The Scallop

a acabop la a bivalva fnoluak (a hnmm dam ma creatura). in padpu, «hak «|u ar* lit (hair haad, and tght, paaalng through th#kn*, go«* term * clear ar«a (the humeri to tha retina. but in ma tcauop, tha ayet ar« h>p***d along |ha omt*r pan el tha ah««. u^t antaring ona of thai« eye* p*4**a through th* lana {and through tha r»lkv»1 > to a refractor (<* raflaqtor) behind tha ratina, thi* refractor haa a mirror-coatad front and a dark brown backing to annual** the mirror-ik* qualtlaa. tha refractor bouncaa the hght rar» back onto die ooncava-aheped ratine wmch la iwaied nan «tha tana. aa hdoea ao. h focuaaa them. how ceuld chance aeieclion and harmful muuttona accompfiah thla axtramaly daficata teak?

Here is another view of the human eya. Note the various layers and. at the outlet of the optic nerve, the blind toot and tho central canal leading to the tens. Everything has been carefully worked out with keenest precision.


everywhere tur» in nature <•* find counll«.» mifVtlt. Amang thetá U the my*.

uftht riy« from a tie« »trlke our »vac. -but only t* cauca cunllgfit providentially wumlnalec that un' the light ray«, forming an image of that tros, muat come how reach our brain. how can that happen? try de lignina a functioning ova in a email apaca equivalent to an evatus. It must provide eq<uf clarity of vision, perceive color u welt as ouc* and white, have to cuslng ability, provide uoocouv (depth] vision, ivciuds laneex, aperture», and ratina, mm mii a« vision nerve« to the brain i can any an« do it? no, ivuman inialuqmie* li not equal to thm leak of making * living ey«. neither did ih« body make ha eye* by aom» type t>' chaoc»

add la this the fact that every pocclblt type of aya it to be found in natural single lens iyctemc. double lena lyslem*. monocular, binocular, tandem ayea. leru bounce ivitamc. tuba light avtienta. tnuhj-thou land aye ay i lama.

and oocli system is fulty setf comalnad, works fine, and there ic no evidence al any rudimentary sytlem« leading up to it.

from the flin day. each omical system was tutly functioning.

octopus eve

Hero is yet another eye that u volution est» sdm«t "muii have evolved independently." The cephalopoda (octopus, squid, end cuttlefish) have en eye elmllar to the vertebrates. but uco an entirely different method ot focusing. It is achieved by changing the distance between the retine and the lens, whereas In land ankrtdtt the lens Ship« itself is changed by small muscles have had to occur thousands and thousands of times.

More on this in the chapter on Fossils and Strata.

THE AMAZING EYE— (*#6/39 Those Marvelous Eyes*; cf. #7/21 and #10*) Men presume a lot when they declare that evolution occurred. Not only new species would have had to invent themselves, but also the organs within those different species!

For a moment, think of what is involved in the eye. This is a very remarkable structure, yet evolution teaches that the eye slowly developed over millions of years.— and that this miracle of random production of a complete eye occurred at least three times: in the squid, the vertebrates (animals with backbones), and the arthropods (insects).

"Consider the eye 'with all its inimitable contrivances,' as Darwin called them, which can admit different amounts of light, focus at different distances, and correct spherical and chromatic aberration. Consider the retina, consisting of 150 million correctly made and positioned specialized cells. These are the rods [to view black and white] and the cones [to view color]. Consider the nature of lightsensitive retinal. Combined with a protein (opsin), retinal becomes a chemical switch. Triggered by light, this switch can generate a nerve impulse . . Each switch-containing rod and cone is correctly wired to the brain so that the electrical storm (an estimated 1000 million impulses per second) is continuously monitored and translated, by a step which is a total mystery, into a mental picture."—*Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (1984), p. 215.

* Charles Darwin had a difficult time trying to figure out his theory, and frequently admitted in his books that it appeared impossible. He said that just to think about the eye and how it could possibly have been produced by natural selection was enough to make him ill. He also said this:

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable con trivances 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."—*Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species (1909 Harvard Classics edition), p. 190.

"The eye appears to have been designed; no designer of telescopes could have done better."—*Robert Jastrow, The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe (1981), p. 98.

Then there is the wing. Evolutionists tell us that the wing evolved four separate times: in insects, flying reptiles, birds, and bats. And each time, they maintain, it was an unplanned, random accident.

SYNTROPY—In order for a creature to live, eat, survive, and reproduce, it must be perfect. It cannot have only part of its structure, but must have all of it. And that structure must be totally complete. Of the millions of DNA codes within its cells, essentially all must be there in perfect lettering and sequence in order for it to live and function. This coding requirement is called syntropy, and it stands as another barrier to evolution across basic species.

Natural selection within a species may work fine,— but you have to have the traits to begin with! These traits may adapt (and adapting traits to new situations is not evolution), but the traits had to be there to start with.

"Evolution cannot be described as a process of adaptation because all organisms are already adapted . . Adaptation leads to natural selection, natural selection does not necessarily lead to greater adaptation."—*Lewontin, "Adaptation," in Scientific American, September, 1978.

Although it occurs all the time within species, natural selection does not explain the origin of species or traits, but only their preservation and more careful use.

*Lewontin is a confirmed evolutionist, but he recog nizes that natural selection could not possibly produce evolution:

" 'Natural selection operates essentially to enable the organisms to maintain their state of adaptation rather than to improve it.' 'Natural selection over the long run does not seem to improve a species' chances of survival, but simply enables it to track, or keep up with, the constantly changing environment.' "—*Ibid.

You cannot select what is not there. If the trait is not already in the genes it cannot be selected for use or adaptation. Selecting which trait will be used (which is natural selection) is not evolution, for the trait was already at hand.

SUBSPECIES—Evolutionists reply by saying that there are instances in which a species has divided into two separate species. For example, they tell us of islands in the ocean where certain flies stopped breeding together— and thus became two separate species.

Such flies have not become separate species, but subspecies. Yet producing new subspecies is not evolution. Evolution requires going across the species line, not developing variations within it, such as an earlier-producing tomato or a higher-yield corn. The tomatoes are still tomatoes, the corn is still corn, and the flies are still flies.

Genuine evolution requires new genes into the gene pool of a species. A reassortment of what is already there is not evolution. If two fly colonies no longer interbreed, each one has become more limited in its gene pool, and more restricted in its ability to manage its environment. The long-term result might be extinction.

The test of evolution is a practical one: The evolutionary scientists need to show us one species that is changing into another. But, because of the DNA code barrier, this cannot be done and never will be done.

0 0

Post a comment