I've already answered that exact example in the last post where I replied to you in a different thread, I hope you don't mind if I copy and paste my answer:
"Nothing 'guided' the mutations. They simply happened, and natural selection removed the detrimental ones and allowed the helpful ones. It's really not all that complicated.
If that be the case, then God and His creation simply just happens. That's not science. And if you reject my view that is put into your terms, then you would be bias and possibly prejudice.
Also. saying that it just simply happens, is a form of conformity. That is where you believe in evolution to the point you cannot deny that everything, regardless of what it is, most conform to support your view. That's not science. Science would have required you to explain what you claim, or admit you don't know. But to justify why you don't know with a form of conformity, means you are trying to promote evolution as an absolute by implying through conformity that evolution answers everything. Which again is not science.
Chances are the eye would still work, it just probably wouldn't be as good as the competition, and in harsh environment, it would get washed out. And just to point out, the eye didn't form from 30,000 mutations just being thrown together.
Here's the likely steps proposed by Darwin: (right after that quote that some creationists leapt at, despite it being blatently out of context, where Darwin 'claimed' that the forming of the eye was "absurd in the highest degree.")
* Photosensitive cells.
* 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."
I can say: God created time first. Then He created space second. Then He created matter third. Now this would work because this is the only order that would work. But because I cannot see this, do my words make it true?
If by faith I decide to believe this, then what I believe becomes religion.
So if by faith you decide that you believe this is the order the eye evolved even though you cannot observe this. Then by faith you accept this as truth. Because empirical science is about observation, not words made to conform to theories and ideas. anyone can do that. But words don't make new realities, new truths until the words are confirmed. Can you confirm the order of the eye forming? Then by words you believe which means you accept them by faith.
I don't see how I was conforming to anything other than the evidence which I drew my conclusions from. I did not start with a belief that I thought to be true, but with evidence that I realised connected with evolution. If I do not understand something about evolution, I can look up possible theories, experiments, geology, genetics, anatomy etc., from a myriad of different sources. With creationism, all I have is a bible that was written, edited and sorted by humans.
Words are not empirical evidence. So your conclusion is based on opinion.
Evolution doesn't 'omit the bad stuff'. It includes everything, and could you further classify what that 'bad stuff' is that I'm not addressing? The idea that the eye was thrown together by a random set of mutations in an individual that just happened to have everything in place and in the correct order, is indeed ludicrous and if that was what evolution proposed, I seriously doubt evolution would have it's place among science. Evolution is a gradual progression towards increasing complexity so that an organism can adapt to its environment. There's no ladder like format that evolution tries to follow, there is only stuff that works or doesn't work in different environments for different organisms.
Can you tell me the exact number of differences in DNA in 2% between human and chimps?
Can you show me where this actual number is listed in any teaching book on evolution that is in our schools?
You cannot because 2% is easier to sell the masses than the actual number of differences. The only reason I know the answer was because I ran across it by accident why studying the difference in human DNA concerning twins. It was listed on a CSI type site based on law enforcement. Imagine that. I had to find an answer on a site that does not even promote evolution, but yet all the sites that do want tell you that number.
In the Miller experiment, can you tell me if all the amino acids for life were formed?
Can you tell me the percent needed for life that was missing?
Did you know that 98% of what was made along with the amino acids is toxic to all life from forming it it?
But let's take this to another level. Science wants to spend a trillion dollars to go to Mars. To sell the idea they hide some fact about the conditions on Mars that would kill any life that tried to form on it. Do you know what those facts are?
1) Mars has no ozone layer which means the full rays of the sun would kill any life from forming on it.
2) Full rays of the sun also sterilize the soil which insures no plants or microbes will ever grow.
3) The barometric pressures on mars is about 1/4-1/8 of that on earth. the barometric pressures controls the boiling and vaporization points of water. Being that Mars is as low as it is, the boiling point of water on that planet would be 50 degrees F. The vapor point would be about 40 degrees F.
4) Because the average temperature on Mars is about 70 degrees, if there was any water it would have boiled into the atmosphere at one point or another. being in a gaseous state, there would have been measurable evidence of this in the atmosphere. This evidence does not exist.
5) The low barometric pressures would also make it to where warm blooded animals could not exist. Why? The boiling point of water being 50 degrees means any animal sustaining a body temp above that would make their blood boil.
6) And cold blooded animals could not exist because they would need to warm up in the sun. And there are 2 problems here. One is that being in the full rays of the sun would kill the life-form. And two, if the sun raised the body temp above fifty degrees their blood would boil killing them as well.
7) Are the ice caps really frozen water? The atmosphere contains a high concentration of CO2 because there is no plant to convert to oxygen. The poles on Mars get much colder than on earth. So because of the high concentration of CO2, it freezes and falls like snow making the poles look like they have ice. Now how many time have we heard different scientists say that this frozen substance on the poles prove water?
8) The magnetic field of mars is much weaker than our planet. What this means is that the magnetic field does not deflect the solar wind as effectively as earth does. Why is this important? Solar wind has the ability to strip a planet of it's atmosphere. and is the very reason mars has a low barometric pressure is because most of it's atmosphere has been stripped away into space.
All the reasons we take for granted that allows life to exist here, is the very reason life cannot exist on mars.
And why is this information with held from the masses? Science has already determined they will go to Mars no matter the cost in money, or deception. Because if the tax payers knew all this, do you think they would still fork over a trillion dollars of their tax money? Of course not. Now you know why the bad stuff in science and evolution is hidden. You don't get money for ideas that don't sound like they will work. So to make them sound better, the problems are ignored.