I didn't want to hijack CTD's other thread where Linda brought this up as I was not sure whether it would wind up taking things way off course or not. Perhaps here would be an ok place, as it seems appropriate.

Linda states:
Quote
Russ claimed in another thread that he thought the eye is irreducibly complex, which is a creationist idea that has been around a while. I showed him different steps in the evolution of the eye which begin with the simplest form, an eye spot that can detect light and dark. What's more, all of these evolutionary steps are still evident and can be studied in different organisms today.


"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances 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 eye, as with any part of the human body, has its beginnings in complex DNA (the programme). So no matter what stage of development of the human eye one wants to focus on (excuse the pun <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />), no matter how early on, it did not arise out of simplicity, because DNA itself is far from simple, it is highly complex.

The information is already available from DNA to bring forth such a miraculous outcome - the human body. Can someone explain to me, if there is any other way for the eye to develop, outside of already available information? How it came to be? and how does it develop new information along the way? If the complex information building blocks are not already present, where and how does the eye arise and grow?

Like a tree from a seed. Did the tree evolve, or did it develop from information already present?- signature hall marks for a "tree" already contained within that seed? Even the kind of tree that it shall be is dictated by the information from the particular seed. Unless of course it has been genetically engineered to do anything different than what it was already programmed to produce. The tiny seed is actually where it all starts, where all the information lies. The tree is the result from growth and nurture. Human beings are no different.

I fail to see how anybody can deny the signature and programme of design, no matter how early the development, it can only develop into the end result if the information is already present. How can anything gain "new" information? From whence does it get this new information? This in itself would be miraculous. Either way, I see the intricate spark of life/design and purpose. No matter what you do, you will always be working with something that already contains information. No matter what you do with DNA, you've already got a programme to work with. How then can there not be a programmer? And does this programmer require billions of years of evolution to produce the desired result? Which came first? The chicken or the egg? The tree or the seed? I know which came first, the bible tell us very clearly. All these things were in the beginning, according to the bible, made already complete, so that they could then reproduce after their own kind. Be fruitful and multiply said the Lord. Not "be fruitful and evolve". Nothing was incomplete and the first two people were made complete, as were every other creature.

It is DNA profiling that is used in crime-solving, by comparing DNA found at the scene of the crime with DNA taken from suspects. This also shows us how unique each and every human being is and how original each and every human being is, finger prints and all. All of these things stem from a highly complex and organised beginning. Rather than accidents/coincidences. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crossfingers.gif" alt="" />