The human eye and the garbage "evolutionists" clai
-
A few thoughts on the subject
http//www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html
perhaps a bit less objective but still informative
http//www.embl.org/aboutus/news/press/2004/press28oct04.html
Too keep the argument balance a view form the other side..
http//karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/the_critics/griffith/Eye_Refutes_Evolution.htmlif you don't know the actual structure of the eye and it's parts, these links may give you a good heads up...
http//ebiomedia.com/gall/eyes/EyeAWLS.htmlIf our eye is so badly "designed" WTF was god thinking when he gave eyes to a mole rat? HHMMMMM
http//www.2think.org/eye.shtmlJust a few veiws to look at on teh subject. i tried to go objective but like most contreversial subjects, most information is aimed at one direction or another and rarely simple fact.
-
Looking at the human eye, it is obvious that it is not the most perfectly designed eye that exists in nature. As it is now there are parts that are basically of no known use (though some theorize that part of the eye is as use of communication and expression of emotion) and other parts are positioned in the eye in such a way as to make the extremely vulnerable to trauma and disease. What evolutionists seek to do is not so much point out the bizarre nature of it's design, but rather to seek to explain WHY it is so oddly and badly designed. Much as they seek to explain why a mole rat has eyes that have over time become covered by skin and hair. Most believe that the eyes were once of use when it lived above ground but today it lives entirely in the dark and even if above ground the eyes are useless. You are assuming the point it to show how ill designed things are when it is really to explain WHY it is that way and how it got to be that way.
-
Peace "sawtooth" and "phoenix1",
The eye is NOT poorly designed. NOT AT ALL! There is a reason for everything and it was well explained in the article which you didnt pay attention to because of your biased prejudice against ICR. Forget the name of the site or the institute for a while AND READ THROUGH THE ARTICLE which ill quote here below. As for "phoneix1" the Quran says clearly
We created man in the best design.
Thus stating the contrary or putting up stupid and ignorant remarks about human's creation meanns you are infact against the Quran.Introduction
The so-called backwards retina is an example of an argument against creationism long ago disproved. Nonetheless, it is one of the most common arguments used by Darwinists to argue that life was not designed. For example, one of the leading American Darwinists, Brown University Professor Kenneth Miller, claimed that a prime example of "poor design" is the fact that light in the human eye has to travel through the neuron layers before it reaches the retina photoreceptors. He argues that this design reflects poorly on an Intelligent Designer and, to Miller, provides clear evidence that no designer exists. Rather, it demonstrates to him that the eye evolved by mutations and natural selection and was not designed. In the words of Miller, an Intelligent Designer would not have placed the neural wiring of the retina on the side facing incoming light. This arrangement scatters the light, making our vision less detailed than it might be, and even produces a blind spot at the point that the wiring is pulled through the light-sensitive retina to produce the optic nerve that carries visual messages to the brain (1999, p. 101).
The blind spot does not reduce vision quality for several reasons. Special tests are normally required to even notice it because the other eye fills in the gap. Furthermore, the brain only uses information from the retina to construct an image and does an excellent job of dealing with other "blind spots" such as shadows, reflection problems, dim light, and dirt on a person's glasses. Shermer claims that the human eye is not just "poorly designed" but the
anatomy of the human eye shows that it is anything but "intelligently designed." It is built upside down and backward, with photons of light having to travel through the cornea, lens, aqueous fluid, blood vessels, ganglion cells, amacrine cells, horizontal cells, and bipolar cells, before reaching the light-sensitive rods and cones that will transduce the light signal into neural impulses (2005, p. 186).
Retina
Williams adds that not only human eyes, but those of "all other vertebrates, have the functionally stupid upside-down orientation of the retina" and that the "functionally sensible arrangement is in fact what is found in the eye of a squid and other mollusks" (1997, pp. 9-10). An evaluation of this argument reveals it is not only naive, but grossly erroneous.
The Findings of Research
Research by ophthalmologists has clearly shown why the human retina must employ what is called the "inverted" design. An inverted retina is where the photoreceptors face away from the light, forcing the incoming light to travel through the front of the retina to reach the photoreceptors. The opposite placement (where the photoreceptors face the front of the eye) is called a "verted" design. One of the many reasons for the inverted design is, behind the photoreceptors lies a multifunctional and indispensable structure, the retinal pigment epithelium (Mart?nez-Morales 2004, p. 766). This monolayered tissue contains the black pigment melanin that absorbs most of the light not captured by the retina. This design has the very beneficial effect of preventing light from being reflected off the back of the eye onto the retina, which would degrade the visual image.
