Edit the summary of the argument: God explains the creation, adaptation and complexity of species

You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reason:

The action you have requested is limited to users in the group: Users.

To edit this page, please answer the question that appears below (more info):

Wikidebates is an encyclopedia of... ?

Write here the simple or complex reasoning behind this argument.

Strive to present the argument clearly and concisely, in its strongest and most convincing version.

Note: Treat here one and only one argument, each argument having to be the object of a distinct page.

Warning banners

Depending on the box you check here, you will add a warning message pointing out the shortcomings of this summary:

Summary to be written: No content has been provided or the text entered corresponds to a note taking.
Arguments to separate: This text mixes arguments that need to be separated. Create a specific page for each of them.
Too long summary: This text contains redundancies, heavy sentences, or is globally too developed.
Unclear summary: This text is confusing, jargon, too complex or too telegraphic.
Disadvantageous summary: The argument is presented in a lacunary or caricatured way. A more convincing version needs to be written.
Style to review: This summary is written in a personal way (“I think that…”) or too familiar.

Summary to be written Arguments to separate Too long summary Unclear summary Disadvantageous summary Style to review

The theory of evolution, which assumes the creation of new organs by successive evolutions, doesn't work: in fact, organ embryos or transition types between two organs are not advantageous. Sudden jumps from one fully constituted organ to another are required for adaptive advantage. These sudden jumps remain unexplained. Have they been programmed by God?

Australian biologist Michael Denton spends a chapter of his book "Does evolution make sense?" studying the problem of the lobster's eye. In closely related races of crustaceans, there are two types of eye, each operating on a different optical principle. In the case of spiny lobsters, these are square visual units: they are composed of ocular units consisting of a tiny tube with a square cross-section, about twice as long as it is wide, and whose lateral faces are flat mirrors. Light rays are reflected by the lateral mirrors to converge on a single point on the retina. In the vast majority of crustaceans, eye units are round or hexagonal, based on the principle of refraction. There is no intermediate type between these eye types. And of course, there is no trace of fossils with this embryonic organ! In fact, it's hard to imagine what this transitional eye between the refractive and the refractive eye would be like "[...] ''so different are their respective arrangements in terms of geometry and optical function. The ocular unit of a transitional eye would have to be halfway between the hexagon and the square, halfway between the refracting lens and the reflecting surface, and yet possess the optical properties necessary for image formation.''"{{Note|Michael Denton, L'évolution a-t-elle un sens ?, Fayard, page 486}}.

Edit summary:

Click on the operation(s) you performed so contributors can quickly understand your changes:

Added content
Deleted content
Correction
Reorganization
Style improvement

This summary will appear in the page's history, as well as in the recent changes feed.

This is a minor edit

Watch this page

Cancel

Edit the summary of the argument: God explains the creation, adaptation and complexity of species

Navigation menu

Search