Complexities prove you can question evolution

I am responding to Richard Cohen's column of Feb. 17, in which he states, "It is simply not possible to contest evolution, ..." That is simply not true. There are legitimate objections to it.

One of the basic objections to the theory is called "irreducible complexity." The best example I can give of it is your eye. The human eye is a liquid-filled sphere that has a rich layer of blood vessels that supply the organ with oxygen and nutrients. The sphere is self-lubricating, set back in a protective socket in the skull, surrounded by hairs to keep out debris. It has a single opening in the front, with specialized muscles that adjust for the amount of available light. The opening has a lens that uses another set of specialized muscles to focus the incoming light on a layer of light sensitive nerves cells, the retina. Some of these cells, cones, respond to color and detail; while others, rods, respond to low light. These cells transform the visual light into nerve impulses and transmit them a specialized optic nerve. The nerve impulses are then transferred to the brain which has the ability to transform them into a three-dimensional image.

Take away any one of these characteristics and you have a non-functioning organ, completely useless. That is irreducible complexity.

For evolution to be correct, all the characteristics I mentioned must have accidentally occurred in the same mutation, at the same time. Otherwise, there would be no evolutionary advantage or reason to pass the organ on to the next generation. Evolutionary theorists have never given an adequate explanation of how such complex, specialized cells could mutate into existence simultaneously.

So, I reserve the right to be an intelligent, thinking person who does think it is possible to contest evolution.

Theresa Buskey

Sleepy Hollow