How should we answer those who try to show the existence of eyes in bats though they do not use them as evidence for evolution?

Dear Brother / Sister,

The view that the organs that are used develop and the organs that are not used atrophy and disappear was put forward by Lamarck in his book called “Philosophy of Biology” published in 1809. As a matter of fact, it was claimed based on this view that the neck of the giraffe was initially short and it got longer over time because it extended its neck to obtain its food from high branches.

However, the studies on the genetic characteristics of living beings for the past fifty years have shown that changes in body cells that are called soma cells are not transferred to offspring. That is, they have no hereditary features. For example, a person whose arm or foot has been amputated in any way does not pass this feature to their offspring.

Only a change in the genetic structure of the gametes called sex cells or a change that can occur in the genetic structure of the zygote formed by the combination of these cells when it is still a single cell is transferred to offspring.

In short, scientific studies show that the organs that are used or not used cannot be evidence for evolution because the change in an organ in this way is not transferred to offspring since there is no genetic change.

Therefore, the eyes of bats are not vestigial organs transferred to them by their lower level ancestors, as evolutionists claim. They were created directly as bats and their eyes were created like that. There are bat fossils dating back to millions of years ago. They have the same structures as the bats today.

The duty of revealing why those eyes were created and what roles they play in that living being belongs to science. It will be understood by research. Evolutionists prefer the easy way and present their philosophical thoughts like this one, which are not based on any laboratory research, as scientific knowledge by calling the organs whose duties have not yet been discovered vestigial organs.

What you should say to them is that there is no scientific evidence for the claim that unused organs are atrophied and that this view is a positivist philosophical thought completely dependent on atheist ideology.

Questions on Islam