Eyes, and Evolution Falsified Again

Believers in universal common descent evolution appear to have cognitive difficulties, or mayhaps it is bravado. I say this because when faced with data they cannot explain, deep-time anomalies, theories shown to be false, they pretend to receive good news and something important about evolution has been learned.

Indeed, fundamentalist evolutionists may shuffle the deck and deal again, but they do not question if the deck is valid in the first place — the deck being evolution. They need to cowboy up and question evolution itself.

Fighter pilot with nice eyes wearing an oxygen mask, Flickr / Aviatrix (public domain)
In their determination to give praise to Papa Darwin, some of his disciples compared the eyes of mammals with those of cephalopods. Interesting that people and critters have two eyes, but many like birds and cuttlefish use each eye independently — but some cuttlefish occasionally use stereoscopic vision.

The differences in eyes also means the organisms with them need to have brains that can process the input of information and respond accordingly. This clearly indicates the Creator, old son, not evolution. Despite this, the Darwinists involved still insisted on tainting science by praising evolution and natural selection, not God.
Cephalopod eyes and vertebrate eyes are infinitely apart when it comes to structure and how they deal with light, so they had to develop independently with no evolutionary connections possible along the way, except for the elusive “universal common ancestor.”  Cephalopods do have very large but unusual brains, especially for mollusks, and a major portion of the brain, somewhat like our own, is involved with vision. These interesting animals also have enough intelligence that they are capable of learning quickly in experimental situations. This also demonstrates that they show a remarkable degree of memory.

To see all of this very interesting article, click on "The Eyes Have It: Another Case of Evolution Falsification." You may also like the poorly-titled "Poor Design of Eyes Claim Refuted by Evolutionists Also."