A

B

Figure 2A: Irreducibly Complex complete decusation of the retinal fibers of the right and left eyes at the optic chiasm. Figure 2B: Irreducibly Complex separation of the nasal and temporal portions of the retinas of each eye, and optic chiasm into corresponding displays on each visual cortex. Simultaneous "mutations" on multiple structural and Hox genes are required for such a transition. (Redrawn from Eckert Animal Physiology; W.W. Freeman and Co. New York, 2001 p 444)

Figure 3: If an evolutionary transition were possible, an optic chiasm would have to form concurrently with the movement of the eyes to a forward position or else information would be confused as to right and left; and front and back. Such organisms would be at a disadvantage; and adversely selected. Therefore, the production of forward facing, binocular vision is an irreducibly complex circumstance. binocular vision cannot be built up a step at a time.

In the real world of everyday life, when we see a complex machine we do not intuitively believe that it sprang full-blown from the forehead of Minerva. Rather, we know from experience that complex machines are developed over time with successive specifically designed refinements. Thus, the computer on which this treatise was typed started out as a simple calculator which was modified and refined to play Mary Had A Little Lamb; and subsequently became the amazing machine which can now navigate the Internet, draw the illustrations found herein, change the line-spacing, justify the margins, change the font to any color, and carryout multiple tasks at once..

Darwin very well knew that he was contradicting the human experience of everyday life when he postulated that the complex organic mechanisms that we take for granted and see everywhere came about by chance, if for no other reason than he was unable to convince his own wife that the human eye was the product of successive small changes that occurred over time on the basis of natural selection. She was right to be skeptical.

In an effort to circumvent logic and everyday experience, Darwin in his day, and evolutionists such as Richard Dawkins today, resorted to an unallowable and factually contradicted scheme. They would climb the un-climbable Mount Improbable using the gently sloping paths along the gently sloping contours of the backside of Mt. Improbable, rather than trying to scale its steep face from the zero-baseline to the pinnacle of its improbability in one quick jump. In the minds of persons like Darwin and Dawkins, such a scheme seemed plausible, but only because they failed to consider all the requirements and all the implications.

First of all, professor Dawkins, who authored the metaphor of Climbing Mount Improbable forgot that the laws of the conservation of energy require the exact same expenditure of energy to climb the face of Mt. Improbable, rapidly, in one jump as is required to scale the back side over a prolonged period of time. Accordingly his metaphor doesn't hold, if for no other reason than that. However, there are other more serious problems with the metaphor. For example, in building a complex organ such as an eye, which is the example used both by Darwin and Dawkins, one must simultaneously climb multiple Mt. Improbables. It is not enough to start with a simple light-sensitive patch of photoreceptors and expanded them into an eye with a retina, a choroid coat, a lens, an iris, an optic nerve, and an optic chiasm, in the case of binocular vision.

When one builds an organ as complex as the human eye, multiple paths must be independently and simultaneously followed in such a way as to reach their required goals at appropriate corresponding times; and integrate the improbability of their accomplishments -- all at the same time. That is, the function of the human eye requires a modification of the skull with an eye socket into which the eye can be placed and protected. At the same time muscles have to be developed within that eye socket in such a way as to produce complete motor control in all planes. This requires six muscles -- for each eye; all of which have to be integrated and supplied with appropriate motor and sensory nerves. It is impossible to believe that this integration could have been carried out on a stepwise chance basis independently in each system - a step at a time in each system -- and still have allowed functional movable eyes with both usable binocular vision and usable independent lateral vision, during the transition period of one to the other.

In the case of the Superior Oblique muscle, which produces downward and inward gaze, it is necessary for "nature "to have formed a little pulley in the eye socket over which the muscle could change the direction of its pull, while still maintaining suitable locations for its origin and insertion. There is yet another insurmountable problem with the concept of chance stepwise origin. The problem is this the medial, lateral, superior, and inferior rectus muscles exert their pull only backward into the back of the eye socket. This means that if only the rectus muscles were in play the eyeball would have been jammed posteriorly against the posterior wall of the eye socket at all times -- thus making it difficult for the eyeball to move; and at the same time jamming the optic nerve against the edges of its foramen. The pull of the two oblique muscles, the Superior Oblique and the Inferior Oblique counteract the pull of the rectus muscles and keep the eyeball centered in the eye socket.

What would've happened to binocular vision if all six ocular muscles had not formed at the same time for both eyes, along with integrated nerve supplies so as to allow ocular fusion of the visual panorama displayed on the right and left optic corticies? The answer is that that any organism without a full complement of muscles, and without a full set of nerves, and without an integrated display on their optic corticies/optic lobes could not have survived. Is this not a case of irreducible complexity?

But more than the irreducible complexity required to control the ocular muscles, what about the need for simultaneous integration of binocular vision with the motor cortex of the brain, and the cognitive cortex of the brain, as well as with the visual cortex? In order for "nature" to have carried out the above integration, wouldn't "nature" have had to simultaneously produced an optic-chiasm, as indicated above, so as to redirect the input from the two retinas, which originally dealt with separate unilateral gaze, so as to transform independent unilateral visual fields into integrated binocular gaze. If the retinas of lateral facing eyes were not rewired, the information reaching the brain from the lateral aspect of the right retina would have contradicted that from the nasal aspect of the left retina; and vise versa (see figure 3). Any resulting organism without an optic chiasm would have been totally confused by the optic information reaching the visual cortex. In addition, in diurnal animals, wouldn't the orientation of the optic nerve's enervation of the retina had to have been turned rearward, as it is, in order to allow the addition of a choroid coat with which to diminish the problem of glare during the daytime?

Who among the readers of this treatise is ready to step-forward and scientifically delineate the method and the sequence by which statistically-random changes/mutations might occur at various locations on various genes along a chromosome, at various times such that the resulting mutations would be correlated with one another. Similarly, who would step forward to empirically demonstrate the changes required to produce the integrated anatomical and functional modifications necessary to convert independent lateral gaze into unified binocular gaze, as outlined above?

It is doubtful there will be any volunteers ready to explain the above sequence of events, because it is impossible to explain the impossible. Nonetheless, professor Dawkins has tried using a concept he refers to as "cumulative selection." Professor Dawkins' hypothesis of cumulative selection among phenotype's is somehow supposed to override chance mutation at the molecular/genetic level. But, Dr. Dawkins doesn't explain how.

The unscientific strivings and conjectures of persons like professor Dawkins have been severely criticized by those who adhere to the scientific method and demand empirical evidence and not speculation as the basis upon which to draw conclusions. The late imminent mathematician Marcel-Paul Schutzenberger (1920-1996), a physician and a professor of mathematics at the University of Paris, and a professor and member of the Academy of sciences at the University of Potiers, put it this way:

"...Organisms present themselves to us as a complex ensemble of functional interrelationships. If one is going to explain their evolution, one must at the same time explain their functionality and their complexity if one starts from an evolutionary point of view, it must be acknowledged that in one manner or another, the earliest fish contained the capacity, and the appropriate neural wiring, to bring into existence organs which they did not possess or even need, but which would be the common property of their successors when they left the water for the firm ground or for the air..." (La Recherche, N: 283: Jan. 1996. p 87 -)