I normally pass on these but this is so low. Faith is a gift and efforts to validate a belief system with science lessen this gift.
There are no hard tissues in the eye to help facilitate a fossil record of its development.
mnehring's illustration is helpful to explain such development. Biological transducers are complex structures. But just because something is complex does not mean a magician in the sky is directly responsible for it.
Researcher Sebastian Shimeld from Oxford approached this question by examining the evolutionary origin of one crystallin protein family, known as the βγ-crystallins. Focusing on sea squirts, the researchers found that these creatures possess a single crystallin gene, which is expressed in its primitive light-sensing system. The identification of this single crystallin gene strongly suggests that it is the gene from which the more complex vertebrate βγ-crystallins evolved.
Perhaps even more remarkable is the finding that expression of the sea squirt crystallin gene is controlled by genetic elements that also respond to the factors that control lens development in vertebrates. This was demonstrated when regulatory regions of the sea squirt gene were transferred to frog embryos where they drove gene expression in the tadpoles' own visual system, including the lens.
The researchers say this suggests that prior to the evolution of the lens, there was a regulatory link between two tiers of genes, those that would later become responsible for controlling lens development, and those that would help give the lens its special physical properties. This combination of genes appears to have then been selected in an early vertebrate during the evolution of its visual system, giving rise to the lens.
Forgot my link and blockquote formatting.
Here is the link to most of the last:
http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20050822230316data_trunc_sys.shtml
Again, did you bother to read the article, or are you limiting your comments to mnehring’s drawings?
“But just because something is complex does not mean a magician in the sky is directly responsible for it.”
True, but it is the most common sense explanation. I’m not saying that science can never refute common sense (see: the world is flat), but a mere hypothesis cannot refute common sense. With evolution, scientists seem to struggle to prove the hypothesis, but then are unreasonably offended when somebody decides to rely on their common sense instead of on an unproven hypothesis that flies in the face of common sense.
All mnhering’s post illustrates is an octopus has a more complex eye than a nautilus and the other mollusks. Nothing more.
“There are no hard tissues in the eye to help facilitate a fossil record of its development”.
My but how convenient!
Many dinosaurs had at least as complex an eye as an octopus, and we didn’t need “hard tissues” to assume their eyes were this complex; so why so suddenly do we need to even bring up the lack of hard tissues in the eyes now as an excuse in being unable to show a “record of their development” from lower life forms to more complex? The lack of hard tissues is somehow an excuse for evolution?
The chart doesn’t illustrate eye development, the fossils can’t...so we’re left with nothing but sheer conjecture.
Again.
But this is the real beauty:
“But just because something is complex does not mean a magician in the sky is directly responsible for it”.
Sure. Since it’s soooooo much easier and more sensible to believe it all just came about...
well just because?
via no design, no intelligence...
randomly, accidentally, by sheer chance, against near impossible odds (especially when eyes supposedly came about by means other than a creator)
all by itself?
“Faith is a gift and efforts to validate a belief system with science lessen this gift”.
This is simply surreal!
It seems to me it takes a ton more faith to believe this unintelligent, random, undesigned model than a creator had a hand in it!