Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

New Scientist: The eye was evolution's great invention
The New Scientist ^ | 05/08/2010

Posted on 05/09/2010 4:25:11 PM PDT by SeekAndFind

THE eye has long been an evolutionary battleground. Ever since William Paley came up with the watchmaker analogy in 1802 - that something as complex as a watch must have a maker - creationists have used it to make the "argument from design". Eyes are so intricate, they say, that it strains belief to suggest they evolved through the selection and accumulation of random mutations.

Recently, evolutionary biologists have turned this argument on its head. They say that the "inside out" vertebrate retina - curiously structured so that its wiring obscures the light sensors and leaves us with a blind spot - can be described as one of evolution's "greatest mistakes".

The anatomy of the retina is indeed good evidence that eyes were cobbled together bit by bit. Surely a creator would never have chosen to construct an eye in this way. In return, creationists have argued that the backwards retina clearly has no problems providing vertebrates with excellent vision - and even that its structure enhances vision.

This week, a study by (non-creationist) neurophysicists in Israel has found just that (see "Optical fibre cells transform our weird, 'backward' retinas"). Their simulations showed that Müller cells, which support and nourish the neurons overlying the retina's light-sensitive layer, also collect, filter and refocus light, before delivering it to the light sensors to make images clearer.

Of course, findings that coincide with the claims of creationists do not mean they have a point - although they may well quote this study. Intelligent design proponents have shown themselves to be adept at speciously quoting peer-reviewed studies that appear to support their claims.

Sure, sending light through Müller cells enhances vision, but that is not an argument for choosing to put the wiring in front of the sensors.

(Excerpt) Read more at newscientist.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: creation; evolution; eye; intelligentdesign
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-84 next last
To: Islander7
I read somewhere (dang! I wish I could remember where) that the derided backward-retina-wiring blind-spot thing actually accomplishes something far beyond mere vision: it dramatically stimulates brain development.

It seems that because of the weird "wiring" aspect, the brain has to instantly and continuously fill in all the incoming visual stimuli: extending lines of perspective, remembering and "coloring in" details lost in the "blind spot," -- in short, every experience of vision is also an act of dynamic, rapid reconstructive interpretation. It's a brain workout.

So it seems the Intelligent Designer introduced an optical "glitch" that isn't a glitch at all: it is an ingeniously engineered system that multiplies the capacity for dynamic neural activity. Or, if you prefer, blind witless evolution did this, just ludicrously stumble-bumbling into both sight and mind. :o)

21 posted on 05/09/2010 5:19:07 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o ("God bless the child who's got his own." Arthur Herzog Jr./Billie Holiday)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Sex invented itself so it could find another different sex outside itself and make another thing that also do the same thing ad infinitum.

Lust also invented itself to accompany sex so it wouldn`t be lonely.

As The Great Evolutionist Tina Turner once stated:

"What`s Love Got to do With It?"

oops Forgot- Love invented itself, too.

22 posted on 05/09/2010 5:24:11 PM PDT by bunkerhill7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
I wonder if God is aware of this. If God were human instead of Who He is, I wouldn't be within a country mile of this guy or any of his friends, the ACLU, H'wood left, or Obama Admin. I would be afraid of raining thunderbolts and lightening.

We are praying for this nation, and lately, I have been praying God would speak to these people in a manner they can understand--"Please, Lord, take 'em down."

vaudine

23 posted on 05/09/2010 5:25:27 PM PDT by vaudine (,,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
I wonder why Evolution stopped at two.. Why not 3 or 4 ? Would've been great to see from the back of my head.

That little trick of development was evidenced by Mom when I was little.

24 posted on 05/09/2010 5:26:28 PM PDT by Erasmus (Looks like we're between a lithic outcropping and a region of low compressibility.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Blueflag

The “mistakes” idea is the Darwinist’s “god of the gaps”. They used to tout “junk DNA” as proof of evolution - until it was discovered that it isn’t “junk”. Now they have just moved on to something else.

BTW, there is no reason why God has to create things with features that we find satisfactory.


25 posted on 05/09/2010 5:28:06 PM PDT by achilles2000 (Shouting "fire" in a burning building is doing everyone a favor...whether they like it or not)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Islander7

If life did not originate on earth then you are just moving the issue of creation to a different location...also with out any proof. Since the creation of life really is not a scientific question but a historical question I prefer to go with the eye witness account...read Genesis for more info.

God bless


26 posted on 05/09/2010 5:32:42 PM PDT by WorldviewDad (following God instead of culture)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: WorldviewDad

“...Since the creation of life really is not a scientific question but a historical question...”

You’re kidding, right? Try reading a science book, it isn’t a sin to educate yourself about the wonders of this creation.


27 posted on 05/09/2010 5:37:25 PM PDT by Islander7 (If you want to anger conservatives, lie to them. If you want to anger liberals, tell them the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
“Mistakes” die. The fit survive.

I wonder how many people die each year due to their blind spot? I'm guessing probably none.

