A Contradiction to Evolution

Ahhh Irreducible Complexity.

The claim that the eye is irreducibly complex has been frequently discredited. A simple google search for "Evolution of the Eye" returns thousands of results explaining how the eye could have evolved naturally over time.

Basically, we start with primitive photosensitive cells which allows differentiation between light and dark and possibly some form of phototaxis, and then we add more and more features like concave shape, clear covering, focusing lenses, pigmented receptors, etc. etc. until we have a human eye. And even the human eye isn't typically considered the best example of a highly evolved eye in known organisms. Birds of prey have noticeably better visual acuity than humans, for example.

First, ask yourself how he knows that the processes are completely interdependent? Unless he can show that every possible individual genetic change makes an eye unworkable then his assertion is not credible. It has long been known that the vast majority of genetic changes are deleterious...that does not mean that all changes are, however. There is some genetic variation in play in eyes today or there would not be people with variation in sight. The question natural selection asks is: Does it reduce reproductive fitness (ie how many offspring survive and reproduce)? If it does, then over generations it will not be favored.