Replies

I call it laziness. A wikipedia article certainly does not answer Christian responses to the so-called "simplicity" of even light sensitive spots. For example:

"The basic light-processing unit of eyes is the photoreceptor cell, a specialized cell containing two types of molecules in a membrane: the opsin, a light-sensitive protein, surrounding the chromophore, a pigment that distinguishes colors. Groups of such cells are termed "eyespots", and have evolved independently somewhere between 40 and 65 times."

Your Wiki article makes it sound downright simple, and certainly doesn't explain how this evolved "independdently somewhere between 40 to 65 times." Actually there are a whole lot more proteins and difficulties to be faced for the Evolutionist in this process:

When light first strikes the retina a photon interacts with a molecule called 11-cis-retinal, which rearranges within picoseconds to trans-retinal. (A picosecond [10–12 sec] is about the time it takes light to travel the breadth of a single human hair.) The change in the shape of the retinal molecule forces a change in the shape of the protein, rhodopsin, to which the retinal is tightly bound. The protein's metamorphosis alters its behavior. Now called metarhodopsin II, the protein sticks to another protein, called transducin. Before bumping into metarhodopsin II, transducin had tightly bound a small molecule called GDP. But when transducin interacts with metarhodopsin II, the GDP falls off, and a molecule called GTP binds to transducin. (GTP is closely related to, but different from, GDP.) GTP-transducin-metarhodopsin II now binds to a protein called phosphodiesterase, located in the inner membrane of the cell. When attached to metarhodopsin II and its entourage, the phosphodiesterase acquires the chemical ability to “cut” a molecule called cGMP (a chemical relative of both GDP and GTP). Initially there are a lot of cGMP molecules in the cell, but the phosphodiesterase lowers its concentration, just as a pulled plug lowers the water level in a bathtub.

And this is just the tip of the iceberg:

http://creation.com/book-review-of-dawkins-climbing-mount-improbable#f27

And the 40 to 65 times is the biggest joke of all. They must imagine that this process MUST have occurred, because it is everywhere in the fossil record too early for them to claim that it came from just one ancestor. Take the Trilobites for example, who were said to have originated in the lower Cambrian, but with eyes that are hardly "primitive," but extraordinarily complex:

http://www.trueorigin.org/trilobites_eyes.asp