You are using two unproven assertions (Young Earth Creation and Original Sin) to explain the imperfections due to evolution.
Has evolution been proven? Let's see you deny it falsifiability by implying or saying that it has. You know you want to. Just like every other evolutionist likes to do this. So let's here the: It's a proven true fact. Then while you at it, you can start another thread showing this and then explaining how something can be a proven fact and falsifiable at the same time.
What we all know is that there is no evidence for any form of 'elan vital' etc needed to initiate life.
Well you guys claim lightening did it, Right? Is that not implying another source or power is needed?
I presume your question about eyes refers to trilobite eyes. There is a simple and obvious explanation which your creationist associates may have forgotten to tell you.
Trilobite eyes use crystals of calcite instead of soft organic tissue as lenses. This makes preservation as fossils much easier. Therefore we have far more information on trilobite eyes than on eyes in any other Cambrian creature.
It seems that many other Cambrian species also had sight, but the evidence has not survived in the fossil record.
"Fortey (2000, p91) used molecular clock theory to trace the origin of eyes into deep time, conjecturing that we may need to go back as far as the divergence time between the Protostome and Deuterostome animals; if valid then eyes may predate the basal trilobites by some 250 to 500 million years ."
So why did not the highest evolved species end up with such eyes?
NB. Use of terms like 'most evolved' is one of the clues that you really know much less about the theory of evolution than you claim. All present-day species have an ancestry going back to the origin of life on earth. Therefore, all species are equally 'evolved'. It is just that the different species have evolved in different ways.
Using the reverse of burden of proof (common ancestry to replace the word evolve) to get out of answering questions is getting old and quite lame. But I notice you use the word evolve further down. So is this a freedom of speech thing where creationists are no longer allowed to use the word evolve because they disagree with evolution? Or is ancestry a better word because evolution has become an implied absolute, so the use of implied absolute processes are needed?