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 ...
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)
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.
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
That little trick of development was evidenced by Mom when I was little.
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.
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
“...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.
I wonder how many people die each year due to their blind spot? I'm guessing probably none.
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.
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."
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.
Just curious. How do you know life had a beginning? All the evidence is against it.
Hank
THAT is amazing. An amazing design. By an amazing God.
“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
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?
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?
Tracing the gradual development of the stupendously complex eye of the trilobite through its evolutionary predecessors is tremendously fascinating.
“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
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.