Culture Darwinism Fine tuning News

BBC: Crocodile eyes “fine-tuned” for lurking

Spread the love

From Jonathan Webb at BBC News:

A new study reveals how crocodiles’ eyes are fine-tuned for lurking at the water surface to watch for prey.
The “fovea”, a patch of tightly packed receptors that delivers sharp vision, forms a horizontal streak instead of the usual circular spot.

This allows the animal to scan the shoreline without moving its head, according to Australian researchers.
They also found differences in the cone cells, which sense colours, between saltwater and freshwater crocs.

… This is because light conditions are different in salt and freshwater habitats, but only underwater – and the crocodiles’ eyes show corresponding tweaks.

This arrangement reflects the predator’s iconic ability to lurk with just its eyes above the water, waiting motionless for prey to wander too close to the river’s edge. More.

File:A small cup of coffee.JPG One item of interest re this article: Webb talks about the eyes being “fine-tuned” without once hastening to assure us that Darwinian evolution did it.

Fine-tuning is actually a Bad Thought unless Darwinian evolution (natural selection acting on random mutation) generates huge levels of information, not noise) is supposed to have done it.

See also: Copernicus, you are not going to believe who is using your name. Or how.

Free Royal Society B paper on “sophisticated visual system of a tiny Cambrian crustacean”

David Tyler on new Cambrian eyes discovery: “Major challenges for advocates of Darwinian gradualism”

Follow UD News at Twitter!

2 Replies to “BBC: Crocodile eyes “fine-tuned” for lurking

  1. 1
    Mung says:

    Crocodile eyes “fine-tuned” for lurking

    Well what do you know. My bet would have been that they were fine-tuned for shedding crocodile tears.

  2. 2
    bornagain77 says:

    Of related interest to,,,

    A new study reveals how crocodiles’ eyes are fine-tuned for lurking at the water surface to watch for prey.
    The “fovea”, a patch of tightly packed receptors that delivers sharp vision, forms a horizontal streak instead of the usual circular spot.
    This allows the animal to scan the shoreline without moving its head,

    ,,, are these facts:

    William Bialek: More Perfect Than We Imagined – March 23, 2013
    Excerpt: photoreceptor cells that carpet the retinal tissue of the eye and respond to light, are not just good or great or phabulous at their job. They are not merely exceptionally impressive by the standards of biology, with whatever slop and wiggle room the animate category implies. Photoreceptors operate at the outermost boundary allowed by the laws of physics, which means they are as good as they can be, period. Each one is designed to detect and respond to single photons of light — the smallest possible packages in which light comes wrapped.
    “Light is quantized, and you can’t count half a photon,” said William Bialek, a professor of physics and integrative genomics at Princeton University. “This is as far as it goes.” …
    Scientists have identified and mathematically anatomized an array of cases where optimization has left its fastidious mark, among them;,, the precision response in a fruit fly embryo to contouring molecules that help distinguish tail from head;,,, In each instance, biophysicists have calculated, the system couldn’t get faster, more sensitive or more efficient without first relocating to an alternate universe with alternate physical constants.
    http://darwins-god.blogspot.co.....an-we.html

    Moreover, the inverted retina, which evolutionists had insisted for decades was “bad design”, i.e. the ‘God would not have done it that way’ argument, is now found to be a ‘optimal’ design:

    Retinal Glial Cells Enhance Human Vision Acuity A. M. Labin and E. N. Ribak
    Physical Review Letters, 104, 158102 (April 2010)
    Excerpt: The retina is revealed as an optimal structure designed for improving the sharpness of images.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20482021

    Also of note:

    Shoddy Engineering or Intelligent Design? Case of the Mouse’s Eye – April 2009
    Excerpt: — The (entire) nuclear genome is thus transformed into an optical device that is designed to assist in the capturing of photons. This chromatin-based convex (focusing) lens is so well constructed that it still works when lattices of rod cells are made to be disordered. Normal cell nuclei actually scatter light. — So the next time someone tells you that it “strains credulity” to think that more than a few pieces of “junk DNA” could be functional in the cell – remind them of the rod cell nuclei of the humble mouse.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....20011.html

    “The reason evolutionary biologists believe in “40 known independent eye evolutions” isn’t because they’ve reconstructed those evolutionary pathways, but because eyes don’t assume a treelike pattern on the famous Darwinian “tree of life.” Darwinists are accordingly forced, again and again, to invoke convergent “independent” evolution of eyes to explain why eyes are distributed in such a non-tree-like fashion.
    This is hardly evidence against ID. In fact the appearance of eyes within widely disparate groups speaks eloquently of common design. Eyes are a problem, all right — for Darwinism.”
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....83441.html

Leave a Reply