Christianity · creationism · evolution · religion · science

The eyes don’t lie, or, how the eyes disprove evolution

The human eye is part of an intricate system that when broken down and examined shows that the Darwinist version of natural selection (macroevolution) is not possible.

How does vision work?

In order for vision to occur, light must first pass through the cornea, then through the aqueous humor (a layer of watery liquid). The light then passes the opening in the iris called the pupil, goes through the transparent lens (which is held in place by the ciliary muscle), passes through the vitreous humor (a gel-like material), and finally reaches the retina at the rear of the eyeball.

The retina is made up of layers of nerve cells, rod and cone cells, and pigment cells. When light hits the rod and cone cells of the retina, they send impulses to the nerve cells. These nerve cells organize some introductory information about the image and relay impulses received from the rod and cone cells to the back of the brain (the occipital lobes) where the visual cortex is located. When the image reaches the retina from the lens, it is flipped horizontally and is upside down from how it is in real life. The visual cortex somehow uses its nerve cells to contact other nerve cells in the brain that are in close proximity to correct the image’s orientation so that the mental image is displayed as it appears in real life, which completes the vision process.

Variety of pupils in animals

In order for evolution to be proven, there must be an obvious pattern in how the eye in simple animals like fish developed into the eye of more complex creatures like mammals. However no trends appear when one studies eye shape, eyelids, pupils, the lens, or even rod and cone cells.

For example, evolutionists consider the shark to be the primitive ancestors of bony fish. Yet a study of the pupils in sharks’ eyes show that they have the ability to contract their pupils to protect their eyes when bright light is encountered. But bony fish, which are considered more advanced in the evolutionary line, do not have contracting pupils. Their pupil sizes are fixed.

Both sharks and bony fish live in the same environment, so why is it that bony fish do not have the more advanced contracting pupils that their “ancestors” the sharks have? And how is that bony fish were stuck with fixed pupils when their “descendants” the amphibians and land vertebrates managed to end up with contracting pupils? And why is there a variation in the types of pupils within the same families of animals?  There are lizards and snakes with vertical pupils and lizards and snakes with round pupils. Chameleons have eyes that rotate in any direction independently of each other with circular pupils while vertical pupils are in the eyes of crocodiles.

And if macroevolution claims that animals develop specific body parts like pupils  to survive in specific environments, why is there so much diversity in the types of pupils within the same environment? Shouldn’t there be fewer types if useless traits are supposed to be lost during the macroevolutionary process? In fact, the diversity shows that Darwinists’ idea of natural selection isn’t valid since the pupils these animals have aren’t necessary for their survival.

Variety of eyelids in creatures

Another curiosity about eyes is the presence or lack of eyelids. A great number of sharks have both upper and lower eyelids. But bony fish, who according to Darwinists descended from sharks and are supposed to be more advanced, don’t have eyelids.

Some creatures have an additional eyelid that moves horizontally across the eye known as the nictitating membrane. Darwinists have claimed this third eyelid was developed in early life forms to help them see in the primordial sea. However, only a few sharks have a nictitating membrane while bony fish and amphibians are lacking it.

There are also mammals like cows, dogs, and cats that have this third eyelid but humans don’t.  Since the nictitating membrane is utterly useless for seeing in any type of environment, it should have disappeared somewhere along the way, according to the principles of Darwinism. The fact that the third eyelid still exists seems to point out that these creatures either have not been around for the millions of years that Darwinists claim they have or that Darwinism just isn’t true or both.

Interactive systems rely on each other to function

Eyeballs in mammals have to have certain operations happening at the same time in order for vision to occur. The existence of the aqueous humor depends on fluid filtered from the blood. The aqueous humor must also be flushed out into veins in the eye so fresh liquid can continually replace it. There has to be a precise amount of pressure allowing for new fluid to flow in the aqueous humor at the same time the old fluid is flushed out.

So a system is required to be in place for this fluid to flow out of the mammal eye before fluid can flow into it. The two systems rely on each other. Therefore, the idea in Darwin’s natural selection that the eye went through stages of mutation from less advanced cells to acquire the functions it has today just does not ring true. For the eye to function, all of the systems it depends on–from the brain to the veins to the nerves to the eye socket to the parts of the eyeball–would all have to have been in place at the same exact time. This fact (that every part must be in place all at the same time) is known as “irreducible complexity.”

The brain and consciousness

As I mentioned earlier, the final stage before vision can occur is the communication of nerve cells in the visual cortex with nerve cells nearby in other parts of the brain. Although it is known that these cells communicate and how they communicate, it is not known how these communications become what we know as thinking, memory, and consciousness. These three components are required for vision, but we only know that they exist and not how. Since there is no way of knowing how consciousness exists, it is foolish to say that it evolved. It could not have evolved and no science exists that can rightfully claim it evolved.

Consciousness is a self-evident, physically-intangible thing that is required for vision to occur. Because it did not evolve and vision cannot occur without it, then it stands to reason every physical component in the eye could not have evolved. The whole visual system is irreducibly complex, as I said above.

Taking into account all of this evidence, what Genesis says is more believable than what evolutionists say–

And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.  And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. Genesis 1:24-25

Source: Vij Sodera. One Small Speck to Man: the Evolution Myth. [London?]: Vij Sodera Productions. 2nd ed. revised. 2009. pp. 320-353.

posted by Harry A. Gaylord

Advertisements

5 thoughts on “The eyes don’t lie, or, how the eyes disprove evolution

    1. Or instead of trying to guess whether or not these books are worth the money to spend on them, give some quotes in your comments that deal with the subject I’ve highlighted here so we can have an idea of what these books say. As Dr. Vij Sodera says in his book on p. 350 “…we have no idea how the microscopic activity of single neurones or simple nerve reflexes translates into the phenomena [of]… thinking, memory and consciousness. …while an intact brain is essential for consciousness to properly manifest, that does not mean that consciousness is simply and only the sum total of the neuronal intercommunications… It is far more mysterious than that and may well be…inexplicable simply in terms of our current understanding of neuronal interconnections and brain chemistry. …this is a complete unknown. …Since we have no understanding of consciousness (and therefore of whether it could or could not have evolved), there is no scientific basis to claim that it is the result of evolution.” (emphases in original)

      There simply is no way for a brain to know ahead of time that it will need consciousness, thinking, memory, and all of the subsystems contributing to the eye to have vision functioning. Anyone claiming they know is simply lying and telling fairy tales. This knowledge has to come from an intelligence outside of the whole visual system and outside of the creatures that have a visual system.

      Like

  1. Nice looking blog. Can you tell me what template and fonts you used. Looks really elegant.

    I had heard a radio talk show host dedicate an hour program just toward the eye and how it defines creation. There were two scientist (I believe they were both didn’t have any position on religion or a higher power) who studied the human eye for about a year and couldn’t come to any conclusion other than that it had to be created and not something that evolved.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s