The complexity of the human eye proves intelligent design

I have won this debate because my opponent concedes my side of the argument in the very first sentence of his first post. However I will still negate his few, ignorance-based assertions. First I will describe how an eye could evolve and prove that it is not irreducibly complex. We will start in the Pre-Cambrian. Imagine you are a photosynthetic, eyeless, unicellular organism swimming around in the tide pool, hoping you are lucky enough to be in direct sunlight. Then, in some future generation, a mutation in a single one of these organism results in a little spot that can crudely detect light. This eye couldn't really "see" it could merely tell the organism when light is present. But this simple mutation is enormously helpful to the organism. It could sense day and night, thus knowing when to hide. It could know that it is underneath and tree and not getting any sunlight. Then it could move into sunlight. A sudden change from light to dark could signal a safe hiding spot such as a cave, out of the sun's reach. The organisms with the eyespot would more easily survive and have offspring. The flux of these organisms could out-compete the eye-spotless organisms and drive them to extinction. Then the eye would go through a phase of gradual changes. A slightly curved eyespot would be better able to detect direction and depth. Then a "pinhole" eyespot would further refine this. Then a transparent humor and retina could develop, furthering that specific organism better rate of survival (e.g. Darwin's "survival of the fittest" mantra). Then finally a lens could develop and eventually an iris and cornea. In the same way that competition among business drives innovation, competition between species would promote the innovation of the eye. ||| >>> the chance that evolution [can] lead to the creation of the complex world we live in is impossible. <<< ||| My opponent first says there is a chance that evolution could lead to a complex world but then says it is impossible for this to happen. He is contradicting himself. Nevertheless I will still show him it is very possible for evolution to lead to complex life starting with the origin of life. It is estimated that there are about 100 billion galaxies in the observable universe, each with about 1-30 billion planets each. Even if we take the low end of the estimate concerning how many planets per galaxy we have around 100 billion billion planets in the Universe. Further, it has been estimated that only around 1 in a billion of those planets meet all the criteria to be able to support life (4000 to 7000 kelvin star, stable habitable zone, low stellar variation, high metallicity, mass, atmosphere, orbit, and rotation, geochemistry, "Good Jupiter" protector planets, and possibly micro-environments etc.) This still leaves us with 100 to 3000 billion planets ABLE to support life. As my opponent has said, it is improbable that life will ever originate on a planet. But improbability does not equate to impossibility. (See Dawkin's "Climbing Mount Improbable" The thing is, it only has to happen once, and then your everyday run-of-the-mill evolutionary adaptation can occur. So, as I was saying, we have these 100- 3000 billion planets that are potentially habitable and life must originate on only one of these, possibly by a poorly translating nucleic acid, such as RNA, in combo with photosynthesis. Even if this probability is small, say once again 1 in a billion (there is currently no way of knowing the correct probability but I suspect it is more common than this.) then we still have 100 to 3000 other planets containing life. From there, we leave it up to the cumulative powers of evolution infused with a little luck to overcome the problem of sentience and eukaryotic cells, it will inevitably evolve into organisms equally suited to their environment as the organisms on Earth are suited to theirs. This, in all possibility, could easily lead to evolution of an Eye. ||| >>> Evolution presupposes that there is no God before they have even proven it, this greatly hinders the whole theory of being reliable and true <<< ||| There are a lot of things wrong with this statement. 1. Most proponents of evolution do not see it as contradictory with religion. 2. God can not realistically be disproved. He can merely de deduced as "highly improbable" 3. Read "The God Delusion" 4. Whether or not God exists would have no bearing on whether a natural process takes place Readers, you can read my opponent's argument and see many of the fallacies and I do not wish to waste my character count and my time disproving the ridiculous. I will if he presses them but some questions do not deign an answer, such as "Why are unicorns hollow?" I will now advance another reason Intelligent Design (ID) is not true. You would expect an omniscient, omnipotent (strange, as they seem to be mutually exclusive, but I will not question the unquestionable) Creator to create things that are 100% efficient with no flaws (optimal). This is not the case in the real world. Evidence of "unintelligent" design is all around us. (I don't know why my opponent thinks evolution is the only alternative to ID, proving unintelligent design would still negate the resolution) The wiring of the photoreceptors in the eye is poorly designed and Richard Dawkins, among others, has proposed that it is wired backwards. Other examples include: 1. Unused muscle in the ear that some can use to an extent but have no other purpose 2. The ability of a human egg cell to implant on the fallopian tube, causing an ectopic pregnancy which is often fatal to the woman. 3. Male Nipples 4. The barely used plantaris muscles in the foot, whom some people lack and experience no problems. 5. Wings in flightless birds (ostriches. I am aware that penguins are flightless but use their wings to swim) 6. The human appendix 7. Inability for humans to synthesize their own vitamin C as opposed to other animals and plants because of a defective gene I could go on and on but anyone with access to a computer can google the plentitude of other examples. Conclusion 1. My opponent has failed to prove intelligent design 2. The world was either made by a non-omniscient (unintelligent designer) Being, or is a result of chance and natural selection > Sources < http://www.talkorigins.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... The Blind Watchmaker, The God Delusion, Climbing Mount Improbable, The Selfish Gene (all of these are by Richard Dawkins) God, the failed hypothesis: How Science Shows God does not exist (Victor J. Stenger)