Hi anastasia,
I'm pretty sure I know what you're saying. I might be able to point you in the right direction.
I understand that it is not appropriate to envision a deformed nautilus without eyes, and conclude that therefore, there was a plan for them to have eyes. At the same time, if countless things get on without them, what is the sense in getting one? People keep giving elaborate descriptions of how things 'just happened'. I am sorry, but even if it irks you, there are still elements of the whole thing which seem to be a matter of faith. Faith that a thing COULD happen.
I think you might have a misunderstanding of how the modern scientific method works. The evolution of the eye from simple forms to more complex forms is a hypothesis. Experiments are conducted that challenge the validity of the hypothesis and as long as the hypothesis isn't refuted, conclusions are made that are held tentatively. Our explanation for the evolution of the eye is based on a lot of other evidence regarding descent with modification and is so far the best explanation we have. We have found nothing that contradicts it.
Generally, when discussing aspects of evolutionary theory you will see a lot of talk about things that "could happen." If those "could happens" provide us with further experiments to conduct, that is a sign of good scientific theory.
A good example of this method in action is another theory by Charles Darwin, the theory of atoll formation.
Atoll - Wikipediahttp://pauillac.inria.fr/~clerger/Darwin.html
quote:
Darwin published an explanation for the creation of coral atolls in the South Pacific (1842) based upon observations made during a five-year voyage aboard the HMS Beagle (1831-1836). His explanation, which is accepted as basically correct, involved considering that several tropical island types”from high volcanic island, through barrier reef island, to atoll”represented a sequence of gradual subsidence of what started as an oceanic volcano.
Notice the similarity with our explanations of the evolution of the eye? This theory is basically a description of how things just happened or could happen. Darwin never saw a given atoll go through gradual subsidence from volcanic island to atoll but it did explain a whole lot and pointed us in the direction of further experimentation.
Edited by Clark, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2
