Eye

{{silver}}
[[File:Krilleyekils.jpg|thumb|right|165px|{{wpl|I spy}} with my little eye… an Antarctic krill eye (''Euphausia superba'').]]
{{crenav}}
{{biology}}
{{cquote|As an organ developed via the opportunistic twists and turns of evolutionary processes, the human eye is explainable. As an organ designed and created by an [[Omniscience|infinitely wise deity]], the human eye is inexcusable.|||Frank Zindler<ref>"Half a wing and no prayer" by Frank Zindler (April 1986) ''The Probing Mind''.</ref>}}
An '''eye''' is a differentiated sensory organ that detects [[light]], and is very likely the organ you're reading this with.

There are many different types of eyes in use throughout the [[animal]] kingdom, ranging from the extremely rudimentary (i.e., light-sensitive patches of skin) to the exactingly precise (i.e., lens-and-retina). There are also eye analogs in unicellular [[eukaryote]]s (family Warnowiaceae, genus ''Chlamydomonas'', and genus ''Euglena'');<ref name=williams>[https://www.nature.com/articles/eye2015220.pdf Light and the evolution of vision] by D. L. Williams (2016) ''Eye'' 30:173–178.</ref> eukaryote is the domain that also includes the animal, plant and fungus kingdoms. The [[human]] eye in particular is firmly in the 'exactingly precise' part of this spectrum. 

Some [[creationists]] assert that the human eye (and in general, all eyes) is ''so'' complex/precise/advanced that it ''must'' have been designed by a designer, rather than being the current state of a continuing process of [[evolution]].

However, given the fact that there ''are'' a number of different classes of eyes which, collectively, exhibit a wide range of degrees of complexity, it is difficult to understand what would ''absolutely prevent'' a lineage from acquiring a series of successive increases in the complexity of its eyes, eventually ending up with something akin to the human organ. Creationists tend to [[Willful ignorance|ignore this]].

==How did the eye evolve?==
[[File:Diagram of eye evolution.svg|thumb|left|Major stages in the evolution of the eye: a) photosensitive cells b) depression allowing limited directional sensitivity c) "pinhole" eye allowing finer directional sensitivity and limited imaging d) transparent humor e) lens development f) iris and cornea develop]]
{{cquote|But even with these conservative assumptions, the time taken to evolve a [[fish]] eye from flat skin was minuscule: fewer than 400,000 generations. For the kinds of small animals we are talking about, we can assume one generation per year, so it seems that it would take less than half a million years to evolve a good camera eye.|||[[Richard Dawkins]], ''River out of Eden'' (1995)<ref>Richard Dawkins, ''River out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life'', Basic Books, 1995. {{isbn| 9780465069903}}.</ref>{{rp|83}}}}
In spite of being a marvellous and complex organ, the evolution of the eye is actually not that difficult. In fact, [[Charles Darwin|ol' Charlie]] already described the basic process in ''[[On the Origin of Species]]'' in 1859 (see "{{sl|Darwin quotemine}}" below).

The oldest fossil eyes that have been discovered are about 540 million years old (''Schmidtiellus reetae'' in the trilobite subphylum), right at the start of the [[Cambrian explosion]]; some have suggested that the evolution of the eye caused an "evolutionary arms race".<ref>[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0030399208002454 On the origin of optics] by Andrew R.Parker (2011) ''Optics & Laser Technology'' 43(2):323-329.</ref> Simulations by Nilsson et. al. have shown that going from a basic light-sensitive patch to a complex eye can take as little as 360,000 generations, or about 364,000 years (or a mere 0.00802% of the Earth's lifetime). This is a base minimum and almost certainly took longer.<ref>[https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rspb.1994.0048 A pessimistic estimate of the time required for an eye to evolve] by Dan-E. Nilsson & Susanne Pelger (1994) ''Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B'', 256:53-58.</ref> Don Lindsay provides a simple explanation of the idea behind Nilsson's study.<ref name=Don>[https://web.archive.org/web/20040406062919/http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/eye_time.html How Long Would The Fish Eye Take To Evolve?] by Don Lindsay (15 March 1998; archived from April 6, 2004).</ref>

The precise path that the evolution of the eye took isn't known. Traditionally, it has been assumed that eyes evolved about 40 to 65 times independently,<ref name=Don/> but more recent [[genetic]] evidence seems to suggest that all the eye variations that exist today evolved from the same very simple eye (most famously, the ''Pax6'' [[gene]] or variants (''PaxB'', ''PaxC'') exists in all species with sight — from fruit flies to humans — suggesting a [[Common descent|common ancestor]]).<ref name="new-perspectives">[http://jhered.oxfordjournals.org/content/96/3/171.long New Perspectives on Eye Development and the Evolution of Eyes and Photoreceptors] by W. J. Gehring (2005) ''Journal of Heredity'' 96(3):171–184. https://doi.org/10.1093/jhered/esi027.</ref><ref>[http://thegreatstory.org/ConwayMorris.Naturwissensh.2009.pdf The predictability of evolution: glimpses into a post-Darwinian world] by Simon Conway Morris. ''Naturwissenschaften'' (2009) 96:1313-1337. DOI 10.1007/s00114-009-0607-9.</ref> Whether this actually indicates a common ancestor is debated, as it may also be the case that the genes could have served a different function unrelated to the eye.<ref>[https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(02)00417-7?_returnURL=https%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS0960982202004177%3Fshowall%3Dtrue Eye ancestry: Old genes for new eyes] by Dan-E. Nilsson (1996) ''Current Biology'' 6(1):39-42. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0960-9822(02)00417-7.</ref> This is still a topic of on-going research, but that doesn't mean we can, with a great deal of certainty, say some meaningful things about the evolution of the eye.

[[File:Rhodopsin 3D.jpeg|thumb|right|165px|3-D structure of bovine rhodopsin]]
One possible (!) pathway is as follows:
#Light-sensitive [[proteins]] ({{wpl|opsins}}) could evolve through a [[random]] [[mutation]] and re-use pre-existing cascade structures to signal other proteins and activate the [[cell]].<ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2880087/ The evolution of phototransduction from an ancestral cyclic nucleotide gated pathway] by David C. Plachetzki et al. (2010) ''Proc. Biol. Sci.'' 277(1690): 1963–1969. doi:10.1098/rspb.2009.1797</ref> [[Natural selection]] would prefer organisms which do something useful with this mutation, such as improving the feeding pattern (i.e., during the day food may be more abundant, so conserving [[energy]] during the night would be advantageous).
#If one cell is evolutionary advantageous, then several cells may be ''more'' advantageous due to redundancy and due to the higher [[probability]] of successfully perceiving light.{{nofact}}
#A flat patch of cells can be slightly improved by creating a small depressed area, which allows some amount of sense of where the light is coming from.
#Said depression can depress further until there is only a small slit of light coming in. This allows a {{wpl|Pinhole camera|more complex "picture"}} to be seen, rather than the more binary "light yes/no" of the flat patch and the "light on this side yes/no" of the depressed patch.
#Said depression may be covered by a membrane that would magnify the light coming in, which has obvious benefits.
#Muscles to move the "half eye" around would allow greater field of vision and more accurate determination of the source of the light.
#Detecting basic colors is more useful than detecting no colors (e.g., "is that the toxic blue flower or the edible yellow flower?").
#The ability to control the size of the slit (even a little bit) and its magnifier is useful to refocus and get just a little better vision at certain distances.

