The human eye evolved.

Note I did not say that I could not imagine that the eye could be formed by an Intelligent Designer. I simply wanted to steal a march on you. It was fun. Now, to the task at hand. You said, "evolution needs not strive for perfection, merely success"(I put in the coma because I thought you would want one in) 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. 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. 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). 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. I am at a loss. The eye is far to complicated for 500 million years to develop it. Now, how could these dead chemicals make such a thing as the eye. 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. Meat, no matter how long you put it outside, is still meat. When grubs hatch in it, the meat did not change into grubs, but rather, the flies that fed there left their eggs, and the eggs hatched into the grubs. No self-respecting scientist would ever believe this. But some scientists still hold that chemicals from somewhere hatched into bacteria. Both you and I know this is impossible, so what now? This is what some theories of evolution dictate. It doesn't work very well. No matter how long a rock sits in a forest, it is still a rock. It is still a rock when algea grows on it(moss, technically), when it is shattered, it never loses the properties of a rock. Some might say that you could modify it(I have no clue how), but that wouldn't be the rock changing by itself, would it? I don't know. 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) 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. 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? Sorry, I think I went off track. I cannot think of any more evidence. Bon chance!