Connect with us

Culture and Religion

The unaddressed evolutionary challenge of the eye’s origins

Published

on

The unaddressed evolutionary challenge of the eye’s origins

The debate about the evolution of the eye has been a flashpoint of passion since evolution was first proposed. Debaters on both sides have focused on the concept of irreducible complexity, single- versus multi-source origins, and biochemical gaps that seem to jump in either explicable or inexplicable ways (depending on which side of the argument one is on).

There’s something that you don’t hear about very often. It lies in simple logic, even common sense. There’s no reason for the evolutionists to consider it because it’s a flaw in their thinking. It’s harder to understand why creationists have not discussed it more deeply and after much research I haven’t found a very good exploration. The idea surrounds a question, one that doesn’t ask how the eye was created but rather why it was initially brought into being.

How can something evolve to detect the presence of light if there was nothing prior to know that light existed in the first place?

This is not going to be an in-depth exploration into the question. There is still plenty of research to be done, but so far everything I’ve seen indicates there’s no evolutionary explanation for why the eye formed. It fulfills a need – the detection of light – before the possibility of knowing there was such a thing as light to be detected.

At first, I figured there must be a simple answer that I missed, one that is well-known in evolutionary circles to combat this issue, but after exploring the topic and discussing it with many, I found nothing. I wouldn’t go so far as to say I “stumped” evolutionists I’ve questioned over the last four+ years since starting to ask the question, but responses were very mixed and clearly concerning from their perspective.

Science can trace back the origins of they eye to basic photo-receptors on simple organisms designed to give them understanding about the directional source of light. However, it has not given a reasonable explanation for how this amazing trait spawned in the first place. It cannot be dismissed to the evolutionist’s favorite trick, mutation. There is a tremendous gap between not having photosensitive cells and having them because it requires multiple simultaneous complex mutations to form the most basic light-detecting organs.

A common argument is that the detection of light evolved from an inherent ability to detect heat (which also fails the irreducible complexity challenge), but this concept has many flaws as well. Light and heat are only loosely associated in a pre-historic world where gravity is the easier concept for simple creatures to sense. There would not have been a need to detect heat through the presence of light when going against gravity in the prehistoric goo of an evolutionist’s worldview would bring creatures closer to the warmth of the surface.

To generate the evolutionary need for creatures to detect light and therefore develop photosensitive cells, they would have needed to understand that light existed in the first place. With nothing to let them know that light existed, there would have been no need for photo-receptors to evolve in the first place. Eyespots are the earliest stage of the evolution of the eye. You can trace it all back to eyespots. However, there is no explanation for why eyespots came into being.

It’s not as elegant as the argument against the evolution of flight or the metamorphosis dilemma, but it is an argument that evolutionists have never been able to reconcile and is therefore a valid point of discussion.

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Advertisement
1 Comment

1 Comment

  1. Brian Westley

    March 3, 2019 at 6:10 pm

    Wow, what a load of ignorance on display.

    “Science can trace back the origins of they eye to basic photo-receptors on simple organisms designed to give them understanding about the directional source of light. However, it has not given a reasonable explanation for how this amazing trait spawned in the first place.”

    It isn’t “amazing” — organisms have lots of different receptors on their surfaces. Humans can sense touch and heat — go outside on a sunny day and blindfold yourself so you can’t tell where the sun is — you can still detect the general direction by feeling the sun’s heat.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Culture and Religion

Did Jesus die exactly 1000 years after King David died?

Published

on

Did Jesus die exactly 1000 years after King David died

History doesn’t tell us exactly when Yeshua was born. Luke tells us that He was about 30 years old when He began His ministry and we know it lasted approximately three and a half years.

And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, – Luke 3:23 (KJV)

We know that King David died in 970 AD. The math might start sounding pretty cool at this point, but I’ll elaborate.

Scholars put Yeshua’s birth to likely fall in the 6-4 BC range. Experts place the range of His death (and resurrection) between 30-33 AD as a result of the data that they’ve worked out.

If He did die in 30 AD, that would mean that he died exactly 1000 years after his human ancestor King David.

Some will point out that the calendars were changed, going from 364 to 360 up to 365 at different points within this time range across the various regions, but using the accepted calendars, we can claim that it’s possible for it to be a 1000 year gap. Knowing the amazing order and precision with which our Father has established His creation, it wouldn’t shock me to find out some day that it was precisely 1000 years all the way down to the second.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Conservatism

The problem is more spiritual than political

Published

on

The problem is more spiritual than political

Personality politics have pre-empted a commitment to the Christian faith upon which America’s history has been based. It is now more important to defend a person or a group of persons than it is to stand firm upon the truth, which is objective and no respecter of persons.

Some have said we are not conservative because we dare to suggest that a primary challenge would be good for America. Defending the incumbent has become more urgent than looking at things as they really are.

Many in America and the world no longer see events through a Christian lens. They lack the perspective that everything plays a role in God’s eternal plan. That’s why a self-admitted hedonist and adulterer was elevated to the highest office in our land.

Such excuses are used as we need a Commander-in-Chief but not a Pastor-in-Chief. But, God’s Will be done whether it be willingly or unknowingly.

Trumpism is not synonymous with Conservatism. Many true conservatives were disenfranchised through the shenanigans of the Republican Party in Cleveland in 2016.