28 posted on 05/09/2010 5:41:49 PM PDT by Right Wing Assault (The Obama magic is <strike>fading</strike>gone.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Islander7
I read a lot of science books and monthly publications. Just because somebody says the origin of life is a science question does not make it so. Think of it in these terms...using the scientific method (definition: a method of research in which a problem is identified, relevant data are gathered, a hypothesis is formulated from these data, and the hypothesis is empirically tested) a person would need to identify a problem (how did life originate), gather date (study existing life), form a hypothesis (theory of evolution or creation), now empirically test the hypothesis (create the original life form). No matter which theory we hold to; evolution, creation, or alien seeding, we can only get to the hypothesis step but cannot scientifically prove our theories since we would have to create the original life form in it's original environment to complete the test. And even if we could “create” life it would still not prove evolution since we would be adding intelligent thought into the experiment.

So again, the creation of life, being a one time event that cannot be duplicated and hence not proven scientifically, is actually a historical event. See Genesis for further details.

29 posted on 05/09/2010 6:04:54 PM PDT by WorldviewDad (following God instead of culture)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Is the inverted retina a mistake?
30 posted on 05/09/2010 6:09:58 PM PDT by LiteKeeper ("It's the peoples' seat!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Sure, sending light through Müller cells enhances vision, but that is not an argument for [choosing/evolution] to put the wiring in front of the sensors.

Silly argument, whatever position one takes on creation vs. evolution, unless one happens to be a True Believer in [whichever]. Right along with:

Of course, findings that coincide with the claims of [the other side] do not mean they have a point

"Well of course not. Because we're right and they aren't."

31 posted on 05/09/2010 6:13:45 PM PDT by sionnsar (IranAzadi|5yst3m 0wn3d-it's N0t Y0ur5:SONY|Remember Neda Agha-Soltan|TV--it's NOT news you can trust)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: libh8er
Taking a shot in the dark here, but ... I'm guessing every eye in every "eyed" creature is essentially the same, i.e., lens, retina and etc. all attached to a 'vision center' of the brain.

All these eyed creatures differ in hundreds/thousands or millions of ways .. but the eyes are the same.

(I know, some lids go sideways and bees have octagonal acid trips, but they are still essentially the same ....)


I think.

32 posted on 05/09/2010 6:22:50 PM PDT by knarf (I say things that are true ... I have no proof ... but they're true)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: WorldviewDad

Just curious. How do you know life had a beginning? All the evidence is against it.

Hank


33 posted on 05/09/2010 6:39:07 PM PDT by Hank Kerchief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
I was watching a show about river fishing for "monster" fish. One fish they caught was a giant stingray. After pulling it in it gave birth to its live offspring. They mentioned the fact that the baby stingrays have little covers on their stingers while inside the mom. Within 3 to 5 minutes after coming out the little cover rots and falls off.

THAT is amazing. An amazing design. By an amazing God.

34 posted on 05/09/2010 6:45:36 PM PDT by DouglasKC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: knarf

“All these eyed creatures differ in hundreds/thousands or millions of ways .. but the eyes are the same.”

Not really. There are probably as many variations in vision as there are creatures, from multifaceted eyes of insects to telescopic lenses in some raptors. Do a search on insect eyes. Fascinating, actually.

Don’t usually refer to Wikipedia, but this is not bad:

ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye

Hank


35 posted on 05/09/2010 6:54:00 PM PDT by Hank Kerchief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Hank Kerchief

We have several ways of gathering evidence with one of them being eye witness testimony (most of the knowledge people have about science is actually eye witness testimony from scientists) I accept the eye witness testimony that is found in the book of Genesis.

Also curious. Are you saying that you believe life has always been? What would this belief be based upon?


36 posted on 05/09/2010 6:56:01 PM PDT by WorldviewDad (following God instead of culture)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Hank Kerchief

re: “How do you know life had a beginning? All the evidence is against it.”

Can you elaborate on your question? When you say “How do you know life had a beginning?” are you talking about living organisms or the universe in general?

What is your evidence that life/universe did not have a beginning?


37 posted on 05/09/2010 6:57:51 PM PDT by Nevadan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Tracing the gradual development of the stupendously complex eye of the trilobite through its evolutionary predecessors is tremendously fascinating.


38 posted on 05/09/2010 6:58:34 PM PDT by Elsiejay (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
I have changed my thinking about evolution over the the past year from reading books by scientists such as Francis Collins, Karl Giberson, and Alister McGrath. All of whom are devout Christians and scientists that support Darwin's views on natural selection. They all have different reasons for their faith, and Giberson is far too theologically liberal for me, but they believe that God is the source of all truth. Collins’ work on the human genome project in which he makes a case that all life evolved from a single species is hard to refute. I fully understand the struggles involved in accepting the idea that Darwin and Christianity are compatible, and I am still wrestling with idea.
39 posted on 05/09/2010 6:58:51 PM PDT by Nosterrex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nevadan

“What is your evidence that life/universe did not have a beginning?”

All the life I know about came from life. As far as I know, that is all the evidence there is. As for the universe, I know that it is. Since there cannot be “non-existence” how could existence have a beginning.

Hank


40 posted on 05/09/2010 7:07:20 PM PDT by Hank Kerchief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-84 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson