Evolutionists often make grand claims about evolution, but, upon closer inspection, those claims are purely assertions without evidence. And this article from Discover Magazine is a prime example.
The headline states, “How the Squid Eye Mastered Sight in the Deep Ocean Through Evolution.” And then the author tells us, “From giant eyeballs to bioluminescence detection, learn how squid evolved to thrive in the darkest depths of the ocean.” Okay, so we might expect the author to tell us something about how the squid eye evolved, right?
Sadly, no. There’s nothing about evolution in the article. The author doesn’t even mention what kind of animal(s) or what kind of eyes the squid and its eyes evolved from.
The article does a very nice job describing all the various kinds of eyes squids have. We learn about their size, shape, color and type, as well as how they work, where they’re located, how they’re used and how they’re different from the human eye. We even learn that there are over 300 species of squid! All that’s very nice, but it doesn’t tell us anything about how those amazing eyes evolved.
The author tells us that squid “boast truly remarkable eyes.” And I concur. But how do remarkable eyes come about without being designed by an intelligent being? How are eyes put together properly by natural forces, one step at a time? It’s just assumed.
The closest we get is when we’re told that the squid’s vision is “highly adapted to hunting, navigating, and communicating in low-light environment.” Sure. But adaptation implies that the genetic information already exists. That’s not evolution. What we want to know is how it got there in the first place. How did a completely different eye from a completely different kind of animal become what it is today? Were all the parts already in place before the first squid came along? Was anything new added? Was the eye simply rearranged from an ancestor eye, or did any novel developments arise, and, if so, how did they arise? What genetic changes occurred from development to adulthood, and how did the organism survive these genetic changes without going extinct? And if it was able to survive prior to the development of such extraordinary eyes, then why did the eyes need to evolve at all? What triggered all these changes, and how many millions of years did it take?
I realize there’s not enough space for the author to explain any of this in such a short article, but we’re promised one thing… evolution, and it’s not delivered.
Scientist Bruce Robinson referred to the evolution of squid eyes as a “deep-sea arms race.” But this is kind of language is not only meaningless, but a violation of evolutionary theory. Firstly, details are important, but we’re given none. Second, it sounds like the squid evolved their eyes out of necessity- they needed to keep up with prey and predators. However, evolutionists tell us that evolution doesn’t happen based on need. There’s no rhyme or reason for evolution to happen. Either it does or doesn’t. There’s no goal or direction in mind by evolutionary forces, so there was no evolutionary deep-sea arms race, nor could there be.
Interestingly, even if we consider evolutionary theory, the supposed ancestor of squid are belemnites, which supposedly lived 400 million-years-ago, but they already shared many similarities with squid, including a camera-type eye with photoreceptors at the front. So there’s very little evolution to speak of, particularly with the first squid appearing about 150 MYA.
In contrast, I believe God created animals to reproduce after their kind, just as the Bible says. God would have created squid on Day Five of creation when he created all other sea creatures, and squid would have possessed all the genetic information needed to adapt to a future environment. The original squid kind(s) would have adapted and speciated into what we see today. So we don’t need to invoke evolution at all. What we need to know is that all the genetic information for squid existed right from the start, and they diversified after that.
sixdaysblog 
yep, squid eyes evolved, just like human eyes. It’s hilarious how christians try to lie and claim that their god “created” things and then manage to ignore how this god evidently “gave” its chosen species, some of the most poorly “designed” eyes in the animal kingdom.
it’s great how you repeatedly show you have no idea what evolutionary theory even says, jonathan. You are a fraud who invents strawmen to attack.
I appreciate your point of view, but you haven’t provided any new information, and you haven’t added anything of substance. All you did was deny and insult. And you’re welcome to do so. But I asked 14 questions, none of which you answered or even acknowledged. I’m skeptical and questioning evolution, so when you say, “yep, squid eyes evolved, just like human eyes,” I challenge you to answer my questions with substance, not ridicule. If you truly believe I have no idea what evolutionary theory even says, then educate me and answer my questions with substance, intelligence, evidence and logic.
You state that we ignore how God “evidently” gave its chosen species some of the most poorly designed eyes in the animal kingdom. Really? Says who? Did you notice that the author said that squid eyes “boast truly remarkable eyes”? It seems like there are evolutionists who recognize remarkable design when they see it, and I would encourage you to open your remarkable eyes to the truth, too. God gave you eyes to see with, and I hope you would use those eyes to glorify him rather than deny him.
Jonathan, it’s bemusing to watch you make false claims and then claim I’ve not offered anything of “substance”. It’s a shame you lie so poorly since your god hates lies and liars and you are taking quite a risk.
Your questions show nothing more than yuor own personal ignorance and laziness.
The human eye has many flaws in it, one of which is that the retina can become detached easily. No other animals has this problem, so your idiot god is quite a failure. Unsurprisngly, not a single evolutionary scientist who says that there is “design” at all, but nice lies there, Jonathan.
You still haven’t answered any of the 14 questions posed. If you understand evolution as you boast, then answer the questions.
Again, as we’ve previously discussed, the only “flaws” in the human eye are the result of the fall. There would be no detached retinas in a world without sin. The detached retina is the result of Adam’s sin. There were no flaws in God’s original design.
If no other animal has this problem, then obviously we didn’t evolve from them. Boom!
The human eye is optimally designed for the world we live in and what we need it for. This has been addressed for decades now. Evolutionists poo-pooing the human eye is outdated nonsense.
And why would an atheistic evolutionary scientist claim there was design? That would be an oxymoron. Unless they were a theistic evolutionist, in which case they typically do admit there is design. Francis Collins is one. Now you may apologize for lying. And fortunately, Jesus forgives liars.
I don’t need to answer questions that are incoherent, dear. All you have demonstrated is that you have no idea how evolution works with your seven, not fourteen, “questions”. I have pointed out how your lies fail, and it’s so sweet when you have yet to show I’m wrong.
Again, no flaws from your imaginary fall, and if there was a fall, your lies that there was “perfect DNA” are baseless. What would “perfect” DNA look like, dear? Oh right, you have no idea, you just pulled that garbage from your nethers.
“There were no flaws in God’s original design.”
nice baseless assertion as usual.
And yep, still stupid about evolution when you come up with garbage like this: “If no other animal has this problem, then obviously we didn’t evolve from them. Boom!”
The human eye is hilariously poorly designed for the world we live in and I can say that with evidence since I wear glasses.
No atheist evolutionary scientist claims there is “design”. They claim that it can look like there is design, so nice fail there yet again, little lying Christian. Collins is a well-known christian who makes up creationism and he has no more evidence for his lies than you do, dear. He isn’t an “atheist evolutionary scientist”. Nice incoherent last paragraph.
What questions did I ask that were incoherent? I don’t recall asking any. Personally, I don’t think you understand evolution, otherwise you could answer my questions. The fact that you think my questions are incoherent is evidence that you don’t understand evolution. An evolutionist who knows anything about evolution could answer my questions, such as “How are eyes put together properly by natural forces, one step at a time?” Surely evolutionists believe this happened, but can they explain it coherently? That’s the rub. All I’m trying to find out is if evolutionists really understand evolution. The fact that you can’t answer these questions is evidence that you’re wrong.
I stand by the fall as an explanation. That’s standard Christianity 101. Dismissing the fall hurts you, not me. But I do like your question, “What would ‘perfect’ DNA look like?” Perfect DNA is DNA that is unmutated and without defect or flaws. Perfectly written instructions. Cells that reproduce without any mistakes. Proteins fold perfectly. Enzymes do their jobs exactly as intended. Every part of the cell functions exactly as it should. And now that I explained this, you owe me an apology for suggesting that I have no idea.
Considering that you’re an atheist, of course you would think my assertion about God’s original design being flawless was baseless. Nonetheless, that is what the Bible teaches, and if God exists and is all-powerful, then it’s not a baseless assertion. It’s an assertion based on biblical truth and authority. It’s a logical deduction. You don’t have to agree with it. Right or wrong, you just need to be honest about what the text says and implies. Pretending it doesn’t mean what it says does you no good.
Your comment about eyes being poorly designed because you wear glasses is illogical because you’re ignoring the effects of the fall. Obviously, if God designed eyes perfectly, but the effects of the fall brought sin, death, disease, etc. into the world, then this explains why you have to wear glasses. You’re doing yourself no favors by constantly ignoring the fall. Even if you’re an atheist, you should attempt to understand the Christian worldview so that you can attempt to refute our arguments. But you can’t refute Christianity if all you do is misrepresent what we believe. Instead of providing evidence against the fall, you simply pretend the Bible doesn’t mention it, and that tells me that you’re insincere.
I completely agree that no atheist evolutionary scientist claims there is “design.” Why would they knowingly do that? As I said, that would be an oxymoron. They wouldn’t- unless they did it unwittingly, and I’ve seen that happen many times over. Including you. You just admitted that “it can look like there is design.” And that’s my point. Atheists deny design, but at least they have to acknowledge that it can look like design. And that is evidence for design, even though you would never admit it. Anyway, I didn’t say that Francis Collins (who doesn’t believe in ID) was an atheist evolutionary scientist. I said he was a theistic evolutionist (not a creationist). Pay attention.
Actually, I like the coherency of my last paragraph. I thought I did well by addressing your nonsense assertion about not a single evolutionary scientist who says that there is “design.” Firstly, it’s not true. I could name some who do, like John Lennox and Gunter Bechly. So you’re wrong. However, if you consider only atheist evolutionary scientists, then your statement would be true because atheists, by definition, don’t believe in God or his design. Theistic evolutionists do to a large extent. So if my last paragraph sounded incoherent, it was because I was cleaning up your mess.
Unsurprisngly, your questions are indeed incoherent and show that you have no idea what evolutionary theory actually says. As usual, you ask questions assuming we currently have an answer. That’s all ““How are eyes put together properly by natural forces, one step at a time?” is. We don’t know *yet* and we may never know completely. Still no evidence for your imaginary friend doing anything at all.
Scientists are doing research into how evolution works step by step. That we don’t know how everything works yet does not mean your god exists. Scientists do understand evolution and unsurprisingly the theory is a predictive one so we can trust it.
I know you stand by your myths as an explanation. Many cults do exactly that. So? You have yet to show your god merely exists and that your myths are true. It isn’t “Christianity 101” since Christians themselves can’t agree on what parts of their cult are literal, metaphors, etc.
There is no such thing as “perfect DNA” and you simply assume your imaginary friend made some. No evidence of this at all. You have no idea what your god intended, so when you claim you can see design, that fails miserably. A cell that reproduces with no mistakes means cancer. The cell won’t die. Your delusion that death is a bad thing shows you have no idea what you are talking about.
Christians do not agree on what the “bible teaches”, so all you have is your personal opinion. Since you can’t show your god exists, it is indeed a baseless assertion. Any cultist can make a baseless assertion dependent on their myths, so no it isn’t a logical deduction, it is a baseless assertion. In that Christians do not agree on what the text says and implies, honestly has nothing to do with it.
If the fall affects me, with nearsightness, then yet again, your god punishes people for things they did not do and it says it will not do that. Your “fall” shows your god is unjust and unfair. So, which version of the bible do you want, the one where your god says it would not punish people for the actions of others, or the one where it says it will? Again, your bible contradicts itself.
Unsurprsingly, you can’t show a single instance of a scientist “unwittingly” claim that there is design. You simply lie yet again. Saying something looks like design isn’t saying something *is* design. Nice fail there. It’s hilarious how you have to lie and claim that saying things look like “design” is evidence for design, when that isn’t true at all. If I said that something looks like an alien made it, that doesn’t mean an alien made it nor is that evidence an an alien made it.
You said this “And why would an atheistic evolutionary scientist claim there was design? That would be an oxymoron. Unless they were a theistic evolutionist, in which case they typically do admit there is design. Francis Collins is one. “
In English, this means that Francis Collins is an evolutionary scientist *and* a theistic evolutionist. So you lie yet again.
Lennox is not an evolutionary scientist, dear. He’s a mathematician and a “philosopher of science”. Bechly was a paleoentomologist, and had a PhD in geosciences so yet again you fail miserably in your lies.
On the contrary, I understand evolutionary theory quite well, which is why I ask these questions. My questions are meant to encourage you to think critically. So if you find my questions incoherent, it’s probably because you refuse to be critical of your own personal, religious beliefs. I know fully well that evolutionists cannot answer many of my questions, which is why I pose them. Hopefully, instead of saying “We don’t know YET,” you pause to consider that the reason why you don’t know yet is because there’s no mechanism in nature that could design and build an eye from mutations (and other mechanisms) over millions of years in a step-by-step fashion until it is optimized in different kinds of animals to thrive in their environment. Therefore, this logic should be enough to realize that we can see our creator through his creation (see Romans 1:20). This logical conclusion is the very evidence you claim doesn’t exist. And it’s a much more satisfying conclusion than hoping that someday atheists will be able to explain how Nature did it without God (thus deifying Nature). All this is consistent with the Bible, which points directly to God as our creator.