And with that, the hypothetical eye would be reasonably similar to the eye possessed by most mammals today.

==Irreducible complexity and the eye==
{{main|Irreducible complexity}}
[[File:The Spectacle of Doctor Naik.jpg|thumb|200px|right|A spectacle to behold.]]
[[Creationists]] have claimed that "the eye is too complex to have evolved", meaning that the eye is only useful as a fully functional organ that it is today (in many animals), and taking away any part makes it useless.<ref>''The Neck of the Giraffe'' by [[Francis Hitching]] (1982) Plume, pp. 66-68. ISBN 0452008964.</ref><ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20030420113922/http://creationscience.com:80/ Center for Scientific Creation: 20 Questions for Evolutionists] by [[Walt Brown]] (archived from April 20, 2003).</ref>

Scientists' inability to explain eye evolution down to every microscopic detail [[God of the gaps|does not demonstrate that the eye can't evolve]] or that the mechanisms of evolution are incapable of generating the complexity of the eye. This alleged inability also cannot invalidate other examples of evolution, either.

That complex and advanced eyes exist today doesn't mean that less complex eyes in various stages of evolution ''don't'' exist ([[Why are there still monkeys?]]); some eyes in various stages of evolution:

#[[Charles Darwin]] already listed many different stages of eye evolution in [[The Origin of Species]]. Trying to picture the eye as being far from any possible evolutionary path ignores well-known [[fact]]s (see also {{sl|Types of eyes}}, below).
#There is evidence that the eye in fact evolved. The squid and octopus have a retina that is the reverse of vertebrates' retinae. Our optic nerve and blood supply to the eye pass through the retina and feed it from the inside. The squid's eye is supplied and attached from the back. Squids and octopi lack the blind spot that all vertebrates have due to the entry point of the nerve. The superficial similarities of retinae ''between'' taxa, but structurally identical retinae ''within'' taxa is a good example of the type of hierarchy that [[common descent]] would produce.<p>The use of rhodopsins for light detection across a wide-range of organisms is also evidence for common descent.<ref name=williams/><ref name=fueda>[https://www.pnas.org/content/109/46/18868 Metazoan opsin evolution reveals a simple route to animal vision] by Roberto Feuda et al. (2012) ''Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA'' 109(46):18868–18872.</ref> Indeed, the general mechanism for photoreception is the same across metazoans (animals plus prokaryotes).<ref name=held>''Quirks of Human Anatomy: An Evo-Devo Look at the Human Body'' by Lewis I. Held, Jr. (2009) Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521732336.</ref>{{rp|118}} The known organisms sharing the mechanism include all light-sensitive animals, from primitive eye-less ''Hydra'' species to humans, as well as single-celled prokaryotes such as ''Chlamydomonas'' and ''Euglena'' species.<ref name=williams/><ref name=fueda/></p>
#Scientists' inability to explain eye evolution in detail does not demonstrate that the eye can't evolve or that the mechanisms of evolution are incapable of generating the complexity of the eye. This alleged inability also cannot invalidate other examples of evolution, either.
#Molluscan eyes alone, present a huge spectrum of both primitive and complex eyes, from the primitive eye-cups of limpets, the lens-less eyes of scallops, and the pin-hole camera [[Eye#Nautilus eye|eyes of the nautilus]], to the lens-camera eyes of squid, octopi and {{wpl|Murex|murexes|.}}

===Fallacies contained in this claim===
*[[Argument from incredulity]]: I can't understand how eye evolution worked, so it must be unevolvable.
*[[Argument from design]] — "A complex watch has a designer therefore a complex eye has a designer."
*[[God of the gaps]]: Science can't explain absolutely everything about the eye, so the eye was intelligently designed by [[God]].

==Darwin quotemine==
{{main|Quote mining}}[[Image:charles_darwin.jpg|thumb|right|160px|right|Charlie is not amused.]]
'''[[Charles Darwin]]''' has been misquoted by almost innumerable creationists on evolution of the eye. The quotemine is so prolific that even some scientists get it wrong (although usually not to prove a point). The most common quote is "To suppose that the eye … could have been formed by natural selection, seems … absurd in the highest possible degree."

Yet, as Mark Isaak of [[Talk.Origins]] notes, "The quote is taken out of context. Darwin answered the seeming problem he introduced."<ref>[http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA113_1.html Index to Creationist Claims: Claim CA113.1], edited by Mark Isaak (2004) ''The TalkOrigins Archive''.</ref> Even [[CreationWiki]] &mdash; not known for abandoning creationist arguments &mdash; states, "most of those who use these quotes do not realise that they were lifted out of context by Watchtower Bible and Tract Society and they have seldom checked the original source" (though they then proceed to explain why quote mining isn't quote mining).<ref name=CW>[http://web.archive.org/web/20050221004806/http://www.nwcreation.net/wiki/index.php?title=CA113 CA113 From CreationWiki] (19:56, 30 Nov 2004) ''Northwest Creation Network'' (archived from February 21, 2005).</ref> The Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry, an unwaveringly Christian apologist group, also explains that the quote is a quotemine &mdash; and then argues that evolution is based on Darwin's imagination.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20091215060454/http://www.carm.org/charles-darwin-on-the-human-eye What did Charles Darwin say about the human eye?] by Helen Fryman, ''The Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry'' (archived from December 15, 2009).</ref> Hell, WikiQuotes has an entire page for the misquote.<ref>[https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Notable_Charles_Darwin_misquotes Notable Charles Darwin misquotes] ''WikiQuote''</ref>

Moreover, as Babinski notes, even if the quote ''was'' valid (it's not), Darwin is not a "modern source".<ref>[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/3/part8.html Cretinism or Evilution? No. 3: An Old, Out of Context Quotation], edited by E.T. Babinski, ''The TalkOrigins Archive''.</ref> (Darwin's book is {{age|1859}} years old!) It's as if these quotemining creationists were unable to find problems in modern evolutionist writings &mdash; and so [[Weak-Man Fallacy|attacked the easier-to-rebut literature of the distant past]].

Darwin's original quote is collapsed below, due to its extreme length.<ref>[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin/chapter6.html ''On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life'', Chapter 6: Difficulties on Theory — Organs of extreme perfection] by Charles Darwin (1859) John Murray.</ref> Bolded sections are those actually quoted by creationists &mdash; to show how little is actually quoted. Judge for yourself whether the quotes below accurately describe what Darwin was trying to convey.

