6. My Scenario for the Evolution of Hearts and Eyes
The URL for my book is www.Evo-illusion.com.
The above video is about my book Evo-illusion, now available at Amazon. The page begins below.
This is my scenario for how the TOE evolved a the heart and eye:
3500-2800 mya: One-celled animals float in the oceans.
1500-600 mya: Two cells stick together, and become the king of the beasts, easily dominating the one-celled animals.
1500-600 mya: Three cells stick together, and dominate one and two-celled animals.
600 mya On and on until thousands of cells stick together and eat up on littler weaker less-fit animals with fewer cells.
595 mya: Multi-thousand celled animals start having trouble with their inner cells dying for lack of oxygen. Some sort of pump must be invented, oops, I mean evolved to get oxygen to the inner cells! Even though there is no pump on the entire earth, random mutations can invent one, with the help of its friend, natural selection!
592 mya: The throat gene duplicates itself, mutates, and two little tube/sacs form from mesoderm cells. The cells don’t know what a pump is, but survival of the fittest and mutations can figure that out. Natural selection and adaption help out too! What an evolutionary team!
591 mya: For some unknown reason, life with tube/sacs eats up on life without a tube/sacs (survival of the fittest).
580 mya: The tube/sacs grow bigger over millions of years, of course.
578 mya: The tube/sacs begin to close so someday they can pump blood. The tube/sacs grow muscle in the walls by mutations or natural selection.
575 mya: When the tube/sacs are nearly closed, valves evolve by survival of the fittest, which open and close to let blood in and out. Oops, there is no blood!
571 mya: Blood evolves with RBC’s that can suck up oxygen, and platelets too! Hemoglobin evolves. Natural selection adds WBC’s to help fend off bad one-celled animals and viruses.
569 mya: Oops, there is no way to get the blood to the inner cells of the animal. Blood vessels evolve.
568 mya: Now there is no way to get oxygen to the blood. Lungs evolve by mutation and survival of the fittest.
562 mya: A nerve evolves to the brain so the brain can cause the heart to pump blood with perfect timing, one beat per second. (Oops, there is no second because there are no clocks.) Survival of the fittest decides to wait and let future generations evolve clocks. It will just estimate. “One one thousand, two one-thousand….”
561 mya: The heart nerve tries to find the brain, but, it can’t. Damn, there is no brain. Mutations evolve a brain to operate the pump and move the blood in pump-like fashion. See how mutations and survival of the fittest work together?
559 mya: The animal species now has a complete heart-lung system, and it now will eat up on all the life that doesn’t.
555 mya: The new king of the beasts has light-sensitive cells! Little cups form around the light-sensitive cells. Now it can really survive and find food. The little cups start enlarging!
551 mya: The cups grow around and almost seal to pinholes. Hey, it’s a pinhole camera! There is now an image on the retina (evolved by mutations, of course). Might as well also mutate a nerve to the new brain. Might be able to see something. The animal doesn’t know what “seeing” is, but, who knows, it might be fun!
550 mya: Animals are so excited because they can see images! The first animal that sees go nuts with excitement. Next, evolution invents an adjustable lens so it can see far and near! WOW! It can now find meals and can run or fly away from predators. Except……..
Evolution: An Objective Look 
David123 said,
April 16, 2009 at 5:27 am
Dear Sir,
You write so well with a great understanding and intelligence! Your honest and transparent approach to the investigation of these questions regarding the origin of life is refreshing indeed. Needless to say, I have been thoroughly enjoying your excellent blog!
You have the ability to cut through the established dogma of the society of evolutionists and are able to speak their language and challenge their illogical thinking. You say all of the things that I have wanted to bring up to friends and colleagues over the years but have not had the clear understanding and expertise that you possess.