You keep using the word “cult” as if it applies to others, but not you. But I suggest that evolutionism is a cult.
Of course there’s such a thing as perfect DNA, and I explained what that would constitute. You’re welcome to deny that it ever existed, but, if the Bible’s revelation from God is true, then those who love truth should be open to evidence for it. And I’d suggest, if humans had truly existed for hundreds of thousands or millions of years, then our DNA should be so mutated that we would have gone extinct long ago. The only realistic explanation or reasonable solution is that God made mankind not that long ago.
Now your claim that no mistakes means cancer is illogical. No mistakes means that the cell reproduces perfectly, the way it was intended. It doesn’t mean that the same cell keeps reproducing indefinitely without stopping. However, in a perfect world, the cell wouldn’t necessarily need reproduce or die because the regulators in the cell would prevent that. Further, God is able to sustain all things, including cells. The Bible provides many examples of God sustaining his creation. Consider Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego. They were thrown into the fiery furnace, yet their bodies were not harmed (Daniel 3:1-30).
You keep complaining about how Christians do not agree on everything, but I’ve already explained this many times before- sin.
Anyway, if you really believe that God is unjust and unfair, then it would be wise to appease him, don’t you think? No one wants to be on the wrong side of an unjust and unfair God. Anyway, the God I worship is completely good and just, so you don’t have to worry about being punished unjustly.
You claim that I “can’t show a single instance of a scientist “unwittingly” claim that there is design.” Well, if I can produce an example, would you be honest enough to admit that I was telling the truth and that it was you who lied? The attached link is a wonderful example because it was a published in a peer review study, but the journal was forced to retract the paper after much backlash, even though the study was produced by evolutionists, lol.
You say that “Saying something looks like design isn’t saying something IS design.” Right. And that’s why I used the word “unwittingly,” which you objected to. But that’s my point. Biological things do look designed… according to evolutionists. And I would suggest that the reason why such things look designed is because they ARE! Consider, if I said that ant hill over there looks like it was designed and built by ants, that doesn’t mean ants built it. But if they did design and build it, then it was designed and built by ants. And that’s why the anthill looks like it was built by ant… because it was!
What I said about Francis Collins was true. I stand by my comment. Collins, Lennox and Bechly all held evolutionary beliefs.
Lastly, as for your nearsightedness, if evolution were capable of building something as complex as an eye, then why can’t it keep increasing the complexity of our eyes so that they never fail? Surely if evolution were powerful enough to design such wonderful eyes throughout the animal kingdom, why has evolution stopped improving our eyes? Shouldn’t all these mutations in our eyes provide us with better eyesight? Yes, if evolution were as powerful as you claim, then the eyesight in all organisms should be improving because that would confer an evolutionary advantage, right? But sin explains why our eyes fail over time.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/scientific-study-paper-creator-intelligent-design-plos-one-creatorgate-a6910171.html
ROFL. Jonathan, you don’t understand evolutionary theory since you claim that bacteria resistance isn’t an example of it. You are quite an incompetent liar yet again. You don’t think critically, and you still have no evidence for your imaginary friend.
I find your questions incoherent since you are ignorant and lazy. I have no religious beliefs, so again you demonstrate you have no idea what you are talking about. Your questions are nonsense based on ignorance. So your lauding yourself that no one can answer your questions is just an idiot claiming that no one can answer his incoherent nonsense.
We don’t know yet about a lot of things, and that still doesn’t make your imaginary friend exist. It’s no bad think to admit what we don’t know. You can’t do that since your self-importance requires you to be best friends with an imaginary being.
Then you show your ignorance yet again with claims of “design”, which does not exist in nature. Evolution doesn’t design anything and neither does your imaginary friend. Evolution is when environmental pressures select attributes that are beneficial in that environment.
The eye is one example of many for evolutionary theory being correct. Eyes vary amongst organisms depending on the environment. There is no optimization, there is what works. Again your typical ignorance about evolutionary theory destroys your credibility.