{{collapse|Darwin's ''full'' quote}}
{{quotebox|"'''To suppose that the eye, with all 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.''' Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound.

In looking for the gradations by which an organ in any species has been perfected, we ought to look exclusively to its lineal ancestors; but this is scarcely ever possible, and we are forced in each case to look to species of the same group, that is to the collateral descendants from the same original parent-form, in order to see what gradations are possible, and for the chance of some gradations having been transmitted from the earlier stages of descent, in an unaltered or little altered condition. Amongst existing Vertebrata, we find but a small amount of gradation in the structure of the eye, and from fossil species we can learn nothing on this head. In this great class we should probably have to descend far beneath the lowest known fossiliferous stratum to discover the earlier stages, by which the eye has been perfected.

In the Articulata we can commence a series with an optic nerve merely coated with pigment, and without any other mechanism; and from this low stage, numerous gradations of structure, branching off in two fundamentally different lines, can be shown to exist, until we reach a moderately high stage of perfection. In certain crustaceans, for instance, there is a double cornea, the inner one divided into facets, within each of which there is a lens shaped swelling. In other crustaceans the transparent cones which are coated by pigment, and which properly act only by excluding lateral pencils of light, are convex at their upper ends and must act by convergence; and at their lower ends there seems to be an imperfect vitreous substance. With these facts, here far too briefly and imperfectly given, which show that there is much graduated diversity in the eyes of living crustaceans, and bearing in mind how small the number of living animals is in proportion to those which have become extinct, I can see no very great difficulty (not more than in the case of many other structures) in believing that natural selection has converted the simple apparatus of an optic nerve merely coated with pigment and invested by transparent membrane, into an optical instrument as perfect as is possessed by any member of the great Articulate class.

He who will go thus far, if he find on finishing this treatise that large bodies of facts, otherwise inexplicable, can be explained by the theory of descent, ought not to hesitate to go further, and to admit that a structure even as perfect as the eye of an eagle might be formed by natural selection, although in this case he does not know any of the transitional grades. His reason ought to conquer his imagination; though I have felt the difficulty far too keenly to be surprised at any degree of hesitation in extending the principle of natural selection to such startling lengths.

It is scarcely possible to avoid comparing the eye to a telescope. We know that this instrument has been perfected by the long-continued efforts of the highest human intellects; and we naturally infer that the eye has been formed by a somewhat analogous process. But may not this inference be presumptuous? Have we any right to assume that the Creator works by intellectual powers like those of man? If we must compare the eye to an optical instrument, we ought in imagination to take a thick layer of transparent tissue, with a nerve sensitive to light beneath, and then suppose every part of this layer to be continually changing slowly in density, so as to separate into layers of different densities and thicknesses, placed at different distances from each other, and with the surfaces of each layer slowly changing in form. Further we must suppose that there is a power always intently watching each slight accidental alteration in the transparent layers; and carefully selecting each alteration which, under varied circumstances, may in any way, or in any degree, tend to produce a distincter image. We must suppose each new state of the instrument to be multiplied by the million; and each to be preserved till a better be produced, and then the old ones to be destroyed. In living bodies, variation will cause the slight alterations, generation will multiply them almost infinitely, and natural selection will pick out with unerring skill each improvement. Let this process go on for millions on millions of years; and during each year on millions of individuals of many kinds; and may we not believe that a living optical instrument might thus be formed as superior to one of glass, as the works of the Creator are to those of man?

If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. '''But I can find out no such case.''' No doubt many organs exist of which we do not know the transitional grades, more especially if we look to much-isolated species, round which, according to my theory, there has been much extinction. Or again, if we look to an organ common to all the members of a large class, for in this latter case the organ must have been first formed at an extremely remote period, since which all the many members of the class have been developed; and in order to discover the early transitional grades through which the organ has passed, we should have to look to very ancient ancestral forms, long since become extinct.

'''We should be extremely cautious in concluding that an organ could not have been formed by transitional gradations of some kind.''' Numerous cases could be given amongst the lower animals of the same organ performing at the same time wholly distinct functions; thus the alimentary canal respires, digests, and excretes in the larva of the dragon-fly and in the fish Cobites. In the Hydra, the animal may be turned inside out, and the exterior surface will then digest and the stomach respire. In such cases natural selection might easily specialise, if any advantage were thus gained, a part or organ, which had performed two functions, for one function alone, and thus wholly change its nature by insensible steps. Two distinct organs sometimes perform simultaneously the same function in the same individual; to give one instance, there are fish with gills or branchiae that breathe the air dissolved in the water, at the same time that they breathe free air in their swimbladders, this latter organ having a ductus pneumaticus for its supply, and being divided by highly vascular partitions. In these cases, one of the two organs might with ease be modified and perfected so as to perform all the work by itself, being aided during the process of modification by the other organ; and then this other organ might be modified for some other and quite distinct purpose, or be quite obliterated."}}
{{collapse end}}

Here are several examples from creationists (in all cases emphasis added):

===Watchtower===
The [[Watchtower Bible and Tract Society]] misquoted Darwin in ''[[Life — How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation?]]'' (1985):<ref>Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1985. ''Life—How Did It Get Here?'' Brooklyn, NY, pg. 15.</ref>

{{quotebox|Darwin acknowledged this as a problem. For example, he wrote: "'''To suppose that the eye … could have been formed by [evolution], seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.'''"}}

This misquote is asserted by [[CreationWiki]] to be the source of all the other misquotes.<ref name=CW/>

===Michael Griffith===
Michael Griffith misquoted Darwin (and argued "what use is half of an eye") in ''Why the eye refutes evolution'' (1997):<ref>[http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/the_critics/griffith/Eye_Refutes_Evolution.html Why the eye refutes evolution] by Michael T. Griffith (Expanded on 12/24/97) In: ''The Truth: God or Evolution?'', edited by Marshall and Sandra Hall, 1975. Baker Book House. ISBN 0801041392. pp. 112-113.</ref><ref>[http://ourworld-top.cs.com/mikegriffith1/id102.htm Why the Eye Refutes Evolution], compiled by Michael T. Griffith (Expanded on 12/24/97), from ''The Truth: God or Evolution?'' by Marshall and Sandra Hall (1975) Baker Book House. ISBN 0801041392. (archived from January 13, 2008).</ref>

{{quotebox|Any eye from any animal provides a good example of the total illogic of evolutionary theory. The human eye is a subject evolutionists would rather skip:

:'''"To suppose that the eye with all 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 degree."'''

Who said that? A struggling, obscure nineteenth-century British scientist. His name? Charles Darwin!

Start with a completely developed, fully functioning eye (the only kind that has ever been found!) and work backward a couple of evolutionary steps and you will see why Darwin was so candid.