They did not allow the delegates to vote their conscience. They changed state tallies over the objections of the delegates. They ramrodded through a nominee that many did not choose.

That said, it is wrong to accuse those who propose a primary challenge as being “Never Trump”. I have said repeatedly that he is less problematic than the perverted Democrat alternative and that I will support and vote for him if he is our binary choice.

But it’s obvious that there is much more involved here than just politics. Ephesians 6:12 confirms that there are spiritual forces arrayed against us in this world. They are manipulating human emotions around the world.

Look again briefly at Christchurch. The facts of the matter and the overwhelming body of evidence remain that Islamic Jihad comprises the primary threat to world security. The attack in New Zealand was an anomaly. Whether or not it was a conscious attempt of the perpetrator, it was absolutely a purposeful event by evil spiritual forces.

So many Christians today are Christians in name only. That is a far deeper problem than Republicans in name only in our own country.

NZ PM Jacinda Ardern donned a hijab and celebrated the Islamic call to prayer just one week after Christchurch. She instantly unlearned the lessons of former PM John Key who admitted during his tenure that there were Islamic terrorist operatives based in New Zealand. Whatever her own religious upbringing, she immediately embraced Islam as the symbol of her people henceforth.

If Christians in our own country and the rest of the world do not base their view of society upon the teachings of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they will continue to be susceptible to every false doctrine that comes along. You have only to look at the words of Muhammad in the Quran to see the mischaracterization of Jesus and His followers.

We are not going to debate the theology. My point is simply that Christians are not standing for our faith the way that Muslims do for theirs.

In America, as long as we continue to embrace every strong personality without discernment, we are headed for disaster. Worldwide, both here and abroad, if we do not understand our own beliefs, we will jump on the bandwagon and condemn our own traditions in favor of political correctness every time.

At NOQ Report, we strive to objectively analyze the news and current events. We present analyses that you are not seeing in the mainstream media. You are free to agree or disagree. We are crowdfunded and your continued support is much appreciated.

Freedom of speech and opinion is what America is all about. NZ has no 1st Amendment as we do nor a history of free speech. The UK imprisons street preachers because it might offend Islam.

In the United States, we can discuss Presidents and ideologies freely and objectively. This is a right we must treasure and defend vigorously or it will go away!

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Conservatism

What Steven Crowder’s latest pro-life Change My Mind reveals

Published

on

What Steven Crowders latest pro-life Change My Mind reveals

Steven Crowder in his most recent edition of “Change My Mind” experienced more aggressive pro-abortion arguments than he had in the previous installments. The episode featured people arguing that moral personhood began at birth or even “experience.” Often times, Change My Mind demonstrates that under scrutiny, arguments have flaws. Such is the method that got Socrates killed. With all of these discussions, the failure to prove the lack of humanity for a fetus proved unconvincing and logically undefended by its proponents. But I want to address the intrinsic instinct, the universal morality, that could not stay buried under layers of denial. These pro-abortion advocates, deep down, know they are wrong.

In all four conversations, late term abortion was supported. However the caveat of threat to the mother was brought up, despite the rarity of such occurrence. Steven Crowder called them out, citing the fact that they said they would support third trimester abortion even if it were not a threat to the mother by their own previous admission. The proponents then hesitantly agreed. So Crowder then asked “why bring it up?” That is the question. Why would abortion advocates rely on such extreme examples?

I believe that deep down, those who have not finished their leftist training have not intrinsically forsaken the convicting power of conscious, because of what I observed in this video. The latter two proponents came off as not even believing what they were saying. The first was a hardcore stoner. The second was a perhaps shy of being a feminist. The stoner gentleman said “breath” was the transfer of moral personhood and if a baby came out and had yet to breath, it would not yet be human, therefore justified in killing it. The last one suggested the ultra vague notion of “experience” rendered moral personhood. Yet she agreed that the experiences of the unborn were valid human experiences and then whimsically concluded that it was still okay to kill them.

She, in particular, sounded really unconvinced in her own stance. I thought she was going to make a utilitarian argument that would have led to an interesting discussion about quantifying human suffering. This would have been a better argument than “experience” which is even less defensible than sentience. The gentleman in the beginning argued that a fetus was a parasite but then insisted it was not autonomous. Biologically speaking a parasite is autonomous from its host.

These two claims are mutually exclusive. Three of these students presented arguments that I was unconvinced they themselves even believed. I am shocked that this was my takeaway, for on every other Change My Mind, even the other three installments on abortion, I believed that the guests genuinely believed their own arguments.

If a fetus is not human, there would be no need to rely on extreme examples to defend abortion. It’s becoming increasingly obvious that abortion is an affront to natural law, as science increasingly supports the notion of human life at creation. The Founding Fathers so cleverly wrote that our rights were self evident. The affront to these self evident rights will naturally be difficult to defend logically. This is why the abortion advocates had such poor arguments with premises that could not withstand charitable scrutiny. In this case, the pro-abortion advocates all believed a conclusion of abortion permissibility, without internally accepting the premises necessary to support the conclusion and the implications they would ensue from said premises.

There is a difference between a person being reputably evil and plainly gullible. That difference would be seen as someone who simply accept that a fetus is not human and simply doesn’t care. These college students weren’t there yet. Nor is the rest of the country as a whole. So there is reason for hope.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending

Copyright © 2019 NOQ Report