The photoreceptors (rods and cones) must also face away from the front of the eye in order to be in close contact with the pigment epithelium on the choroid, which supplies the photoreceptors with blood. This arrangement allows a "steady stream of the vital molecule retinal" to flow to the rods and cones without which vision would be impossible (Kolb 2003, p. 2. The verted design, claimed by Miller to be superior, would place the photoreceptors away from their source of nutrition, oxygen, and retinal (the choroid). This design would cause major problems because rods and cones require an enormous amount of energy for their very high metabolism required in functioning, maintenance, and repair. In addition, because of phototoxicity damage, the rods and cones must completely replace themselves approximately every seven days or so.
The photoreceptors and retinal epithelium absorb an enormous amount of light on a continuous basis when the eyes are open. Because the light is converted largely into heat, the retina must have a very effective cooling system, again provided by the choroidal blood supply directly behind the pigment epithelium. If the pigment epithelium tissue were placed in front of the retina, sight would be seriously compromised. Reversing the retina so that it faces away from the pigment epithelium would also compromise sight to the degree that sight would be impossible because the photoreceptors must be embedded in the retinal pigment epithelium to obtain the nutrients required to function.
This design is extremely critical because the retina requires a high metabolism level due to the continual replacement of the photoreceptors required for vision. Consequently, the retina uses more oxygen and nutrients than almost every other part of the body, requiring an ample blood supply. The verted design would not allow the rods and cones to function properly because of the blood supply required for their high rate of metabolism. If the photoreceptors were in front of the neurons, the blood supply would have to be either directly in the light path of the receptors, or on their side, which would significantly reduce the number of photoreceptors used for sight.
Importantly, placing the retina neural components in front of the photoreceptors does not produce an optical handicap for several reasons. One reason is the neural elements are separated by less than a wavelength of light. Consequently, very little or no scattering or diffraction occurs, and the light travels through this area as if it was at near-perfect transparency. Secondly, when viewed under the microscope, most cells are largely transparent (and it is for this reason stains, such as Eosin-Y and Hematoxylin 2, are needed to better visualize the various cell parts). Consequently, the thin layer of cells in front of the retina rods and cones have a negligible light blocking effect.
In the retina region which has the highest resolution, the central retina (the fovea and, in particular, the foveola), the neurons in front of the photoreceptors are shifted to the side so that light has a direct pathway to them, resulting in the least distortion where it matters most. The high resolution macula also uses cones that are more tightly packed to achieve high resolution color vision. The peripheral retina has lower resolution and consists of mostly rods for black and white vision.
This design is a highly effective method to accurately transmit enormous amounts of data along the optic nerve in a method analogous to the zipping and unzipping of a computer file to facilitate computer file transmission. To function, the transmission must be very rapid because the image needs to be refreshed continuously like a pixel TV image. The eye's design actually appears to be optimized around the physical limits of the visible light spectrum (Calkins 1986).
The pigment epithelium tissue performs numerous other functions critical for retina viability and activity. One is that it phagocytosises ten percent of the mass of each photoreceptor outer segment on a diurnal schedule, and constantly restores the chromophore to 11-cis-retinal from its all-trans configuration, permitting visual pigment synthesis and regeneration (Dowling 1987, p. 19. It also is part of the outer blood-retinal barrier, helps maintain water and ion flow between the neural retina and the choroid, protects against free radical damage, and regulates retinoid metabolism (Mart?nez-Morales, et al., 2004, p. 766).
This short review covers only a few of the many reasons for the superiority of the existing design of the mammalian retina. Our knowledge now shows that the retina design is superior to what we understood even just a few short years ago. Gratitude rather than impertinence seems the more appropriate response to its ingenious design.
References
-
Bergman, Jerry. 2000. "Is the Inverted Human Eye a Poor Design?" Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation. 52(1)18-30, March.
-
Calkins, Joseph L. 1986. "Design in the Human Eye." Bible-Science Newsletter. March. pp. 1-2.
-
Dowling, John E. 1987. The Retina An Approachable Part of the Brain. Cambridge, MA The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
-
Kolb, Helga. 2003. "How the Retina Works." American Scientist. 9128-35.
-
Mart?nez-Morales, Juan Ram?n, Isabel Rodrigo, and Paola Bovolenta. 2004. "Eye Development A View from the Retina Pigmented Epithelium." BioEssays. 26766-777.
-
Miller, Kenneth R. 1999. Finding Darwin's God A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution. New York Cliff Street Books.
