The Missing Link and the Irreducible Complexity of the Eye

[Amarok]

Yes, if: a cell becomes photosensitive through a copying error; the cell is hooked by nerves to a brain; and, the brain by chance directs useful behavior based on the information from the cell, then you have something. Needing all those things is why it's irreducibly complex. You could have a photosensitive cell on your elbow right now. It wouldn't change a thing, because your brain isn't wired to process input from your elbow visually. If the evolutionary view is true we should have eyes on the back of our heads or in other places.

'Irreducibly complex' is a claim. You can't stop there. It's not a synonym for 'I find this unlikely'. Unlikely things happen all the time. Why shouldn't a cell that already has a nerve connecting it to a brain have a mutation that makes it photosensitive?

And if you think evolution calls for eyes on the back of our heads or on our elbows, you've missed very important parts of the theory entirely and are currently incapable of making true claims about what evolution entails except by chance.

---

I guess that rules out the Tomorrow People. Our future is Idiocracy. Sounds about right.

If it's any consolation, smaller doesn't necessarily mean stupider, up to a point.

Indeed typical creationist simple think. It's quite possible that the first eye cells were just derived from sensor  cells that through natural selection and mutation acquired the capability to see yet another type of radiation. Connect through a nerve network to the brain (or through a simple in uncentralized Neuro network     .As for positioning of eyes that's simply the fact that it's closet to the brain and the number is easily explained by efficacy and the simple fact more eyes isn't better.  So no having eyes all over the place isn't a prediction of evolution quite the contrary if the above is true.

And yes the idea that a brain is smaller does not mean the brain works less well.