He had no choice.

Take away just one of the "evolved" parts of the eye—let's say the retina—and what do you have? An organ that can see? Hardly! Subtract the lens, or the cornea. Then put the retina back. Could the eye see? Never! It must be complete or it won't function.}}

Griffith tries to make the quote more believable by [[Argument by assertion|asserting (without evidence)]] that Darwin knew about the flaws of the evolution of the eye, [[evolution conspiracy|but deceitfully argued for evolution anyway]].

===Ben Rast===
Ben Rast misquoted Darwin in ''Lambert's Evolution'' (2002):<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20121104181146/http://www.contenderministries.org/commentary/lambert.php The Evolution of Darrell Lambert] by Ben Rast (2002) ''Contender Mission Commentary'' (archived from November 4, 2012).</ref>
{{quotebox|The facts indicate there is more scientific evidence to support a view of divine creation than there is to support evolution. Evolutionist L.T. More once said, "The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone." I doubt Darrell Lambert's teachers read that quote in class. Nor do I believe they ever cited this quote: '''"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree"'''. Charles Darwin.}}

===Jordan Niednagel===
Jordan Niednagel misquoted Darwin in ''Monkey Business. Against Supposed Similarities'' (2002):<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20021014100246/http://www.trueauthority.com/cvse/monkeybusiness.htm Monkey Business. Against Supposed Similarities] by Jordan P. Niednagel (2002) TrueAuthority.com (archived from October 14, 2002).</ref>
{{quotebox|Or, again, we could examine the human eye. Anatomically, it is most similar to that of an octopus'. Of course, the theory that the human eye evolved was directly commented by Charles Darwin himself when he said, "'''To suppose that the eye with all 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 degree.}}

===Answers in Genesis===
[[Answers in Genesis]] proudly continues the tradition of misquoting of Darwin in "The Seeing Eye":<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20150413115009/https://answersingenesis.org/human-body/eyes/the-seeing-eye/ The Seeing Eye] by Dr. David Menton (May 19, 2008) ''Answers Magazine'' (archived from April 13, 2015).</ref>
{{quotebox|Even Charles Darwin conceded that "'''to suppose that the eye, with all 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.'''

Nonetheless, having abandoned his Christianity, Darwin was obliged to appeal to the "<u>absurd</u>" to account for the origin of the eye by random change and natural selection.}}

"Having abandoned his Christianity, Darwin was obliged to appeal to the absurd…" Oh, the [[irony]].

==Suboptimal design==
{{main|Suboptimal design}}[[File:Slit_lamp_photograph_showing_retinal_detachment_in_Von_Hippel-Lindau_disease_EDA08.JPG|thumb|165px|right|Slit lamp photo showing retinal detachment.]]
If life was intelligently designed, the designer must have been thinking shortsightedly — eyes have innumerable flaws, many of these in the "favored" species, humans. In direct contrast to claims above that the eye is too complex or too perfect to have evolved, the eyes present in the world exhibit numerous flaws — which point towards evolution from a common ancestor &mdash; as Darwin suggested.

===Vestigial eyes===
{{main|Vestigial structure}}
Many organisms that live in perpetually dark environments (such as caves or the deep sea) are no longer subjected to evolutionary pressures that require them to respond to visual stimuli. As a result, their eyes have become nonfunctional. Many of these now-blind organisms, especially cave-dwelling salamanders, still retain their eyes as vestigial features, even though they can no longer see with them. It seems very unlikely that such organisms would be intelligently designed to have an almost totally useless organ.

===Vertebrate eyes===
[[File:Evolution_eye.svg|thumb|165px|right|Diagram of the vertebrate eye (left) vs. the octopus eye (right). Number 4 indicates the location of the blind spot in the vertebrate eye.]]
Vertebrates have evolved a suboptimal eye (although only in the sense that any complex organ is suboptimal). In the eyes of vertebrates the photo-sensitive cells lie ''behind'' the optic nerve endings and a layer of blood vessels. These must emerge through the back of the retina, leaving a hole in the organ with no light-sensitive cells, forming a blind spot (find your own!<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20170501234010/http://abcarcade.com/blindspot-test.html Blindspot Test] ''ABC arcade'' (archived from May 1, 2017).</ref><ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20180905072616/http://www.moillusions.com/find-your-blind-spot-trick/ Find your own blind spot!] ''Mighty Optical Illusions'' (archived from September 5, 2018).</ref>). Other animals which have evolved sight independently, such as cephalopods (e.g. squids and octopi) and [[insect]]s, have much more effective eyes because they don't have a blind spot or nerves between the photo-sensitive cells and the light source.<ref name="scholarpedia">[http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/The_Blind_Spot The Blind Spot] by Richard Gregory & Patrick Cavanagh (2011) ''Scholarpedia'' 6(10):9618.</ref>{{efn|However, their good vision is short-lived (although in keeping with their short lives — a couple of years at most), because visual opsins inevitably suffer from photo-oxidative damage by the very light that they exist to detect.<ref>[https://www.nature.com/articles/srep05223 Damage of photoreceptor-derived cells in culture induced by light emitting diode-derived blue light] by Yoshiki Kuse et al. (2014) ''Scientific Reports'' 4(5223):1-12. DOI:10.1038/srep05223.</ref>}}<ref>[http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/11/denton_vs_squid.html Denton vs Squid; the eye as suboptimal design] by Ian Musgrave, Ian (November 14, 2006 06:24 AM) ''The Panda's Thumb'' (archived from January 12, 2012).</ref> In cephalopods, the photocells in the retina each point towards the light, with their nerves out behind.

There are three major failings of the vertebrate eye from a design point of view:
#The blind spot ''in an eye'' is poor design (think about it!) that has consequences beyond the mechanical. We do not normally notice the blind spot, usually because each eye fills in the gap left by the other eye, but also because our brains fool our [[consciousness]] by filling in the missing bit,<ref name="scholarpedia"/><ref name=novella>[https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12052-008-0092-1 Suboptimal Optics: Vision Problems as Scars of Evolutionary History] by Steven Novella (2008) ''Evolution: Education and Outreach'' 1(4):493–497.</ref> which means that extra brain processing is required to give us a full picture of the world. More design to correct the initial (flawed) design is surely not [[intelligent design]]! 
#The second problem is a minor loss of visual acuity due to having the extra material between the retina and the light. The [[photon]]s of light that hit the retina are scattered slightly before they hit the photoreceptors, causing a very slight blur.{{efn|The degree of blur is indicated by the refraction index. For optical light, most optically transparent media have a refractive index of between 1 and 2, where 1 is equal to a vacuum.<ref name=refractiveindex>{{wpa|Refractive index}}</ref> The cornea has a refractive index of about 1.3765, and the vitreous humor has a refractive index of about 1.335.<ref>[https://www.aao.org/munnerlyn-laser-surgery-center/optical-properties-of-eye Optical Properties of the Eye] by Daniel Palanker (Oct 28, 2013) ''American Academy of Ophthalmology''.</ref> This compares to water at 1.333 (which composes about 98-99% of the vitreous humor<ref>{{wpa|Vitreous body}}</ref>) and air at 1.000293.<ref name=refractiveindex/>}}
#The worst result of the design is the relative ease with which the vertebrate retina can become detached from layer beneath it &mdash; the pigment epithelium. Each beat of the heart stretches and then relaxes the retina, pulling it away from this layer. Any retinal damage, usually a tear caused by direct trauma to the eye (e.g. a blow to the head) to the retina, is thus exaggerated by each and every beat of the heart. This would not occur if the blood vessels were on the "correct" side of the retina. In addition, trauma can cause fluid to build up between the retina and the pigment epithelium, forcing the retina to detach. Detached retina is one of the most frequent causes of visual impairment around the world and is entirely a result of this moronically bad design. The analogous cephalopod eye, with its "right-way-round" retina, cannot suffer from this because the retina is anchored into the blood-supplying tissue by the nerve wiring itself.<ref name=novella/>

