I'm well familiar with those stories...<quoted text>
Creationist Claim CB301:
The eye is too complex to have evolved
This is the quintessential example of the argument from incredulity. The source making the claim usually quotes Darwin saying that the evolution of the eye seems "absurd in the highest degree". However, Darwin follows that statement with a three-and-a-half-page proposal of intermediate stages through which eyes might have evolved via gradual steps (Darwin 1872).
• photosensitive cell
• aggregates of pigment cells without a nerve
• an optic nerve surrounded by pigment cells and covered by translucent skin
• pigment cells forming a small depression
• pigment cells forming a deeper depression
• the skin over the depression taking a lens shape
• muscles allowing the lens to adjust
All of these steps are known to be viable because all exist in animals living today. The increments between these steps are slight and may be broken down into even smaller increments. Natural selection should, under many circumstances, favor the increments. Since eyes do not fossilize well, we do not know that the development of the eye followed exactly that path, but we certainly cannot claim that no path exists.
Evidence for one step in the evolution of the vertebrate eye comes from comparative anatomy and genetics. The vertebrate βγ-crystalli n genes, which code for several proteins crucial for the lens, are very similar to the Ciona βγ-crystalli n gene. Ciona is an urochordate, a distant relative of vertebrates. Ciona's single βγ-crystalli n gene is expressed in its otolith, a pigmented sister cell of the light-sensing ocellus. The origin of the lens appears to be based on co-optation of previously existing elements in a lensless system.
Nilsson and Pelger (1994) calculated that if each step were a 1 percent change, the evolution of the eye would take 1,829 steps, which could happen in 364,000 generations.
Lindsay, Don, 1998. How long would the fish eye take to evolve? http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/e...
Darwin, C., 1872. The Origin of Species, 1st Edition. Senate, London, chpt. 6, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin/chapte...
Nilsson, D.-E. and S. Pelger, 1994. A pessimistic estimate of the time required for an eye to evolve. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Biological Sciences, 256: 53-58.
Shimeld, Sebastian M. et al. 2005. Urochordate βγ-crystalli n and the evolutionary origin of the vertebrate eye lens. Current Biology 15: 1684-1689.
And with the ridiculous "argument firm incredulity" retort.
You have no scientific evidence of anything... All you can do is ridicule skeptics for not having faith in evolution.
Why do you think the proliferation of stories constitute science.