The human eye evolved.

Thanks for the timely response and grammar correction ;) "With all due respect, the goal of evolution is perfection. Success is important, but at the end of the day, perfection remains to be required." This is a common fallacy regarding evolution; that it aims to produce perfect specimens as a process of natural selection. In reality all it needs to do is work well, not perfectly. A classic example is the panda's ‘thumb', an adapted wrist bone the animal uses as an opposable thumb to grip bamboo. It is far from ideal, but the thumb is fused to the paw and it has to make do. Additionally, introduced species show all too well the fragility of a system of seemingly "perfect" organisms in relation to their environment (it is a process of one side matching the other or risk dying out; think of our body's continual immune system adaption with rapidly mutating bacteria). If a species were truly raised to perfection it would quickly eat or over populate itself to destruction, the key is balance to the environment it is in. Many groups haven't evolved features that would make them better adapted. Sharks lack the gas bladder for buoyancy control found in other fish, mammals two way lungs are less efficient than birds (one way). Recurrent mutation also means advantageous mutations may be lost (most primates cannot make vitamin C, the diet was rich there was no need). Once natural selection fixes on a bad, but functional design, the species may be stuck with it, and the eye is a perfect example of that. "First, the eye. I have a hard time debating without going back to the begginning, but if either side could solve that, there would not be this debate and I am rather enjoying it. How, could this eye turn from nothing to something. I suppose that things like that have happened if scientists have all supported the idea. However, I have heard of a little thing called a scientific law. we all know that science cannot prove anything, merely point out a logical course of action. I remember this law called the First Law of Thermodynamics, which states(*I hope the law is the right one, tell me if it isn't), "matter cannot be created or destroyed." The Second Law of Thermodynamics basically says things go from order to disorder." The eye started as a simple photosensitive pigment; essentially a yes/no relay to the presence of light. As for the original process of chemical evolution, experiments as early as 1953 (The wondrous Miller-Urey experiment), shows how chemicals can transform into organic compounds. Wiki has a simple review of the experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Many others have shown similar effects. "I believe the eye could not have been evolved due to the complexity of the eye. Of course, this is good for both sides, with micro-evolution and God(Intelligent Design)." The argument from complexity is a common one, based usually on the assumption that evolution is entirely a random processes. It is clearly not that, natural selection is a very active process in the determination of traits; it is very far from random. "Look for a second around you. My question is that why would the eyes not have evolved so we could see infrared at the same time? That would help with survival." Some animals have, our lines however separated long ago (no warm blooded animals see infrared). At its most basic, many poisonous plants and animals advertise their poisonous nature by being brightly coloured. If our eyes were to see the entire spectrum without any filtration, then we would not easily be able to discriminate between those organisms that are dangerous and those that are not. "Now, the "tribal mysticism" you speak of. I suppose it could be "body Language" But who are we kidding. When you look in some peoples eyes, even if they are completely fine, you can see things. If they are hurting, you can see it in their eyes. If they are addicts of some kind, you can see when they are high. When they are in withdrawal, you can see something terrible in their eyes. You won't accept this, but I tried." The tribal mysticism remark was in regards to "the eye is a window into the soul". To illustrate the point that emotion reading is body language and not purely from the eye, feel free to view this and attempt to label emotions within these eyes with certainty. http://www.bbc.co.uk... "...But some scientists still hold that chemicals from somewhere hatched into bacteria..." See above for chemicals > organic compounds (NOT bacteria. That is not the first stage). "Another thing, tears. Tears of pain are far different from tears of emotion. Tears of amotion not only refresh you physically, but emotionally, you feel better. I'm pretty sure you agree with this one. Why would the eye have that characteristic if it was simply to help you survive.(this could go on to emotions and their relevence in the evolutionary model, but that is another debate)." The eye, tears etc are not a component of emotion; tears are a physiological response to emotion. The distinction is important. Again (refer to second round) an adaption does not need to be related to survival. Even so, the ability to relieve stress would lead to a happier longer life. "Another little point is color. Why would you see in vibrant color when black and white suffice. It may be helpful, but we see in lots of colors, but the brain mixes all three primary colors together. If not black and white, at least the three primary colors then." Despite your contradiction of stating evolution strives for perfection and now stating it must ‘just make do', colour discrimination is directly related to environment discrimination; it allows the organism to make superior decisions about the environment it is in. We use colour, dogs for example, use superior smell. "The eye has a light sensitivity of 10,000,000,000:1. that is better then any film we have created so far. The best one is about 1,000 to one. If we can't make cameras that efficient, then how could blind chance do so?" Cameras are not eyes; that is the basic reason. The analogy of eyes and cameras is often used, and just as often inappropriate. Again, natural selection is not a random process: gradual by gradual improvements. And with that there you have it. Clearly the evolution of the eye is not only possible, the evidence of components for explaining how, are very apparent. Thanks to my opponent for the interesting debate. Regards, Spiral.