Question

Creationist opponents of evolution cite the complexity of the eye as a feature that would be impossible to have been produced by evolution. Even Darwin wrote, "That the eye, with all of 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 possible degree." How has this issue been resolved?

A. It is still unresolved and is a major weakness of Darwin's evolutionary theory. Creationists call this "irreducible complexity
B. Complex eyes evolved via systemic mutations (by saltation, as predicted by Richard Goldschmidt).
C. Eyes are often lost through drift and natural selection, for example by cave fish and moles.
D. Numerous examples of intermediate forms have been found, indicating that complex eyes can evolve via gradual change
E. The fossil record indicates that complex eyes are ancestral and simple eyes are derived.

Answer 1

The complexity of the eye has been explained through intermediate forms and stages of eye evolution, debunking the concept of irreducible complexity and showcasing the process of evolution by natural selection.

Step-by-step explanation:

Charles Darwin's observation regarding the complexity of the eye and his initial doubts about its evolutionary origins have since been addressed with intermediate forms of eye complexity found in nature. Research has shown that the eye did not suddenly appear in its current complex form but evolved gradually from simpler structures. There are numerous creatures with simpler eyes that function well, and these serve as examples of the stages through which eyes could have evolved. This evolutionary process includes the development of light-sensitive spots, and further to simple cup-shaped eyes that can discern light direction and intensity, up to complex eyes with lenses, such as those found in humans and other animals. This gradual progression provides compelling evidence for evolution by natural selection. Consequently, the claim of irreducible complexity as a valid argument against evolution has been significantly undermined by these findings.