-
Shermer, Michael. 2005. Science Friction Where the Known Meets the Unknown. New York Henry Holt/Times Books.
-
Williams, George C. 1997. The Pony Fish's Glow and Other Clues to Plan and Purpose in Nature. New York Basic Books.
-
Jerry Bergman is on the Biology faculty at Northwest State College in Ohio. Joseph Calkins is an Ophthalmologist in private practice, formerly Professor of Ophthalmology at Johns Hopkins University.
GOD Bless!
-
-
I DID read the article and it in fact says much the same as the article I posted. what you have to understand is that when one side says it's a pro the other will find t a con to make a point. the basic truth is that there are better designed eyes in nature. logically speaking we should not even be standing upright. It leads to shorter gestation periods and infants that require more care for a longer period and it exposes the soft underbelly making it vulnerable. Evolution and science does not need to point these things out, they are obvious. Evolution simply seeks to explain WHY and in many cases, theoretically, it has.
-
Here we go again...
If I set up a microphone for a singer, I make sure the sound-receiving part points to the singer's mouth, not facing away from her/him.
The inverted retina is a microphone that faces away from the singer. It works, but not exactly intelligent design. By the way, cephalopods (squids and octopuses) have the so-called 'verted' arrangement.
More curious 'design' in the human body
-An empty yolk sac forms in embryonal stages
-A broken olfactory gene that reduces our ability to smell
-The crossing of the respiratory and digestive tracts, thereby risking choking
-A broken vitamin C gene, curiously shared with all primatesI'm not saying the human body is not well-designed, it is designed optimally so you can't say we're against 954. Nothing in the Qur'an that said good design cannot be produced by evolution either, except for those prejudiced and think they know what God must or must not do.
Oh, and ICR believes the earth is only 6000 years old...
-
Peace "sawtooth",
I DID read the article and it in fact says much the same as the article I posted. what you have to understand is that when one side says it's a pro the other will find t a con to make a point. the basic truth is that there are better designed eyes in nature. logically speaking we should not even be standing upright. It leads to shorter gestation periods and infants that require more care for a longer period and it exposes the soft underbelly making it vulnerable. Evolution and science does not need to point these things out, they are obvious. Evolution simply seeks to explain WHY and in many cases, theoretically, it has.
JK- This is not about evolution in general since as i said before i believe in an intelligently calculated and ordinated evolution which resulted in the RELATIVELY PERFECT formation of man. Your statement that their are better eyes than the human eye is quite unacceptable to me, especially if my above quoted Quranic verse is taken into account. It mayber that certain aspects of the octopuses or squids eye may at 1st study appear to be more perfect but an overall study reveals the marvel of the human eye. The evolutionists REAGDRING THIS ISSUE nitpicked certain things to bash, GOD forbid, the Creator. Michael Shermer is one of them. He outrightly said "The human eye is a POOR design". He didnt even use the wird "relative". And now you make another claim saying that "logically" we shouldnt be even standing upright. I guess Einstein was right when he said "A little knowledge of science makes one an atheist while an indebt study of things makes one a believer in GOD". This is exactly the mistake committed by the evolutionists. They nitpick on certain things, dont study the whole detail and then bizarrely claim that those things are poor design. GOD Bless!
-
Peace "Andya",
Nothing in the Qur'an that said good design cannot be produced by evolution either, except for those prejudiced and think they know what God must or must not do.
JK- Excuse me Andya! I believe in evolution BUT intlliegent and controlled evolution which lead to the RELATIVELY PERFECT DESIGN of the human being and not half baked poor eye design, etc. So yes ofcourse good and even marvellous design can arise by calculated and intelligently controlled evolution which is exactly what happened.
Oh, and ICR believes the earth is only 6000 years old...
JK- As i said i dont take all of their claims to be true but those which agree with the Quran and logic id obviously defend those. Btw there are old earth creationists too who believe the earth is billions of years old. GOD Bless!
-
It's all simple observation. No we should NOT be standing upright. It exposes the underbelly and contracts the pelvic region forcing a short gestation period and birthing of children only barely completely formed and vulnerable to disease and trauma. That's logic. The reality, REALITY is that because of our social nature and basic lack of instinct and reliance on learning EVERYTHING, that early birth is necessary to cement the bonds between mother and child. evolutionists are the ones that first broke open that theory explaining WHY a being would convert to such a logically vulnerable and undesirable state. the human eye ALONE IS flawed in it's design, BUT when attached to the human brain makes sense. Face it, we have limited peripheral vision, blood vessels that are nearly exposed and lids that are less than adequate. How did this occur? If you are a believer in creationism, there is no question, just blind faith. If you are not, then it is not so easy. One simply has to make their own choice on what they are going to believe in regards to evolution and the beginning of time. Personally I believe a bit in both, but also feel that creationism at its purest is a cop out, too easy, and that evolution alone is quite bleak and leaves nothing greater than ourselves (fairly depressing really).
