I've been reading more of that "Christian Scientist" guy I was mentioning earlier. He claims that evolution can't explain the emergence of the eye, because the eye is too complex. In an argument reminiscent of Xeno's paradox, in wording if not structure, he mentions:
Logic dictates that if evolutionism is true and the eye was built incrementally over time from nothing to its present state of functional wholeness, then it must have at some point in the past been only half of an eye
And then proceeds to illustrate this with a picture of an eye - and I am not making this up - cut in half. He then complains that it would leak.
Incidentally, the reason evolution can explain the emergence of an eye is that any light vision is useful - to be able to tell light and dark apart is already useful, and the ability to see more and more clearly is also useful, so almost inevitably eyes will emerge. Octopuses have evolved eyes independently of animals, for instance, and my friend Jonathan in Canada apparently has been known to explain how, with only a little coaxing, you can get an eye to grow on anything.