Additional failings are:
*The retina is inside out, thus reducing image resolution<ref name=held/>{{rp|110-111,115-123}} and reducing the amount of light that is captured.{{efn|As per most image sensors that are arranged in similar ways, save for {{wpl|Back-illuminated_sensor|those that imitate a cephalopods' retina}}, something noted in the Wikipedia article itself}}.
*Variations in eye shape cause common focusing problems (myopia and presbyopia).{{rp|110-111}} An estimated 60 percent of people need corrective vision aids.<ref>[https://www.cbs.nl/en-gb/news/2013/38/more-than-6-in-10-people-wear-glasses-or-contact-lenses More than 6 in 10 people wear glasses or contact lenses] by an-Willem Bruggink (20/09/2013 15:00) ''Statistics Netherlands''.</ref>
*Macular degeneration, which increases with age, but is caused by the structure of the eye. The existence of the macula is a "partial fix for the 'backward' arrangement of retinal layers with the nerve and blood vessels between the receptors and the direction of light", and unnecessary in cephalopods.<ref name=novella/>
*Angle closure glaucoma is a disease that is caused when the drainage of the vitreous humor becomes blocked. The drainage channel is "unnecessarily precarious and susceptible to blockage."<ref name=novella/>
*The human eye has six extraocular muscles that control the movement of the eye. In principle only three muscles would be necessary, but none of the six are redundant — the loss of any one causes eye movement impairment.<ref name=novella/>

The vertebrate "design" can easily be explained by the theory of evolution — a proto-eye evolved which was simply an area of light-sensitive skin. By chance, nerve endings happened to be between the light sensitive area and the light sensitive cells — it (essentially) was a 50/50 chance where the cells were programmed to develop. Since the light sensitive cells gave the individuals which possessed them a slight selection advantage, they stuck, and developed into an eye.

Due to the role of melanin in eyesight for most mammals, including humans, [[albino]] individuals of those species are negatively affected to various degrees. Their eyes ''look'' deformed (in humans, violet and red eye color are exclusive to albinos since their blood vessels show through), they are far more prone to nearsightedness and/or blindness, all of which is prone to progression, and bright light badly damages their eyes at every exposure.

Human eyes are an even worse design than just having a back-to-front retina. Many animals have multifocal lenses and are able to magnify objects much farther away than humans are capable of seeing.<ref>[http://jeb.biologists.org/content/209/1/18 Pupil shapes and lens optics in the eyes of terrestrial vertebrates] by Tim Malmström & Ronald H. H. Kröger (2006) ''Journal of Experimental Biology'' 209:18-25. doi:10.1242/jeb.01959.</ref> If humans are the designer's favored creature, it doesn't show.

====Creationist responses====
Creationists have not yet produced an effective explanation for the design of the vertebrate eye,{{nofact}} but they have produced many failed [[hypotheses]].

By and large, creationists focus only on the first two problems of eye design, the blind spot and the minor loss of visual acuity. Since both of these problems are relatively minor, they can [[handwave]] them away with a shrug, usually while smugly accusing [[scientist]]s of trying to make mountains from molehills.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20150513145741/https://answersingenesis.org/human-body/eyes/the-human-retina-shows-evidence-of-good-design/ The Human Retina Shows Evidence of Good Design] by Jerry Bergman (June 8, 2011) ''Answers in Genesis'' (archived from May 13, 2015).</ref> (However, it is not remotely realistic to brush off retinal detachment, the single most common cause of blindness in the world.) Another creationist claim is that the eye couldn't be designed any other way, or that the design actually ''isn't'' suboptimal:

*A surprisingly common creationist claim is that the eye, for various reasons, couldn't be designed any other way. This crashes hard into the fact that other animals, such as gastropods and cephalopods, '''do''' have eyes designed another way, with the blood supply and nerves attached round the back. Creationists who are aware of this try to explain it by pointing out that cephalopods live in the ocean and try to salvage the situation from the different environments they and humans experience.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20150513085942/https://answersingenesis.org/human-body/eyes/is-our-inverted-retina-really-bad-design/ Is Our "Inverted" Retina Really "Bad Design?"] by Peter Gurney (April 1, 1999) ''Answers in Genesis'' (archived from May 13, 2015).</ref> However, fish are also found in the oceans and yet have the vertebrate-style eye, whereas terrestrial gastropods such as snails live in a similar environment to humans and yet have their retina arranged similar to those of cephalopods. If, for the sake of argument, we accept that the vertebrate eye was well-designed for land and the cephalopod eye well designed for the water, then fish and land snails both have badly designed eyes! (Perhaps the designer was just messy, and put the wrong design in the wrong animals?)

*Another argument is that the arrangement was necessary for heat management reasons.<ref name="JoC1">[http://www.creationontheweb.com/retina Is our inverted retina really bad design?] by Peter W. V. Gurney (1999) ''Journal of Creation'' 13(1):37-44.</ref> It is often proposed that the choroid is responsible for acting as a heat sink, by taking away the heat that could threaten the retina.<ref>"The stabilizing effect of the choroidal circulation on the temperature environment of the macula" by L. M. Parver et al. (1982) ''Retina'' 2(2):117-20.</ref> However, the choroid is a substantial producer of heat too (light that passes through the photoreceptors is absorbed by the choroid and the retinal pigment epithelium as heat). The photoreceptors in vertebrate eyes are located very close to these layers. This can be advantageous in low-temperature conditions, but also threatens the integrity of the retina if they overheat (ocular hyperthermia). The cells of the retinal epithelium produce the 11-cis retinal [[molecule]] required for sight, so it could be reasoned that these pigmented cells must be located near to the photoreceptors, and to counter this the choroid is required to remove the heat. However, in cephalopods, the photoreceptors produce their own 11-cis retinal molecule.<ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16930093 Origin of the vertebrate visual cycle] by N. Takimoto et al. (2007) ''Photochemistry and Photobiology'' 83(2):242-247 doi:10.1562/2006-06-30-IR-957.</ref>

*Other creationists, such as [[Jonathan Sarfati]] have claimed that the cephalopods have very poor vision,<ref name="JoC1"/> but their visual problems aren't due to the retinal design, rather certain problems with the lens they haven't evolved a solution for yet.  Besides, their visual acuity isn't in general worse than that of fish, which have the vertebrate eye. And, pointing out another aspect of bad design would only make the "[[Intelligent designer]]" seem less competent!

