Evolutionary Science-v- Creationism

[OnyxCougar]

Originally Posted by jinx

So they're saying that the blind spot isn't that big of a deal for most people most of the time, and because we have flashlights and microscopes, our eyes are just as good as they need to be. Huh.

ok, here is a better link

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home...2/chapter7.asp

The first one was more focused on retinal photoreceptors, this one is more general.

The highlights: (with snippage)

Kenneth Miller, the Roman Catholic evolutionist who is featured prominently on PBS 1, claims that the eye has ‘profound optical imperfections,’ so is proof of ‘tinkering’ and ‘blind’ natural selection.

Someone who does know about eye design is the ophthalmologist Dr George Marshall, who said:

The idea that the eye is wired backward comes from a lack of knowledge of eye function and anatomy.

He explained that the nerves could not go behind the eye, because that space is reserved for the choroid, which provides the rich blood supply needed for the very metabolically active retinal pigment epithelium (RPE). This is necessary to regenerate the photoreceptors, and to absorb excess heat. So it is necessary for the nerves to go in front instead. The claim on the program that they interfere with the image is blatantly false, because the nerves are virtually transparent because of their small size and also having about the same refractive index as the surrounding vitreous humor. In fact, what limits the eye’s resolution is the diffraction of light waves at the pupil (proportional to the wavelength and inversely proportional to the pupil’s size), so alleged improvements of the retina would make no difference.

It’s important to note that the ‘superior’ design of Miller with the (virtually transparent) nerves behind the photoreceptors would require either:

The choroid in front of the retina—but the choroid is opaque because of all the red blood cells, so this design would be as useless as an eye with a hemorrhage!

Photoreceptors not in contact with the RPE and choroid at all—but the photoreceptors would be slow to regenerate, so it would probably take months before we could drive after we were photographed with a flashbulb.

Some evolutionists claim that the cephalopod eye is somehow ‘right,’ i.e., with nerves behind the receptor, and the program showed photographs of these creatures (e.g., octopus, squid) during this segment. But no one who has actually bothered to study these eyes could make such claims with integrity. In fact, cephalopods don’t see as well as humans, and the octopus eye structure is totally different and much simpler. It’s more like ‘a compound eye with a single lens.’

The program also alleges that the retina is badly designed because it can detach and cause blindness. But this doesn’t happen with the vast majority of people, indicating that the design is pretty good. In fact, retinal detachment is more due to the vitreous (‘glassy’) humor liquefying from its normally fairly rigid gel state with advancing age. Then the remaining gel pulls away from the retina, leaving tiny holes, so the other liquefied humor can lift off the retina. So one recently devised treatment is draining the liquid and injecting magnetized silicone gel, which can be moved into place with a magnetic field, to push the retina back and block the holes.3 The occasional failures in the eye with increasing age reflect the fact that we live in a fallen world—so what we observe today may have deteriorated from the original physically perfect state, where, for example, deterioration with age didn’t occur.

Related evolutionary arguments are used to attack so-called vestigial organs (see appendix), the panda’s thumb, and so-called ‘junk’ DNA.

More than that, Kent Hovind (www.drdino.com) has a segment in his downloadable seminars that has to do with this very question, (and is quite a bit simpler about it), and basically, if the human's eye was constructed like the squid's eyes, we'd all be blind within a very short period of time, because of the inverted nature of the anatomy in the human eyes block certain light waves that underwater creatures dont need to worry about. Thus, the cephalopod eye was made just right for underwater life, and humans eyes were made just right for land dwelling.

I wish I had a more detailed answer on this, but I just don't know enough about it, other than topical information.

[jinx]

But why are there 2 designs? If the creator created it right the first time - why the need for a new design, regardless of which one is "right"?

[OnyxCougar]

Originally Posted by jinx

But why are there 2 designs? If the creator created it right the first time - why the need for a new design, regardless of which one is "right"?

Because one type lives underwater, and would REQUIRE a different anatomy than the other, who lives above water?

Edit:
Just like respiratory systems. One type "breathes" water, while the other "breathes" air. Same thing.

I don't understand your confusion on this?

[jinx]

Originally Posted by OnyxCougar

Because one type lives underwater, and would REQUIRE a different anatomy than the other, who lives above water?

Edit:
Just like respiratory systems. One type "breathes" water, while the other "breathes" air. Same thing.

I don't understand your confusion on this?

One breathes oxygen from water, another breathes oxygen from air - all eyes see with light. Cetaceans have inverted retinae.

[OnyxCougar]

Originally Posted by jinx

One breathes oxygen from water, another breathes oxygen from air - all eyes see with light. Cetaceans have inverted retinae.

You're right.

But the process by which those occur is different. They are each suited for their environments.

I'm sorry, I still don't understand what point you're trying to make.

[jinx]

Originally Posted by OnyxCougar

I'm sorry, I still don't understand what point you're trying to make.

I don't know where I lost you OC, I'm just discussing one of the reasons why "the creator created it right the first time" doesn't sit right with me. It doesn't seem likely to me that an omnipotent/scient god would create 2 different designs for the same purpose. Slight variations of a design depending on environment I can understand... aquatic animals need a longer eyeball to focus an image in front of the retina instead of behind it etc. that makes sense (but again, why does the squid have one type of eye, and the whale another if they are both underwater as you explained?).

If you're looking for a concrete point, a "I'm 100% certain that...", I'm sorry, I don't have one. I'm just asking questions because I'm interested in the answers.