important subjects that neither Darwin nor the Darwinists who came
after him have been able to explain. With his primitive, 19th century
level of knowledge Darwin was sufficiently alarmed to say that the eye
"gives me a cold shudder." Under the influence of that increasing
alarm, present-day Darwinists have sought the solutionin claiming that
the eye is not irreducibly complex at all. That is the claim of Celal
Sengor.Claiming that even unicellular protozoa have light-sensitive
structures, Sengor, suggests that these are primitive eyes, and that
complex eyes evolved from these so-called primitive eyes. But this
suggestion is invalid because;
- A light-sensitive cell is not, as Sengor andother
Darwinists maintain, a primitive eye. In the same way that Darwinists
cannot explain the emergence of single-celled protozoa, neither can
they account for the light-sensitive structures they possess.
Indeed, even Darwin, who was not totally aware in his day of the
complexity of the structures in question, made the following
admission: How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns
us more than how life itselforiginated. i
- In order for "sight" to be able to arise, even in its
simplestform, it is essential that some of a living thing's cells
become light-sensitive, that these possess the ability to transfer
that sensitivity to electrical signals, that a special nerve network
from these cells to the brain form and that a "visual cortex" capable
of analyzing this information appear in the brain.
- A light-sensitive cell is not the first or a primitive eye.
The idea that a complex eye gradually evolved from this cell is a
deception. The eye of the trilobite, which lived 530 million years
ago in the Cambrian Period when all the characteristics of living
things and complex life forms appeared, is IDENTICAL tothe perfect
faceted eye of the present-day fly and dragonfly. ALL THAT LIVED
BEFORE THAT TIME WERE BACTERIA. There is no question of any
light-sensitive cell or any transition from it.
- The perfect human eye is far too complex that makes it
impossible for all its components to have evolved separately. The 40
separate parts that make up the eye have toexist together in order for
the eye to see.
- The retina is described as the most complex tissue in the
body. Millions of cells bind together on the retina to constitute a
miniature brain. It is impossible for even the retinal layer in the
eye alone to have come into being spontaneously and by chance.
- The cornea and the retina constantly move in tiny circles
just about a thousandth of a millimeter in diameter. Ifthose movements
alone were to stop, the light-sensitive cells in the retina would
immediately freeze and stop sending information to the brain.That
would lead to the image being perceived disappearing within seconds.
- Just the absence of ocular fluid is enough for the eye to
stop working.
- The reason why images are of such a quality is that the
movements and colors inthe images are constantly refreshed, right down
to the finest detail, and "a slice of motion" takes place at an
unbelievable speed, without our ever being aware of it.
- The efficiency and flawlessness of our eyes and brain are
incomparably greater than that of any device or equipment invented to
date.
- The 40 different parts that make up the eye act together to
collect 1.5 million electrical signals in one millisecond deliver them
to their destination and interpret them. Dozens of super-computers
would have to be flawlessly programmed and work together, never making
a mistake, in order to perform the same function.
Darwin, troubled even with his 19th century level of knowledge and
technology, made the following admissions:
To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for
adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different
amounts of light, and forthe correction of spherical and chromatic
aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I
freely confess, ABSURD IN THE HIGHEST DEGREE. ii
The eye to this day gives me a cold shudder, but when I think of the
fine known gradations, my reason tells me I ought to conquer the cold
shudder. iii
The recur to the eye. I really think it would have been dishonest, not
to have faced the difficulty. iv
If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which
could not possiblyhave been formed by numerous, successive, slight
modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. v
Richard Dawkins, similarly alarmed in the face of such an
extraordinary and irreducibly complex organ as the eye, confesses:
But it must be gradual when it is being used to explain the coming
into existence of complicated, APPARENTLYDESIGNED OBJECTS, like eyes.
For if it is not gradual in these cases, ITCEASES TO HAVE ANY
EXPLANATORY POWER AT ALL. Without gradualnessin these cases, we are
back to miracle, which issimply a synonym for thetotal absence of
explanation. iv
i Charles Darwin, Origin of Species, New York: New York University Press, p. 151
ii Charles Darwin, Origin of Species, Onur Publishing, Ankara,1996, p.198
iii Francis Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. II, p. 67
iv Francis Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. II, p. 84
v Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, Chapter VI. "Difficulties of
the Theory."
vi Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden, New York: Basic Books, 1995, p.
83 - - ▓███▓ Translator:-> http://translate.google.com/m/ ▓███▓
- -
No comments:
Post a Comment