*Gurney also cites the evidence that the xanthophyll pigmentation of cells covering the retina — while allowing visible light through — absorbs blue and ultraviolet light and therefore protect the retina from photic damage.<ref name="JoC1"/> But given how little [[UV]] light is blocked by these thin layers of pigment (20-40%),<ref>[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11361022 Lutein, Zeaxanthin, and the Macular Pigment] by J. T. Landrum & R. A. Bone (2001) ''Archives of Biochemistry and Biophysics'' 385(1):28-40. doi:10.1006/abbi.2000.2171.</ref> this is a bit like praising the bullet-stopping power of cardboard. One wonders why the designer gave some animals this protection and not others.

*One creationist response to the problems of the vertebrate eye is that one couldn't "build a better one.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20200101215211/https://evidentcreation.com/?p=325 The Flawed Eye: A Triumph of Design] by Brett Miller (February 23, 2014) ''Evident Creation'' (archived from January 1, 2020).</ref> Build it perhaps, but it is not difficult to envision one (for the same reason that one can tell that a Rolls Royce is higher quality than a Yugo GV). If creationists really believe this, you should never ask them for shopping advice!

*A slightly less common argument is that the orientation of the vertebrate eye helps to prevent light from being reflected off the choroid onto the photoreceptors, which would cause blurry vision.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20080113034201/http://creationwiki.org/Vestigial_organ Vestigial Organ] ''CreationWiki'' (archived from January 13, 2008).</ref> While this would be the case if light was reflected, it is not clear from the creationist arguments exactly how the vertebrate eye provides any protection against reflection. It is clear that human eyes do reflect light, as evident by the 'red eye' effect in flash photographs, and even more so in other vertebrates (bats, cats, dogs, crocodiles, horses etc.) due to their reflective layer behind the retina known as the ''tapetum lucidum''.

===Nautilus eye===
[[File:Nautilus eye, Palau.jpg|thumb|200px|right|A nautilus in Palau. Its eye is the round object near the center of the image.]]
As photographers will tell you, a 'pinhole camera' is an effective way to form an image out of light; the small aperture at the front forms an image on the screen behind it. The smaller the hole, the sharper the image. The downside is that the smaller the aperture, the less overall light gets in. To solve the problem, camera designers add a lens. A lens is an obvious improvement, since it allows both a sharp and bright image. We might therefore expect the Intelligent Designer of organisms to use lenses in eyes. 

For the most part, the 'designer' did. Octopus and squid eyes have lenses… vertebrate eyes have lenses. There is however one cephalopod mollusc, the nautilus (family Nautilidae), which is considered more primitive than octopuses and squid, since it has an external shell. It lives at considerable depths, where light is at a premium. The nautilus has a very good pinhole camera eye; considerable thought presumably went into its design. But the designer apparently saw fit not to give that eye a lens. Its eyes are therefore far less efficient than it easily could have been. Did the designer just forget?

==What use is half an eye?==
{{cquote|Thus the creationist's favourite question "What is the use of half an eye?" Actually, this is a lightweight question, a doddle to answer. Half an eye is just 1 per cent better than 49 per cent of an eye.|||[[Richard Dawkins]], ''The Root of All Evil?'' (2006)<ref>[https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins#The_Root_of_All_Evil?_(January_2006) Richard Dawkins: ''The Root of All Evil?'' (January 2006)] WikiQuote</ref>}}
[[Creationists]] ask, "What use is half an eye?"<ref>[[Henry M. Morris|Morris, Henry M.]] (1992). ''[[Scientific Creationism (book)|Scientific Creationism]]''. Meza, AZ: Eden Productions.</ref> The answer is "a lot". After all, humans normally have two whole ones! However, they usually claim that half an eye is "not useful at all".

It is claimed that the eye is [[Irreducible complexity|irreducibly complex]] and that ''all'' the parts of an eye are needed for any operation; and that any part "missing" would leave an eye defective.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20160609172058/http://creationwiki.org/What_use_is_half_an_eye%3F_(Talk.Origins) What use is half an eye? (Talk.Origins)] ''CreationWiki'' (archived from June 9, 2016).</ref> This is not true. You can still see when your lens is removed,<ref>[http://petapixel.com/2012/04/17/the-human-eye-can-see-in-ultraviolet-when-the-lens-is-removed/ The Human Eye Can See in Ultraviolet When the Lens is Removed] by Michael Zhang (Apr 17, 2012) ''PetaPixel''.</ref> and a dysfunctional iris doesn't lead to complete blindness, as anyone who is shortsighted or longsighted can tell you. Various forms of colour blindness is another fairly common eye failure (and may actually be an evolutionary ''advantage'' in certain conditions.<ref>[https://www.nature.com/news/2005/051205/full/051205-1.html Colour blindness may have hidden advantages: People with red-green colour blindness are better at discerning shades of khaki.] by Tom Simonite (5 December 2005) ''Nature'' doi:10.1038/news051205-1.</ref>)

This is really a different way of phrasing "The eye is too complex to have evolved", except in a [[straw man]] manner that makes the evolutionary case look more ridiculous. As a nice piece of [[equivocation]] "half" is typically interpreted as "some parts of the human eye removed", rather than "a simplification of the current eye".

This is an overgeneralization of [[evolutionary theory]]; the eyes developed over millions of years — not a blind slug one day growing half an eye.

