I guess what I meant was that itâ€™s misleading, because â€œirreducibly complexâ€ is often used as another way of saying â€œthereâ€™s no way this could have evolvedâ€. But as I just explained, this isnâ€™t true.
You combine issues. A thing is either irreducibly complex or it isn't. If it is, one way for it to evolve would be some sort of magic. The luck goddess has been claimed to overcome totally ridiculous odds too. Why not just say all the components showed up at once?
In my example, I started with a single light sensitive cell.
If you want to see an irreducibly complex eye, take a look at the starter eyes presented by evolutionists. They never start with nothing when they suppose they're explaining how eyes came to be; they always start with minimal "eyes".
Your non-functional example is atypical. Generally an optic nerve and a portion of the brain with the capacity to process the information are included for the obvious reason that if the system be incomplete, Darwinism categorizes it as a liability which should be eliminated quickly.
I guess I shouldn't have assumed you intended to posit something partially plausible. Now that you've made it clear, we can classify it as a non-starter-eye.
The first functioning eyes would have likely evolved on marine organisms. They wouldnâ€™t need eyelids because there would be no risk of drying out.
I didn't know the water was considered a better environment for the project. The reasoning still escapes me.
Again, I used single cells as my example. Not starter eyes.
Some organisms have an open circulatory system. This means that they have no blood vessels, and blood flows freely around their internal organs with each heart pump. Our circulatory system evolved from a system much like this. And you make it sounds like blood is a necessary component for life, but single celled organisms lack blood and are still alive. Theyâ€™re small enough to get oxygen through diffusion alone.
I did not intend to make it sound as if single-celled lifeforms require blood. Perhaps next time I'll successfully manage not to say things I don't say. I understand I'll have to try really hard, because I sure can't count on any help.
I see you don't list many components. What is blood, exactly, to your thinking? What is a heart, for that matter? Is it just luck that organs in some creature should be arranged to allow blood to freely circulate without a network of vessels? Surely any bad luck at all, and some area would be cut off.
Your problem is that when things truly are irreducibly complex, and you try to posit a minimal beginning, you either get something non-functional or something with complexity from the very start. This may satisfy those who dearly desire to believe, but it won't cut it for anyone else.