The evolution of the eye at all would be a miracle, but evolutionists must say that it evolved 40-60 times independently 1 2 (a problem of convergence).
Perhaps even more remarkable, the eye of the octopus is strikingly similar to that of the human, 3 and the eye of the frog is similar to that of a squid. 4
Convergence: A Problem for Evolution
When evolutionists try to draw their "tree" of related animals, they have a problem: not everything "fits." They must say that some things---even things that are extremely similar---evolved multiple times independently (called convergence). They say that eyes evolved 40-60 times independently. This is awkward for evolutionists to explain, but it makes much more sense for a creationist: God reuses good designs!
Site Under Construction
This site is still under construction. It needs more references, citations, and debate arguments. If you would like to help, please view the community page.
Sources
Dawkins, R. (1996). Climbing Mount Improbable. New York: Norton.
Dawkins, R. (2004). The Ancestor's Tale: A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Evolution. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
ReMine, W. J. (1993). The Biotic Message: Evolution Versus Message Theory. Saint Paul, Minn.: St. Paul Science.
Notes
- Dawkins, 1996, p. 139: “When we speak of ‘the’ eye, by the way, we are not doing justice to the problem. It has been authoritatively estimated that eyes have evolved no fewer than forty times, and probably more than sixty times, independently in various parts of the animal kingdom. In some cases these eyes use radically different principles. Nine distinct principles have been recognized among the forty to sixty independently evolved eyes.” ↩
- Dawkins, 2004, p. 588: “It has been estimated that ‘the eye’ has evolved independently between 40 and 60 times around the animal kingdom.” ↩
- ReMine, 1993, p. 136 ↩
- Dawkins, 1996, p. 140: “Frogs and squids, for instance, both have good camera-style eyes, but these eyes develop in such different ways in the two embryos that we can be sure they evolved independently.” ↩