===Responses===
[[File:Bmc evol bio hoppenrath proterythropsis ocelloid fig1a.png|thumb|right|Light micrograph of a single ''Proterythropsis'' sp. (a warnowiid dinoflagellate). '''n''' = nucleus; '''double arrowhead''' = eye-like ocelloid; '''arrow''' = non-mobile posterior cell 'extension'. '''Bar''' = 10 µm]]
#"Half an eye" can easily be a useful detector of light, just as pit vipers have useful detectors of infrared (see {{sl|Gallery}}, below).
#What does "half an eye" look like? Eagles have incredibly acute vision, far more so than human beings; from an eagle's perspective, do humans have only "half an eye"? The question tries to give the impression of an eye which has been physically cut in half and which would be completely useless for vision.  If the question is posed as "Would 50% of current vision still be useful?" then the problem simply does not exist.
#This is an overgeneralization of [[evolutionary theory]]. Rudimentary eyes could be produced with chance beginnings, like the ability to notice changes in light through a rudimentary retina in an animal — not a blind slug one day growing half an eye.
#One of the most rudimentary eyes known belongs to single-celled marine plankton known as warnowiids (family Warnowiaceae). In warnowiids, the eye-like ocelloid evolved from organelles: the lens/cornea evolved from [[mitochondria]] and the photorceptor evolved from a [[chloroplast]]. Due to the extremely small size of the photoreceptor and the wavelength of light that it receives, it is estimated that the photorceptor is roughly equivalent to one screen pixel. Besides being able to detect changes in light, the photoreceptor may also be able to detect changes in polarization.<ref name=milius>[https://www.sciencenews.org/article/some-animals-%E2%80%98see%E2%80%99-world-through-oddball-eyes Some animals ‘see’ the world through oddball eyes: Scientists' understanding of animal sight has taken a turn toward the bizarre] by  Susan Milius (7:00am, May 18, 2016) ''Science News''.</ref><ref>[http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v523/n7559/full/nature14593.html Eye-like ocelloids are built from different endosymbiotically acquired components] by Gregory S. Gavelis et al. ''Nature'' 523, 204–207 (09 July 2015) doi:10.1038/nature14593.</ref>
#There is a documented progression from light-sensitive spots through the light sensors of clams to the human eye and further to the octopus eye, through at least five different lines of development. The octopus eye is arguably more developed than the human eye, as the human eye has blood vessels and nerves in front of the retina, obscuring it and giving the 'blind spot' &mdash; the octopus eye has neither problem. Despite octopi having highly-developed eyes, they also simultaneously have use for primitive eyes: their skin contains photoreceptors that enable them to cue camouflage changes.<ref name=milius/><ref>M. D. Ramirez and T.H. Oakley. Eye-independent, light-activated chromatophore expansion (LACE) and expression of phototransduction genes in the skin of Octopus bimaculoides. ''Journal of Experimental Biology''. Vol. 218, May 15, 2015, p. 1513. doi: 10.1242/jeb.110908.</ref>
#In those organisms that live in dark environments, especially caves or the deep sea, their eyes have become nonfunctional because these organisms are no longer subjected to evolutionary pressures that require them to respond to visual stimuli from their environments. Many of these blind organisms, especially cave-dwelling salamanders, still retain their eyes, even though they can no longer see with them. For more information on the topic, see [[vestigial features]].
#Many humans can not see color, yet their eyes otherwise benefit them enormously.

===Fallacies contained in this claim===
*[[Straw man]]: "Half an eye" is very subjective.
*[[Equivocation]]: What does "half" mean?
*[[Argument from ignorance]]: I can't understand how, so it can not be.
*Suppressed evidence of useful partial eyes

==Types of eyes==
There are at least 9 known types of layouts of the eye in organisms, divided into simple or non-compound eyes (5) and compound eyes (4).<ref>[http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.ne.15.030192.000245 The Evolution of Eyes] by M. F. Land & R. D. Fernald (1992). ''Annual Review of Neuroscience'' Vol. 15: 1-29. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.ne.15.030192.000245.</ref><ref>[http://www.smithlab.net/courses/biovis/swamynathan-evolution.pptx Evolution of the Eye] by Shiva Swamynathan</ref><br>
{{columns|cols=2|body=
'''Simple:'''
#Pit eyes
#Spherical lensed eyes
#Multiple lenses
#Refractive cornea
#Reflector eyes
'''Compound:'''
#Apposition eyes
#Refracting Superposition
#Reflecting Superposition
#Parabolic superposition
}}

===Some examples===
{| class="wikitable sortable collapsible"
|-
!Organisms!!Simple/Compound!!Light receptor!!Chamber!!Focus!!Notes
|-
|Vertebrates (subphylum Vertebrata)||Simple||Retina||Vitreous humor (closed)||Lens/cornea||The nerves route in front of the retina, creating a blind spot.
|-
|Four-eyed fish (genus ''Anableps'')||Simple||Retina||Vitreous humor (closed)||Lens/cornea||It actually has two eyes but with each eye having two pupils, one below and one above the water to simultaneously view above and below the water.<ref name=milius/>
|-
|Most cephalopods (class Cephalopoda), e.g. octopi||Simple||Retina||Vitreous humor (closed)||Lens||The nerves route behind the retina (no blind spot).
|-
|Nautilus (family Nautilidae in class Cephalopoda)||Simple||Retina||Seawater (open)||None||Its eyes are similar to that of a pinhole camera.<ref name=milius/>
|-
|Arthropods (phylum Arthropoda)||Compound and simple||Retina||||Lens||In addition to compound eyes, many arthropods also have simple eyes ("eyespots"), e.g. the Asian swallowtail butterfly (''Papilio xuthus'') has simple eyes on its genitals that are used for both mating and egg laying.
|-
|Mantis shrimp (family Pectinidae in phylum Arthropoda)||Compound||Retina||||Lens||The retina contains up to 16 types of color receptors (compared to 3 in humans).
|-
|Scallops (family Pectinidae in phylum Mollusca)||Simple||Double-layered retina||||Mirror||Although the scallop eye has a lens, it is the mirror behind the retinas that does the focusing.<ref name=milius/> Each of a scallop's eyes contains millions of perfectly square guanine [[crystals]] that form a 3-D mirror that enables a scallop to focus light on one of two retinas adapted for different levels of light.<ref>[https://www.sciencenews.org/article/scallops-amazing-eyes-use-millions-tiny-square-crystals-see Scallops: amazing eyes use millions of tiny, square crystals to see: New look inside the sea creature’s eyeballs reveals their unusual workings] by Laurel Hamers (2:08pm, November 30, 2017) ''Science News''.</ref><ref>[http://science.sciencemag.org/content/358/6367/1172 The image-forming mirror in the eye of the scallop] by Benjamin A. Palmer et al. (01 Dec 2017) ''Science''. doi:10.1126/science.aam9506.</ref>
|-
|Sea urchins (class Echinoidea in phylum Echinoidea)||||||||||Sea urchin vision is not well-understood beyond the fact that they can see and that they have genes for 8 different opsins. It is suspected that most of their outer surface is sensitive to light. Interestingly, although they have a nervous system, they do not have a brain.<ref name=milius/>
|-
|Warnowiid (family Warnowiaceae in phylum Dinoflagellata)||Simple||modified chloroplast||||modified mitochondria||The ocelloid in these single-celled organisms is about 10 µm in diameter.<ref name=milius/>
|-
|''Euglena'' and ''Chlamydomonas'' genera||Simple||Light-detecting organelle||||||One organelle detects light, while another filters it. The combination allows detection of the light direction.<ref name=williams/>
|}

