Who's the most prominent Christian on this forum?

[FallentoReason]

What's between a light-sensitive portion of flesh and a cornea, iris, pupil, lens, viterous humor, sclera, optic nerve and retina all working together? Give me an example of one of those parts functioning alone. If you change just one to a more primitive state, you must change them all. The slightest difference makes the organism blind. I'll put it this way: we have cornea 10.0, pupil 10.0, lens 10.0, sclera 10.0 and retina 10.0. Make just one of those 9.0 and all have to randomly mutate into 9.0 sometime before the organism dies--else the gene never passes on. The same goes for the dozens of parts I didn't mention. Don't reach into the far evolutionary past in an attempt to confuse your audience. Describe to me an eye one stage away.

I see what you're saying. Perhaps it would be more fruitful for all of us if you went off and researched this for yourself. If there's anything you see as faulty then you can bring it up. What I see as the main thrust of the question though is basically 'show me the research that shows how the eye developed to the one we have'. I suggest you go find out for yourself what research over the decades has to say.

Life in the whole universe is better suited to reproduce using a low-atomic element with 4 valence electrons, like Carbon. It bonds better. Water is the perfect solvent for a body because it turns from solid to liquid to gas in the shortest range of temperatures. Ignoring the existence of earth, C and H2O are our best chance. Now bring earth into the equation. It matches the already ideal life form to perfection.

You might be tempted to invoke another universe. But we're discussing fine-tuning within our universe, not in the imaginary billions of hypothetical universes. Our materials fitting with our scientific laws in the most efficient reproductive way.

Firstly, the scientific laws didn't come before the universe. I don't know what you're getting at by saying materials fit in with our laws. You've reversed the order. Our laws will by definition fit in with the observable universe because that's what the laws are describing.

You seem to be doing the same thing for our existence. Obviously we will be perfectly suited to these conditions otherwise we wouldn't be here discussing it. Again, you're pointing out the obvious.

What does innovation have to do with truth? The question is whether seeking the truth of our existence helps our existence.

Moving the goalposts I see. Innovation is clearly based on truth, otherwise whatever the object that is being innovative wouldn't work.

Answering your new question, no, seeking the truth of our existence doesn't seem to have direct benefits that I can think of.

At the end of the day, the job should get done better. Every retained mutation (such as altruism) has to improve our species’ chance of survival or it would be extinct by now.

And like I explained, it has. Do you want to abolish surgeons or not? They go out of their way to 'lay hands' and heal people. In general, if it wasn't for medicine then I don't think the explosion in population in the world could have been possible. We are practically invincible against the forces of nature. The chances of survival have skyrocketed.