Fig. 3. Holochroal eyes. (A) Paladin eichwaldi shunnerensis King, 1914 (Middle Carboniferous, England). Reconstruction of a single lens, cut to show radial lamellae and vertical trabeculae. (B, C) Asaphus raniceps Dalman, 1827 (Lower Ordovician, Sweden). (B) Vertical section through adjacent lenses showing thin cornea (black), hemispherical lower terminations and focal point (F). (C) Surface view, with cornea removed at left hand side to show radial lamellae. (D, E) Sphaerophthalmus alatus Boeck, 1838 (Upper Cambrian, Sweden). (D) Section through adjacent lenses and focal point (F) (E). Surface view of lenses, cornea removed on left hand side to show radial lamellae.
Descriptions from ScienceDirect.com
From Creation-Evolution Headlines:
Darlings of the Cambrian Explosion, trilobites had spotted markings and sophisticated eyes. Some have been exceptionally well preserved as fossils, down to the level of individual cells.
The compound eyes of trilobites had dozens of individual lenses, each with complex photoreceptor organs at the base. They were described by Science Now, “Looking a Trilobite in the Eye,” as like those of today’s insects and crustaceans.
credit = from the SN article referenced.
Trilobites could see well in their environment, but might not have wanted to be seen. A paper in Geology reported spotted patterns on the shells of some exquisitely-preserved trilobite fossils found in New York. The authors speculated they might have been for camouflage. National Geographic described the techniques the team used to conclude the spots were original, not artifacts of the fossilization process (see also Live Science and Nature). The specimens had some 500 calcite-filled spots arranged in patterns that might have scattered light and blurred the image of the animal to passing predators.
National Geographic suggested many other trilobites may have had these markings. As for their function, the article “cautioned against ascribing a function for the spots on an extinct organism, noting that it’s very difficult to know for sure how the animal used them.”
Speaking of the Cambrian Explosion, another phylum joins the forty or so phyla that “emerged” without ancestors at the base of the Cambrian. Nature reported that acorn worms (tubiculous enteropneusts) alleged to be 500 million years old have been found in the Burgess Shale in Canada, suggesting to the authors that “hemichordates originated at the onset of the Cambrian explosion.” Exactly how they “originated” fully formed was not explained. Flexing his thesaurus, though, Henry Gee tried to spin an evolutionary tale out of the finding in a companion piece in Nature:
Trilobite eyes do not take science "one step closer" to understanding the evolution of eyes, they reveal, if anything, devolution of eyes.
Understood. If I believed in evolution, I would not want to discuss evidence either.
Richard Dawkins: Nobody knows how it got started. We know the kind of event it must have been. We know the sort of event that must have happened for the origin of life.
Ben Stein: And what was that?
Richard Dawkins: It was the origin of the first self replicating molecule.
Ben Stein: Right, and how did that happen?
Richard Dawkins: I've told you, we don't know.
Ben Stein: So you have no idea how it started.
Richard Dawkins: No, no. Nor has anyone. Expelled April 18 2008 1.30.05
Yes, life must have happened. You can check out Genesis chapter one for more information.
Say, like DNA for instance?
Really? Could it be that the human mind likes logic and evidence better than ludicrous and twisted fairy tales? We do not misunderstand Darwinism, we wonder at the lack of disbelief in those who believe in it and recognize that the Creator would certainly have designed us to be able to comprehend and acknowledge that only a Transcendent Supernatural Being could create the natural and natural Universe. Not some zillion-bazillion cosmic dice rolls! Keep in mind that chance cannot by laws of statistics explain the accident of one organism, let alone billions. Keep in mind that the Laws of Thermodynamics support devolution rather than evolution and devolution is what we observe. But God already knew the real problem. The brain does not misunderstand Darwinism because it was designed that way (Richard sure uses that word a LOT for a Darwinist) but rather because it is illogical.
Actually Dawkins so often makes assertions that support Creationism or ID and fails to recognize it that he reminds me of a fellow observing an elephant's trunk and rhasodizes on about the amazing "Air Snake" he has observed, a wondrous creature with the big end somehow able to hover in mid-air and navigate with no eyes at all nor ears but simply two enormous nostril/mouths and an ability to feel objects. We all want to ask him to "look farther to the side! You'll see the rest of the elephant!"
Let me give you an example:
It is raining DNA outside. On the bank of the Oxford canal at the bottom of my garden is a large willow tree, and it is pumping downy seeds into the air. ... [spreading] DNA whose coded characters spell out specific instructions for building willow trees that will shed a new generation of downy seeds. … It is raining instructions out there; it's raining programs; it's raining tree-growing, fluff-spreading, algorithms. That is not a metaphor, it is the plain truth. It couldn't be any plainer if it were raining floppy discs.
But Dawkins cannot see, just as a student new to Algebra would struggle at the concept of solving for "X" without explanations and examples. Yet he has seen examples all his life and yet he does not see? Amazing?
That Richard Dawkins would refuse to believe in God and prefer Darwinism is no surprise, though, because there have been men who despised creation by God for many centuries. From the Book of Romans as written by Paul in chapter one, verses eighteen to twenty-three.
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.