Having grown up in a Christian home, I subscribed very much to the Jewish account of creation found in the Bible, but as I grew up and began to do some reading in the sciences and took higher courses in Biology (including Micro Biology and Marine Biology) and learned about genetics, Natural Selection and it’s role in evolution, I was gradually swayed to the side of Darwin and his theory. However, the unreliable and false propaganda that I read in various texts books that show the progression from the variation within one species and then to the gradual transformation into a brand new species with different DNA, ie. fins into fingers/limbs and legs and arms into wings and eyespots into eyes and so forth and so on was initially exciting to me; that in a sense the DNA Software could be upgraded like a computer OS to run some additional hardware that had been recently acquired for the system. This thought was amazing to me, that this change could happen absolutely randomly and naturally over eons of time even though I knew that the math was impossible. But then I realized from more in depth study that there were no transitional forms to be found anywhere; shouldn’t these forms be found all around us in ubiquity in every strata proving this idea of Evolution? That’s when I realized that this way of thinking was bankrupt and was a “house of cards” especially since the dawn of Molecular Biology and irreducible complexity. (BTW where in the world did this DNA information come from in the first place? Doesn’t information come from information???) And then my second realization was that the idea or belief in Evolution was very much like a dogmatic religion with Darwin as the great spiritual leader who’s sayings are to be revered and “worshipped” as gospel no matter how much evidence is discovered or unearthed to the contrary.
Thank you for giving me a voice to my thoughts and ideas. While I am such a neophyte compared to you, I can certainly appreciate to a high degree your excellent arguments and evidence that you present.
Thank You,
David
stevebee92653 said,
April 16, 2009 at 7:19 am
Thanks soooo much. You have made my day. Month, for that matter. Your story is so similar to mine, you may have noticed. I spent a very long time being very excited about Darwin. I love the subject of our origins, that of life, and the universe. The greatest Puzzle of all time. As an evolutionaut,I didn’t want evidence to show anything negative. I believed the most puny evidence, and often used the crumbs that evos use to shore up my belief. Until, it took a tumble. Slow at first, then it went over the cliff. And, when it did, I became even more fascinated. Now, actually, on a very scientific basis, I love the subject even more than I did. The Puzzle is greater, and even more intoxicating to think about.
Anyway, again, thanks for the great note.
Huge regards
Steve
Dwilkes7 said,
September 3, 2010 at 5:00 am
Although Darwin had some deep seated personal “beliefs”, I believe from statements he made in his book, he was more accepting about IC being the downfall of his theory. I think that had he lived today and been learned about DNA, RNA, transcription, etc… He might be leaning more toward a skeptical viewpoint. I doubt that the fact that cell biology gets more “complex” than he possibly thought, that he would so easily accept the mental gymnastics that Dawkins, Gould, and Miller, among others, so easily brush off. The question is really about their actions and answers. When asked about Contradictions found in nature (Coelacanth, etc.) do they seem like they are “grasping” for solutions, or do they seem confident in their “Science”. Do they demean the ones asking these questions and belittle their intelligence-motives-affiliation? What other science resorts to these “tactics”?
stevebee92653 said,
September 3, 2010 at 6:31 am
They have excuses. Excuse after excuse for why their belief system just doesn’t fit the evidence. And I concur. If Darwin lived today and knew what we now know, my bet is he would be an evo-denier himself.
Emotionally Stunted Emoticon said,
October 26, 2018 at 2:23 pm
Do you mind explaining how the Coelacanth ‘contradicts’ evolution?
Sho Sho said,
December 28, 2015 at 1:26 pm
Thanks a lot Dr.Stephen for your amazing articles , I enjoyed a lot , I hope you will make a series about animals instincts and behaviors and how they can’t have been evolved , I think that’s a very strong point that defies evolution , because in this paradigm we will need both physical changes in the animal body in addition to behavioral changes
Emotionally Stunted Emoticon said,
October 24, 2018 at 10:12 pm
Instinct can be explained in large part by Epigenetics. It has even been demonstrated that organisms can pass on acquired traits.
Funny how you seem to know nothing about this, but proclaim with absolute confidence that evolution can’t explain instinct.