====Gallery====
<gallery>
File:Polistes ocelli.jpg|A photograph of the head of a wasp (''Polistes'' sp.) showing 3 simple eyes (inside circle) and 2 compound eyes (outside circle)
File:Dragonfly eye 3811.jpg|Two compound eyes of a dragonfly
File:Insect compound eye diagram.svg|Anatomy of the compound eyes of insects
File:Placopecten magellanicus.jpg|The sea scallop (''Placopecten magellanicus'') has over 100 blue eyes along the edge of its mantle.
File:Blausen 0388 EyeAnatomy 01.png|Anatomy of the vertebrate eye
File:Schema Auge Vieraugenfisch.svg|Schemata of the eyes of a four-eyed fish: 1.Underwater retina 2.Lens 3. Air pupil 4. Tissue band 5. Iris 6. Underwater pupil 7. Air retina 8. Optic nerve
File:Anableps anableps (largescale four-eyed fish) 2 (15534232807).jpg|A four-eyed fish (''Anableps anableps'') showing how it looks at the world
File:European edible sea urchin or common sea urchin (Echinus esculentus).jpg|A sea urchin (''Echinus esculentus''): the eye without a brain
File:Mexican ridged nosed rattlesnake head.jpg|Mexican Ridged Nosed Rattlesnake (''Crotalus willardi''), a type of pit viper. One of its two infrared-detecting pits is located between its eye and nostril.
File:Euglena diagram.jpg|Diagram of ''Euglena'' spp., indicating the light filter (stigma organelle) for the photoreceptor organelle
File:Euglenoid movement.jpg|Photomicrograph of ''Euglena'' sp. showing the red stigma towards the left
File:Bmc evol bio hoppenrath proterythropsis ocelloid fig1e.png|''Proterythropsis'' sp. ocelloid, the red structure is a retina analog (retinoid), black bar=5 microns
</gallery>

==Video summary==
<center>{{#ev:youtube|DZ9uMb8GqNY}}</center>

==See also==
*[[Evolution#Broad anti-evolution arguments|Broad anti-evolution arguments]]
*[[Why is creationism not a scientific theory?]]

==External links==
*Zoologist Dan-Erik Nilsson [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html demonstrates how the complex human eye could have evolved through natural selection acting on small variations.]
*[http://www.koryoswrites.com/nonfiction/the-functions-of-different-pupil-shapes/ The Functions of Different Pupil Shapes]
*[http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/images/futuyma_eye.gif Diagrams of various mollusc eye morphologies]
*[http://www.maayan.uk.com/evoeyes1.html Uncovering The Ancestry of A Complex Organ, The Eye]
*[http://www.biol.lu.se/funkmorf/vision/dan/model.html Computer modelling of eye evolution]
*[http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-18-t-000004.html Article in Commentary critiques eye evolution]
*{{wpa|Evolution of the eye}}

==Further reading==
*[[Charles Darwin|Darwin, C.]], 1872. ''[[The Origin of Species]]'', 1st Edition. Senate, London. [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin/chapter6.html Chapter Six]
*Goldsmith, T. H., 1990. [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=2146698&dopt=Abstract optimization, constraint, and history in the evolution of eyes]. ''Quarterly Review of Biology''. 65(3), 281-322. [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=2146698&dopt=Abstract PubMed]
*Oakley, T.H. 2003. The eye as a replicating and diverging, modular developmental unit. ''Trends in Ecology and Evolution''. 18(12), 623-627. [http://www.lifesci.ucsb.edu/eemb/labs/oakley/pubs/Oakley2003TREEnocover.pdf PDF]
*Arendt D., Tessmar-Raible K., Snyman H., Dorresteijn A.W., Wittbrodt J. 2004. [http://www.embl.org/aboutus/news/press/2004/press28oct04.html Ciliary photoreceptors with vertebrate-type opsins in an invertebrate brain]. ''Science''. 2004 Oct 29;306(5697):869-71.
*Arendt, Detlev, 2003.  [http://www.ijdb.ehu.es/ijdb20034778/ft563.pdf Evolution of eyes and photoreceptor cell types]. ''International Journal of Developmental Biology''. 47, 563-571. [http://www.ijdb.ehu.es/ijdb20034778/ft563.pdf PDF]
*Land MF & Nilsson D-E (2001) ''Animal Eyes'', Oxford University Press. ISBN 0199581142.
*Salvini-Plawen, S. V. and Mayr, E., 1977. On the evolution of photoreceptors and eyes. ''Evolutionary Biology''. 10, 207-263.
*Goldsmith, T. H., 1990. [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=2146698&dopt=Abstract optimization, constraint, and history in the evolution of eyes]. ''Quarterly Review of Biology''. 65(3), 281-322. [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=2146698&dopt=Abstract PubMed]
*Oakley, T.H. 2003. The eye as a replicating and diverging, modular developmental unit. ''Trends in Ecology and Evolution''. 18(12), 623-627. [http://www.lifesci.ucsb.edu/eemb/labs/oakley/pubs/Oakley2003TREEnocover.pdf PDF]
*Bahar, Sonya, (June 2002). Evolution of the eye: Lessons from freshman physics and Richard Dawkins. The ''Biological Physicist'' 2(2): 2-5. [http://www.aps.org/units/dbp/newsletter/jun02.pdf]
*[[Richard Dawkins]] discusses this claim and similar claims in ''The Blind Watchmaker'', ''A River Out Of Eden'' and ''[[Climbing Mount Improbable]]''.
*Gislén, A. et al., 2003. Superior underwater vision in a human population of sea gypsies. ''Current Biology'' 13: 833-836. [http://www.current-biology.com/content/article/abstract?uid=PIIS0960982203002902]
*Pilcher, Helen R., 2003. ''How to see shells on the sea floor'', [http://www.nature.com/nsu/030512/030512-14.html]
*Kreimer, Georg, 1999. Reflective properties of different eyespot types in dinoflagellates. ''Protist'' 150: 311-323. [http://www.urbanfischer.de/journals/protist/content/issue3/Pro0021.pdf]
*Zorpette, Glenn, 2000 (Dec.). Looking for Madam Tetrachromat. ''Red Herring'', [http://www.redherring.com/mag/issue86/mag-mutant-86.html]

==Notes==
{{reflist|group=note}}

==References==
{{reflist|2|90%}}

{{crebox}}

[[Category:Anatomy]]
[[Category:Biology]]
[[Category:Creationism]]
[[Category:EvoWiki ports]]
[[Category:Fallacious creationist quotes]]
[[Category:Evolution]]
[[Category:Intelligent design creationism]]
[[Category:Suboptimal design]]

Categories: Anatomy, Biology, Creationism, EvoWiki ports, Fallacious creationist quotes, Evolution, Intelligent design creationism, Suboptimal design