Can any evolutionist explain the retinal cascade?

Question

Can any evolutionist explain the retinal cascade?

Answer 1

If you can describe your understanding of what the retinal cascade *IS*, then I can know at what level to answer your question.  I.e. do you know the names of the proteins involved?  Do you know what an opsin gene is?   Do you even know what a protein cascade *IS*, much less how it works?   Or do I first have to explain all of that too?

Sorry, but I've run into too many Creationists who shoot off a phrase like "retinal cascade" without any CLUE what it is, or how it works.  They just read it in some Creationist site somewhere, and it sounds all "scientifical" so they throw it out there as if the 'evolutionists' will go "Oh, c**p ... those brilliant Creationists know so much about biology they have stumped us *again*!!"

In order to explain how a structure or biochemical process evolved, there first has to be understanding about what it is that needs explaining.   Creationists love to leave the burden on the 'evolutionists' to first have to give a full explanation of the phenomenon being explained, before they can even approach the *ANSWER* of how it evolved.

Other examples ... the "bacterial flagellum" or the blood clotting system ... the Creationist just asks about it without any understanding of how the these things work biochemically ... and the 'evolutionist' has to give a course in biochemistry 101 before they can even address the question.   The Creationist walks off smug at the difficulty the 'evolutionist' is having ... and doesn't even know enough that the 'evolutionist' is not having problems with the answer, but in filling in the Creationist's ignorance of the details of their own friggin' *QUESTION*.

It is argument from ignorance ... "Let me ask you to explain the evolution of a process I don't understand, and then when I can't even begin to understand your answer, I will conclude that I have stumped you."

This isn't a question.  It is vapid, empty gamesmanship ... using ignorance like a weapon.

Answer 2

Yes.

Answer 3

Can any creationist explain the appendix?  The babies occasionally born with tails?  That, against all the odds, chimpanzee DNA is some 1.5% different from ours?  That my Consultant osteopathic surgeon tells me we suffer from back complaints, because we are monkeys trying to walk upright?

    Isn't it one thing to believe something, but another to preach it?  i believe so.

Answer 4

Do you not understand that intelligent design is based on the absence of evidence? You can not point out gaps in theories, and say god must be involved.

Simply because one thing cant be explained at one given moment doesnt mean it will never be explained.

Don't you think the creationist way of thinking is fallacious?

Answer 5

The retinal is frequently cited by creationists as proof of "Irreducible Complexity", the theory that life itself is too complex to have "evolved". What creationists fail to grasp is that the retina is composed of sub-components that have (or once had) independent function. So the complete functioning retina does not need to evolve in one step. Here is a video that explains why Irreducible Complexity is not valid:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_HVrjKcv...

Here is a second video where the evolution of the eye is discussed (at a level that laymen can understand): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ybWucMx4...

Answer 6

See the Nature review cited.

How would a creationist explain the fact that the mammalian eye is back to front, with the blood supply interfering with light falling on the retina?  And, come to think of it, that the visual cortex is right at the back of the brain?

And, while we are on the subject, why do you call biological scientists "evolutionists"?  I don't think you call chemists "atomists".