[Loser]

The argument of the eye, and the approach that Jack used with the circulation system, has a name. It is Irreducible Complexity, and it would disprove evolution if a case of it could ever be proven to exist.

There are a number of candidates for Irreducible Complexity status, and the eye is actually one of them. The problem with the eye is not so much that is competing with other eyes, but that even the simplest vertebrate eye, and a few invertebrate eye, is filled with a clear fluid. It is the formation of this fluid that has the potential to be a case of Irreducible Complexity. Without this clear, and non-living, fluid, the vertebrate-type eye is not possible.

Currently, however, we do not even understand how this fluid forms during the embryonic stages. One moment the entire eye-sack is filled with odd blood vessels, the next is filled with the 'human jelly'. The metamorphosis is not understood at all, Last I heard. It is easily foreseeable that once we understand how this process occurs during the development of every vertebrate life form on this planet we will better understand how it could have happened the first time.

Another example is the cilia. These organelles are constructs that require complex and perfectly configured elements to function at all. Without any one of these elements these rudimentary limbs would simply not function at all. To view matters in evolutionary terms, the whole construct would have had to spontaneously generate in a complete, if relatively simple, form, as there are no 'more primitive' Versions possible. To take away even a single molecule, or even a single atom from one of the constituent molecules, would render the whole apparatus not less efficient but totally nonfunctional

Almost all cilia are made of the same clever molecule, though sometimes (as on the humane sperm) the same structure is repeated on top of itself numerous times to increase the strength of the whip. But this matter has only been studied for a few decades, and you can't hold it against science if the scientists don't figure out everything right away.

There are a couple other contenders for Irreducible Complexity status, but just because they might be irreducible does not mean they are. Give it time, science will pin it all down, even the things it has gotten wrong so far. But when you start questioning scientific theories, you need to use science to challenge them. build a hypothesis, test it, publish it for your peers, respond to their criticism.

Or, of course, you could always just engage in energetic discussions, like this one. They're Grrrreat!