-
Peace "sawtooth",
So you believe that way. Ok fine but thats not Quranic and i believe it shows ungratefulness towards GOD as well. All the points you mentioned regarding the eye were answered in the link i gave. As you can see creationists have very good answers to these assertions and they had them quite many years ago too. If they didnt convince you, fine, you are free to believe in what you want. Where to stop then? There has to be a limit.
Regarding that humans might have gotten an even more perfect eye and thus a better vision, well, yes GOD CAN ALWAYS MAKE SOMETHING BETTER. We could get x-ray or t-ray vision allowing us to see through walls and other opaque objects. Or we could get an even quicker focusing. Regarding our bodies we could get a body which would just reflect piercing objects like bullets instead of hurting us. In short we could have been invincible supermen. BUT THAT IS NOT THE POINT. Thats why i said we are RELATIVELY PERFECT. GOD Bless! -
Peace "sawtooth",
So you believe that way. Ok fine but thats not Quranic and i believe it shows ungratefulness towards GOD as well. All the points you mentioned regarding the eye were answered in the link i gave. As you can see creationists have very good answers to these assertions and they had them quite many years ago too. If they didnt convince you, fine, you are free to believe in what you want. Where to stop then? There has to be a limit.
Regarding that humans might have gotten an even more perfect eye and thus a better vision, well, yes GOD CAN ALWAYS MAKE SOMETHING BETTER. We could get x-ray or t-ray vision allowing us to see through walls and other opaque objects. Or we could get an even quicker focusing. Regarding our bodies we could get a body which would just reflect piercing objects like bullets instead of hurting us. In short we could have been invincible supermen. BUT THAT IS NOT THE POINT. Thats why i said we are RELATIVELY PERFECT. GOD Bless!My point is that being a superman is NOT possible. Our biology does not allow it. I have made no secret of the fact that I am not a follower of the Koran, but I also respect anyone's right to believe as they wish as long as it does not become a detriment to fellow life forms. The articles I posted, if you read them, do not exactly refute your stance, they simply aim to give an explanation as to the hows and whys. I am a believer that there IS a creator but that it's creation is trapped within the confines of natural law, and part of that natural law is evolution. We were intended to EVOLVE into what we are now. They eye is as it is because of natural law and evolution, set forth by the creator. No being is absolutely perfect, just well adapted to it's environment. the longer it remains in a constant environmental surrounding, the more adapted it becomes. Something seemingly impossible for humans given the environment we create for ourselves. I don't discount your beliefs, in fact at the core we believe much the same. I just believe a kind of expanded version of creationism that is locked into natural law.
-
Peace "sawtooth"
My point is that being a superman is NOT possible. Our biology does not allow it.
JK- I agree and it was not intended by GOD to make us us into superhumans although He could have easily done so. This doesnt however mean that we aint a relatively perfect being, thats all.
I have made no secret of the fact that I am not a follower of the Koran,
JK- Did you read the Quran from cover to cover? Did you read RK's translation? Did you study and analyse the code-19 pattern in detail? If not then please do so 1st before making any decision regarding the Quran. If you have already the to you is your way and to me is mine. Peace!
but I also respect anyone's right to believe as they wish as long as it does not become a detriment to fellow life forms. The articles I posted, if you read them, do not exactly refute your stance, they simply aim to give an explanation as to the hows and whys. I am a believer that there IS a creator but that it's creation is trapped within the confines of natural law, and part of that natural law is evolution. We were intended to EVOLVE into what we are now.
JK- I agree but not through ape-like half-baked creatures. We evolved from nonliving atoms and molecules which came together in a specific order at a specific location by GOD's Will.
They eye is as it is because of natural law and evolution, set forth by the creator. No being is absolutely perfect, just well adapted to it's environment.
JK- Absoultely and i agree. Therefore i used the term "relatively perfect".
the longer it remains in a constant environmental surrounding, the more adapted it becomes.
JK- I agree with that too and this is once again because of the instructions in the very DNA.
Something seemingly impossible for humans given the environment we create for ourselves. I don't discount your beliefs, in fact at the core we believe much the same. I just believe a kind of expanded version of creationism that is locked into natural law.
