From self-replicating proteins to complex multicellular organisms, life has come a long way since its inception billions of years ago. Today, there are an estimated 8.7 million species on earth that thrive in various environments. Life can adapt to any change and this was conclusively proven through several mass extinctions which occurred during various time periods in the earth’s 4.5 billion year history.
The things that we take for granted, such as our sense organs, is assumed to be the result of billions of years of evolution, however this idea is central in representations of evolution, but mutations can only cause changes in existing information. There can be no increase in information, and in general the results are injurious. New blueprints for new functions or new organs cannot arise; mutations cannot be source of new (creative) information . Scientists have postulated that the evolution of sense organs pre-date limbs, bones and even some cell-organelles, however there is not a single piece of evidence that proves organs and even cell-organelles were evolved from one another.
The well-known evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould admits the facts regarding mutations:
You don’t make new species by mutating the species . . .A mutation is not the cause of evolutionary change
The sense of touch is considered to be the very first sense to evolve by a huge number of people, moreover mutations do alter already existing structures, but in a completely disordered manner. Mutations have no complementary properties and have no cumulative effects toward any particular objective. Pierre Paul Grassé, former president of the French Academy of Sciences, says this about mutations’ effects:
As soon as some disorder, even slight, appears in an organized being, sickness, then death follow. There is no possible compromise between the phenomenon of life and anarchy.
An ancient single cellular organism would respond if something brushed by it – either by moving closer to it (prey) or moving away from it (predator). The next sense believed to evolve was hypothesised to be the eyes. Primitive single-celled bacteria would probably have photosensitive proteins inside their cells, which could only detect the difference between darkness and light, but the eye is made up of many different layers and components, but works as a whole, such that the absence of any layer or component renders it blind. The cornea, iris, lens, retina, pupil muscles, pigments, tear glands, disinfectants contained in tears, the cone and rod cells, the nerves taking signals from these cells to the brain and the advanced visual center at the back of the brain—all are integral aspects of the visual system without which we cannot see.
This is true. Analyzing the eye, it is clear that without tear glands to regularly keep its surface clean, without a pupil to adjust the amount of light hitting the protective cornea, or without the lens to focus light on the retina’s 130 million cone and rod cells, the eye would not be able to function at all.
Also worth noting is that excavated fossils show us that the eye has remained unchanged. Investigations on the eye structure of certain creatures have revealed that for millions of years, there has been no change to the seeing organs of even cephalopods. For example, a 155-million-year-old octopus fossil excavated in Ardèche in Southern France in 1983 is identical to the octopuses of today. This is solid evidence that the species has remained unchanged—its eyes included—for 155 million years. There has been no evolution involved.
Beginning of the Arms Race
Fast forward a few billion years into the Cambrian Period and we have assumed a concrete evidence of organisms that possessed image-forming eyes. This event triggered an arms race – which simply put, is an evolutionary “battle” between predators and prey, where organisms constantly adapt and evolve measures that help them to either catch prey, compete for food and territory, or avoid predators, however even the evolutionists cannot use the theory of evolution to explain the eye’s existence. Evolutionary scientists have discovered that the theory does not apply to the eye. Therefore, they’ve resorted to calling it “the miracle of evolution.”
On this matter, Professor Ali Demirsoy, one of Turkey’s leading evolutionist scientists, says the following:
The formation of a complete eye [including the mammal eye] was no more than a few hundred million years ago. It is a miracle of evolution that this complex organ formed in such a short period of time.
Evolutionists claim evolution to be a “force of nature,” and a miracle is something beyond nature. But how can one expect from nature something “beyond nature”? Since there are hundreds of other mechanisms in the human body just as astounding as the eye, shouldn’t it be accepted that the human body as a whole is a miracle?
The fact that eye works as a whole, and that it is too interconnected to have “evolved” over time has put evolutionary scientists into a difficult situation. Professor Demirsoy describes this situation, in the same essay, as follows:
It is rather hard to reply to a third objection… How could such a complicated organ possibly come about suddenly, even though it brought benefits with it? For example, how did the lens, retina, optic nerve, and all the other parts that play a role in seeing in vertebrates suddenly emerge? Natural selection cannot choose separately between the visual nerve and the retina. In the absence of a retina, the presence of a lens offers no advantage. The simultaneous development of all the structures for sight is inevitable. Since parts that develop separately are wholly useless, they will both be meaningless, and also perhaps disappear with time. At the same time, their simultaneous development requires the coming together of unimaginably small probabilities
Explore more interesting topics from human anatomy, photosynthesis and nitrogen cycle to the nervous system, circulatory system and more at BYJU’S. Alternatively, visit their YouTube channel to discover more fascinating science-related contents.