Fully-Developed Organs

All species appear fully developed, not partially developed. They show
design (a). There are no examples of half-developed feathers, eyes
(b), skin, tubes (arteries, veins, intestines, etc.), or any of the
vital organs (dozens in humans alone). Tubes that are not 100%
complete are a liability; so are partially developed organs and some
body parts. For example, if a leg of a reptile were to evolve into a
wing of a bird, it would become a bad leg long before it became a good
wing (c).

a.	William Paley, Natural Theology (England: 1802; reprint, Houston:
St. Thomas Press, 1972).

This work by Paley, which contains many powerful arguments for a
Creator, is a classic in scientific literature. Some might feel that
because it was written in 1802, it is out of date. Not so. Hoyle and
Wickramasinghe compared Darwin’s ideas with those of Paley as follows:

“The speculations of The Origin of Species turned out to be wrong, as
we have seen in this chapter. It is ironic that the scientific facts
throw Darwin out, but leave William Paley, a figure of fun to the
scientific world for more than a century, still in the tournament with
a chance of being the ultimate winner.” Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra
Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space: A Theory of Cosmic Creationism
(New York: Simon and Schuster, 1981), pp. 96–97.

b.	Asa Gray, a famous Harvard botany professor, who was to become a
leading theistic evolutionist, wrote to Darwin expressing doubt that
natural processes could explain the formation of complex organs such
as the eye. Darwin expressed a similar concern in his return letter of
February 1860.

“The eye to this day gives me a cold shudder, but when I think of the
fine known gradations [Darwin believed possible if millions of years
of evolution were available], my reason tells me I ought to conquer
the cold shudder.” Charles Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles
Darwin, Vol. 2, editor Francis Darwin (New York: D. Appleton and Co.,
1899), pp. 66–67.

And yet, Darwin admitted that:

“To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for
adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different
amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic
aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I
freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.” Charles Darwin, The
Origin of Species, p. 175.

Darwin then proceeded to speculate on how the eye might nevertheless
have evolved. However, no evidence was given. Later, he explained how
his theory could be falsified.

“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which
could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight
modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Charles Darwin,
The Origin of Species, p. 179.

“It’s one of the oldest riddles in evolutionary biology: How does
natural selection gradually create an eye, or any complex organ for
that matter? The puzzle troubled Charles Darwin, who nevertheless
gamely nailed together a ladder of how it might have happened—from
photoreceptor cells to highly refined orbits—by drawing examples from
living organisms such as mollusks and arthropods. But holes in this
progression have persistently bothered evolutionary biologists and
left openings that creationists have been only too happy to exploit.”
Virginia Morell, “Placentas May Nourish Complexity Studies,” Science,
Vol. 298, 1 November 2002, p. 945.

David Reznick, an evolutionary biologist at the University of
California (Riverside), explained to Virginia Morell:

“Darwin had to use organisms from different classes, because there
isn’t a living group of related organisms that have all the steps for
making an eye.” Ibid.

To solve this dilemma, Reznick points to different species of a
guppylike fish, some of which have no placenta and others that have
“tissues that might become placentas.” However, when pressed, “Reznickadmits that the [guppylike fish’s] placenta might not be as
sophisticated as the mammalian placenta” [or the eye of any
organism].  Ibid.

“The eye, as one of the most complex organs, has been the symbol and
archetype of his [Darwin’s] dilemma. Since the eye is obviously of no
use at all except in its final, complete form, how could natural
selection have functioned in those initial stages of its evolution
when the variations had no possible survival value? No single
variation, indeed no single part, being of any use without every
other, and natural selection presuming no knowledge of the ultimate
end or purpose of the organ, the criterion of utility, or survival,
would seem to be irrelevant. And there are other equally provoking
examples of organs and processes which seem to defy natural selection.
Biochemistry provides the case of chemical synthesis built up in
several stages, of which the intermediate substance formed at any one
stage is of no value at all, and only the end product, the final
elaborate and delicate machinery, is useful—and not only useful but
vital to life. How can selection, knowing nothing of the end or final
purpose of this process, function when the only test is precisely that
end or final purpose?” Gertrude Himmelfarb, Darwin and the Darwinian
Revolution (Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1959), pp. 320–321.

c.	“Of what possible use are the imperfect incipient stages of useful
structures? What good is half a jaw or half a wing?” Stephen Jay
Gould, “The Return of Hopeful Monsters,” p. 23.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences12.html#wp1008884

Pahu78@gmail.com wrote:
> Fully-Developed Organs
> 
> All species appear fully developed, not partially developed. 

Of course they do. If you'd bothered to do any reading about 
evolution then you'd understand why this is just a stupid comment - 
childish in the extreme.

Parading your utter lack of any understanding of one of the easiest 
parts of evolution to grasp simply destroys the credibility of the 
site you keep quoting from and your own credibility.

regards, Ian