Because the writer isn’t a politician, preacher, or other public figure, we won’t embarrass or promote him by using his full name. His first name is Gordon. Excerpts from his letter will be enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary and some bold font for emphasis. Here we go!
Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, which is now accepted as Gospel truth by atheists all over the world, has a gaping hole that does not give a plausible explanation of how or why the Eye evolved out of darkness.
Creationists usually quote-mine Darwin and claim that he couldn’t imagine how the eye evolved. We debunked that ancient clunker in Evolution of the Eye. But Gordon has a different approach. He says:
The staggering complexity of an eye, and the independent design for each species was more than Darwin, or his followers, cared to explain.
Darwin didn’t care to explain it? BWAHAHAHAHAHA! In Origin of Species, Chapter 6, after the sentence that is usually quoted out of context by creationists, he said:
Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real.
Following that, Darwin provides pages of details describing earlier versions of eyes as evidence of their gradual evolution. Anyway, Gordon claims Darwin was baffled, and so is everyone else. He tells us:
The variations seem almost endless. For example, the eyes of predators differ from the eyes of prey. The eyes of some aquatic animals have a second set of transparent eyelids to facilitate sight under water, just like the camel which has a second set of transparent eyelids to facilitate sight in a sandstorm.
Variations prove eyes didn’t evolve? BWAHAHAHAHAHA! If humans were the only species with eyes, and all others were as blind as sponges, then Gordon would have something to talk about. Oh wait — then he says:
And the bat has two sets of eyes, regular eyes and sonar vision with its ears.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Gordon is talking about Animal echolocation, which isn’t unique to bats. He continues:
It now appears that Darwin’s entire theory is in jeopardy with the discovery of a little fish called Astyanax Mexicanus. It survives in tropical rivers and lakes as any other fish with excellent vision. It also survives in deep, dark caves where there is no light, where it’s eyes have practically disappeared, in a case of reverse evolution.
Gasp! The entire theory is in jeopardy? Wikipedia has a write-up on those fish, but it doesn’t mention the downfall of Darwin. It does, however, say this:
Among some creationists, the cave tetra is seen as evidence ‘against’ evolution. One argument claims this is an instance of “devolution” — showing an evolutionary trend of decreasing complexity. But evolution is a non-directional process, and while increased complexity is a common effect, there is no reason why evolution cannot tend towards simplicity if that makes an organism better suited to its environment.
Ah well, good try. And now we come to the end:
If you need proof that God exists: The eyes have it.
Gordon has his proof, and he’s happy. We’re happy too, because his letter is a great addition to our collection.
Copyright © 2017. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.