The invalidity of the claims that the eye is not an irreducibly complex structure and that the eye evolved

With its perfect, irreducible complexity, the eye is one of the most 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 solution in 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 and other 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 itself originated. i

-          In order for “sight” to be able to arise, even in its simplest form, 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 to the 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 to exist 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. If those 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 in the 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 for the 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 possibly have 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, APPARENTLY DESIGNED OBJECTS, like eyes. For if it is not gradual in these cases, IT CEASES TO HAVE ANY EXPLANATORY POWER AT ALL. Without gradualness in these cases, we are back to miracle, which is simply a synonym for the total 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