 

Did the eye develop sensitivity to the frequencies of light, enabling us to see, because it had some built in intelligence that said, Hey, I need light. I think there is something to see out there, so I'll adapt my function to the frequencies of light, give myself enough time for alteration to perfection? and then said, 'now let's see, what are those frequencies and how can I adapt to them?' Evolution, would have us believe that where there is desire.(such as the desire to see), there exists automatic adaption, given enough time, of course. The eye's.(with the brain).marvelous ability just goes on and on. More information on it is continually being discovered.

Did the eye develop sensitivity to the frequencies of light, enabling sensitivity to the day night cycles that trigger melatonin production? The pineal gland of the brain tapers its production of this sleep hormone after receiving an electrical message from the retina through the optic nerve and the suprachiasmatic structure nucleus.(SCN).

Ever try this with your eyelids or this?

We see color because the cones of human eyes are responsive to the red to violet range of the electromagnetic spectrum. Such balance of integrated design, with the atmosphere nicely transparent in that range. Design everywhere:.Psalms 14:1 "...The fool has said in his heart, There is no God..."

Did the eye have the intelligence to determine the exact pressure of the jelly-like substance.(vitreous humor).to keep the eyeball distended and to know how to use the aqueous humor to separate the cornea from the crystalline lens? Did the eye somehow have just enough intelligence to predetermine that it was important that both the humors be transparent? Aren't you glad opaque wasn't a word in the eye's vocabulary?

Evolution would have us believe that the unspecified period of 'given enough time' produces change and that life today is derived from earlier forms.

If we are the culmination of many stages of evolution over much time, then evolution has failed in developing a needed third eye in the backs of our heads, so that we could be warned of anything sneaking up on us to eat us and doom the species. And why not four ears, two pointing backwards, so we could hear things better in back of us?

Our design limits us in many ways, for reasons only the designer knows. We can't see all there is to see, hear all there is to hear and smell all we may need to smell.(example, carbon monoxide), even for our own safety.

The mathematician D.S. Ulam argues that it was highly improbable that the eye could have evolved by the accumulation of small mutations, because and without taking into consideration the many complex processes necessary to achieve vision, the number of mutations would have to be so large and the time available was not nearly long enough for them to appear. And with mutations there are serious problems.
 


.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
*