Right, in the absence of any paid up Bible-belt creation/"Intelligent Design" enthusiasts, I am going to play devil's advocate.
Evolution rests on the supposition that some random mutations in the genetic makeup will confer an advantage. So for example if an animal happens to be born with particularly acute vision, it is more likely to live longer and reproduce more. In this way, animals become over a long time genetically programmed to survive better and better.
But let's take the example of an eye, for example. Eyes take ages to evolve, and many many stages would be involved in their evolution. However, the first stages of evolution do not seem to confer any advantage, because they're not developed enough to see. And even if it could see, you'd also need an optic nerve and so on.
The point is, if there is no advantage in havng an eye in a very early stage of development, animals who had proto-eyes would not be more likely to survive than anmals without. So how did we progress to the later stages in the evolution of the eye, which actually were useful?
Evolution rests on the supposition that some random mutations in the genetic makeup will confer an advantage. So for example if an animal happens to be born with particularly acute vision, it is more likely to live longer and reproduce more. In this way, animals become over a long time genetically programmed to survive better and better.
But let's take the example of an eye, for example. Eyes take ages to evolve, and many many stages would be involved in their evolution. However, the first stages of evolution do not seem to confer any advantage, because they're not developed enough to see. And even if it could see, you'd also need an optic nerve and so on.
The point is, if there is no advantage in havng an eye in a very early stage of development, animals who had proto-eyes would not be more likely to survive than anmals without. So how did we progress to the later stages in the evolution of the eye, which actually were useful?