JK- Well yes it seems that we actually do share many beliefs for i too dont believe in a piece by piece creation like the young earth creationists do. Yet they have some articles which are very good. Some articles of evolutionists are also very good, i dont deny that either. But bot have severe errors and the Quran Alone Muslims stand in the middle which i believe is the only right way. GOD Bless!
-
I have said before i have no real interest in the koran. Besides I would read a translation only to find out from someone that the english translation of half the words was all wrong LOL No I don't need a book to learn what is intended for me to know. I have my own guidebook so to speak. I love not by the laws written in any book but by the laws set within my heart by my creator. My take a little work to find them underneath the layers of crap thrown on by existence, but it's worth it. If someone wants to read and follow a book that's fine with me. I just don't even have enough curiosity to justify a glance. No offence, just not my path. I have my own theories as to why that is, but that is for another discussion on another day Peace
Oh BTW I have NEVER baught into the whole "we come from apes" thing, though I DO firmly believe that there have been more than a few simlar species, perhaps almost different breeds of human that HAVE existed. Perhaps the creator set forth a few possible species to see how they would react to the natural law, just to make sure we made it through
-
Peace "sawtooth",
I have said before i have no real interest in the koran. Besides I would read a translation only to find out from someone that the english translation of half the words was all wrong LOL No I don't need a book to learn what is intended for me to know. I have my own guidebook so to speak. I love not by the laws written in any book but by the laws set within my heart by my creator.
JK- The "hearts feeling" so to say is not all otherwise the Christians maybe just as right claiming Jesus is GOD based on what their hearts tells them. Therefore GOD has given us the intellect in addition to the hearts' feelings. Regarding your stance on the Quran. Suppose GOD Himself intended to put His Laws in a book revealed through a human messenger He chose and the possibility of such is high. If you just ignore that then i guess this would be intellectually dishonest. The legal laws in the Quran are stated very clearly and there is consent regarding the understanding of those. Besides this tghe Quran also contains verses which are not so clear at first sight but become so as you keep studying more and more which i find rather exciting. Each time i study the Quran it amazes me anew as a another mystery clears off. I wished you would have at least studied it and the make your decision. GOD Bless!
-
Again, I prefer to study creation itself. It truly a berillian miracle and guidebook in itself. As for jesus BEIG god. Well as I was taught to understand as a child, Jesus was a human vessel for god to teach the people of the area. He placed a certain level of his own wisdom within the human body of christ and sent him to earth to lead the poeple down a more righteous path. So therefore, a PIECE of christ was in fact god, but once he became human he became the son of god. Sure it's been over simplified over the years, but that is what I was taught of it. Not to say I ever really baught it, but I will say the MAN of Jesus of Nazarath WAS a great teacher and blessed medicine man. BUT he was sent for the people of a particular place and time. Not necesarilly for myself in MY time. I have never heard or rea anything about the Koran that leads me MYSELF to believe that it s anything more than a very GOOD observation of the world and an in depth attempt at explaining tat world. %90 of the laws are simple common sense. People just need those words to appear to come from a place of authority before they will follow them. Same goes for almost all humans in almost all situations. They are simple rules that will lead to a greater good for a general population. but again, as in every case on earth, some laws are not going to work cross culturally or in another geographic place. It is IS the word of god, it was itended for the people that recieved in THEIR time and place.
Simply my opinion. I do not expect anyone else to share it, but I don't suspect I am on my own with it either. to each his own.
-
here is a link that shows the simplest of example of why I believe the koran is meant for a specific people in place and time. Polyandry, the act of a woman marrying multiple men. In Tibet, men out number te women so drastically that species survival lead to th act of polyandry to allow all men the chance to marry and procreate. this goes against the Koran, but is RIGHT for THESE poeple. AS times change, if the natural ration of men to women change so will the need for this law within it's religion etc... Again this is just one simple example that explains MY stance. It is not an attempt to sway you from yours. I just feel ths example will better explain myself to others.
http//www.case.edu/affil/tibet/tibetanSociety/marriage.htm
-
Peace sawtooth and all. I have to agree,sawtooth, that some of the quran was relative to the time and so were the past prophets. Should we only consult one book which only has an aspect of the truth when there is a never-ending amount of knowledge in the universe. I try to check my understanding of life from myself and the world around. We should not be scared to think with our conscience.(ie the interaction of your will/knowledge with the will/knowledge of others around you.)I speak as someone that recognises aspects of the truth from many different books and sciences. We should also recognise we do not comprehend everything totally,there is always more to know.(new angles on topics)
Peace.