Romans 1 is nothing special, but what all cults claim for their god. Strange how not one of you theists can produce any god, having to make up excuses where your god is. Nature is not deified, but nice lie there too, dear. There is nothing satisfying about a claim that cannot be shown as true. Where’s your imaginary friend, Jonathan?
Every cult has some set of stories that “points toward the creator” and not a single one of you can produce this “creator”.
You can suggest “evolutionism is a cult”, but you would be wrong. Darn.
There is no such thing as perfect DNA, and you made up garbage that never happens. Show it existed, dear. You made the claim, now you have to support your claims with evidence. Of course you can, you have nothing but fairy tales. Nothing shows that the bible is true at all, so your premise fails miserably. Your ignorance about DNA and mutations also shows your “suggestion” to be more garbage.
It’s hilarious how you have no idea how cells work at all, which means your idiocy about cancer fails. This is where “perfect” shows how meaningless a term it is. A cell is working correctly if it dies. Your cult’s assumption that there would be no death is dependent on a myth, which you cannot show to be true.
Oh dear, it’s so sweet when you claim that your bible myths are true. Sorry, dear, the story about Shadrach, et all is just a story. They weren’t in a furnace and they never existed. You fail yet again since you assume your cult’s stories are true. You have no evidence for that. Strange how your god doesn’t bother with “sustaining his creation” since Christians starve, Christians die, etc. This poor lil’ god can’t even heal people like it supposedly could “once upon a time”.
Yes, you’ve made many lies up about why Christians don’t agree on everything. You claim tha only your version is the right one and every other Christian is wrong and is “sinning”. Curious how they make the same claims about you, and not one of you can show that there is a “right” version. Why can’t you do what jesus promised, Jonathan?
It’s absolutely fantastic that you say that I now need to appease your imaginary friend, if I think it is unjust and unfair. Thanks for admitting it is unjust and unfair per your very own bible. I don’t appease bullies, dear, so you have failed amazingly well. Your god is not “completely good and just” since your god supposedly kills people for things that they didn’t do or have control over. Again, dear, would it be just or fair if you were killed for something I did?
Yep, you can’t show a single instance of a “scientists unwittingly claim there is design.” If you could, you would have rather than trying to whine about me admitting you were telling the truth. The attached link is nonsense as usual and you have shown you have no idea what “unwittingly” means.
“In the opening sentences of the study, it claims the link between muscles and hand movements is the product of “proper design by the Creator.”
Later, it says human hand coordination “should indicate the mystery of the Creator’s invention,” and concludes by again claiming the mechanical architecture of the hand is the result of “proper design by the Creator.”
Referring to a “creator” shows that the author intended to refer to a creator. Poor Jonathan, “unwittingly” means: 1: not knowing : unaware 2: not intended : inadvertent
So, now you agree that something looking like design isn’t saying something is design. Thanks for showing how you’ve repeatedly failed to show there is any design. The authors of that paper are evidently not “evolutionists” since they refer to a creator. Your article has failed you, dear. Your “suggestions” are just more baseless claims.
Again what you said about Collins was a lie, and of course you stand by your lie
You again show how you have no idea how evolutionary theory works, dear. Evolution doesn’t happen without pressure and there is no pressure to keep increasing the complexity of our eyes. Us humans have removed that pressure since we invented glasses, eye surgery, social communities, etc. If I had no glasses, I would be at a severe disadvantage for hunting, etc, and would have to depend on someone who could see well to support me.
It’s lovely how you still whine about sin and yet you cultists can’t even agree on what it is. Yet again, we come back to how Christians can’t agree and can’t show that their god exists at all.
Wow, endless drivel. But still no evidence for evolution, or evidence against God.
Tell me, what happens after you’re completely dead? Do you believe you will still exist, or cease to exist, or something else?
Lots of things happen after you die. You just won’t be part of them since you are dead.
The brain dies, thus the human being dies. No more brain function, no life. No soul, no spirit, just a inert corpse that will decay into its constituent particles. No sadistic little fantasies from your cult or any other cult. IT’s wonderful how you christains can’t even agree on your delusions about your after death nonsense.
it’s great how you have to desprately try to change the subject since your lies fail miserably.
Pingback: Not So Polite Dinner Conversation -for your entertainment – Club Schadenfreude