Hold on there bubba, you've set this one up backwards.
1 The Darwin Religionist claims that everything evolves (ie the eye) so then there were first beings with no eyes, then partial eyes, then real eyes, then superior eyes. The eyes 'evolved' over time. The 'better' the eye, the more likely the beast would be 'naturally selected'.1
Now you tell me that there are no 'partially blind' owls or eagles (partially evolved) They either have eyes or they do not ... is that it ?? This is not classic darwinism. So I fear that you've introduced heretical beliefs into the 'faith' of your fathers ...
2 There should be eagle fossils with no eyes, followed by eagle fossils with partial eyes ... etc2
What you presume here is, that a species like the eagle pops up without eyes and then the eyes evolves over time. That itself is ridiculous and it shows, that you a) don´t understand the theory at all or b) don´t want
to understand it to make up contradicting arguments.
As you see in the quote, I marked statement 1 and 2. Statement 1 is true, but statement 2 is false. You assume in 2, that Evolution creates a perfectly developed eagle without eyes, that slowly develops eyes after. If that was true, we would find fossils of eagles without eyes. But as you know aswell, your claim is false. The eagle does not pop up without eyes. If that would happen other species with eyes (it does not matter if it would be half-blind eyes or fully devoloped eyes) would wipe out the blind eagle pretty fast. (exactly as I said in my first post.).
You´re trying to build an argument by making a false picture of evolution. You´re trying to give the impression that evolution creates the species "eagle" first and the eyes of the eagle after the rest of it. It doesn´t work that way.
So then how did eyes evolve? That is at the very crux of Darwins dilemna. The eye is too complex to have simply evolved over time and given anyone an 'advantage' with a non-functioning partially developed eye.
Again, your twisting the theory and ignore everything that you don´t like. The eye is not too complex to evolve. As it is shown in the examples given before, all the less-devoloped-but-still-functional eyes are there for you to see. You just don´t want to see.
You´re right, that a non-functioning partially devoloped eye is no advantage. But already a really really simple photoreceptor molecule (that is far far away from a fully developed eye), that lets you know, if you swim away or towards the light, gives a single cell organisms a huge advantage over organisms without that.
You yourself concede that a 'partial eye' is hardly better than no eye at all.
Show me, where I said that. I said, that an organism with no eye doesn´t stand a chance against a competitor with an eye (if the eye is the only difference). You imply here, that "partial eye" means "non-functioning". Look above for the example with the single cell organism.
Are you now suggesting a 'new faith' (unobserved) where all animals all developed 'eyes' at the same time ?
That one is far harder to 'swallow' than the belief that a Creator 'created' these beings fully formed.
Wasn´t it your own idea, that a species evolves without eyes and that the eyes evolve after everything else is done? (see "the eagles without eyes"-part). But anyway, I´m not saying all kinds of animals developed eyes at the same time (that was your idea alone), but
, and that is important, evolution is like an arms race of superpowers, so if one starts, all other must adapt or perish. If one species in an environment advances, it puts pressure on the other species, too (I am not
saying, species can decide to evolve!). More evolved predators leed to more evolved prey.
But we are not talking about some sub-species of blob at the bottom of the ocean in the mirky dark. We are talking about birds and mammals on the earth. SHOW ME where they developed 'eyes' as part of a natural selection, survival of the fittest evolution.
Darwin acknowledged that the eye is far to complex for this to have occured by happenstance.
(as your 'faith' alleges)
I´m not talking about sub-species blob either. If you think of highly adapted fish as "sub-species blob", then that´s your problem, not mine. And as I said above, all the evidence was allready shown to you, but you decided not to look.
Since your own idea of evolution is false, as pointed out, you wont find evidence for that. But the theory of evolution by Darwin has enough evidence, which was already shown.
And Darwin did not
acknowledge that the eye is to complex. Read the whole
paragraph written by Darwin, not just the little line of text that creationists are quote mining to death. The eye would only be too complex for evolution, if you could not change it´s configuration without destroying it´s functionalty. That means, only if the fully developed mammalian eye was the only configuration for a working eye, then an eye would be to complex for evolution.