Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

From Philip Cunningham: The human eye, like the human brain, is a wonder

Categories
Evolution
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

(Which allegedly required no actual design) With references, courtesy Philip Cunningham:

The human eye consists of over two million working parts making it second only to the brain in complexity (1).

The retina covers less than a square inch, and contains 137 million light-sensitive receptor cells. The retina possesses 7 million cones, which provide color information and sharpness of images, and 120 million rods which are extremely sensitive detectors of white light (2).

There are between seven to ten-million shades of color the human eye can detect (3).

The rod can detect a single photon. Any man-made detector would need to be cooled and isolated from noise to behave the same way (4).

On average, about a quarter of a billion photons enter our eyes each second (5).

For visible light, the energy carried by a single photon would be around a tiny 4 x 10-19 Joules; this energy is just sufficient to excite a single molecule in a photoreceptor cell of an eye (6).

The eye is so sensitive that it can, under normal circumstances, detect a candle 1.6 miles away (7),

But if you’re sitting on a mountain top on a clear, moonless night you can see a match struck 50 miles away (8).

It only takes a few trillionths of a second, (picoseconds), for the retina to absorb a photon in the visible range of the spectrum (9).

The inverted retina, far from being badly designed, is a design feature, not a design constraint. Müller cells in the ‘backwards’ retina span the thickness of the retina and act as living fiber optic cables to shepherd photons through to separate receivers, much like coins through a change sorting machine (10).

The eye is infinitely more complex than any man-made camera (11).

The eye can handle between 500,000 and 1.5 million messages simultaneously, and gathers 80% of all the knowledge absorbed by the brain (12).

The brain receives millions of simultaneous reports from the eyes. When its designated wavelength of light is present, each rod or cone triggers an electrical response to the brain, which then absorbs a composite set of yes-or-no messages from all the rods and cones (13).

There is a biological computer in the retina which compresses, and enhances the edges, of the information from all those millions of light sensitive cells before sending it to the visual cortex where the complex stream of information is then decompressed (14).

This data compression process has been referred to as “the best compression algorithm around,” (15 & 15a).

While today’s digital hardware is extremely impressive, it is clear that the human retina’s real-time performance goes unchallenged. To actually simulate 10 milliseconds of the complete processing of even a single nerve cell from the retina would require the solution of about 500 simultaneous nonlinear differential equations 100 times and would take at least several minutes of processing time on a Cray supercomputer. Keeping in mind that there are 10 million or more such cells interacting with each other in complex ways, it would take a minimum of 100 years of Cray time to simulate what takes place in your eye many times every second (16). (of note: the preceding comparison was made in 1985 when Cray supercomputers ruled the supercomputing world).

In an average day, the eye moves about 100,000 times, and our mind seems to prepare for our eye movements before they occur (17).

In terms of strength and endurance, eyes muscles are simply amazing. You’d have to walk 50 miles to give your legs the same workout as the muscles in one of your eyes get in a day (18).

The brain exploits a feedback system which produces phenomenally precise eye movements (19).

The human is the only species known to shed tears when they are sad (20).

Tears are not just saline. Tears have a similar structure to saliva and contain enzymes, lipids, metabolites and electrolytes (21).

And, tears contain a potent microbe-killer (lysozyme) which guards the eyes against bacterial infection (22).

The average eye blinks one to two times each minute for infants and ten times faster for adults.

This blinking adds up to nearly 500 million blinks over an average lifetime (23).

References:

  1. – 20 Facts About the Amazing Eye – 2014
  2. An eye is composed of more than 2 million working parts…. 20: Eyes are the second most complex organ after the brain. – Susan DeRemer, CFRE – Discovery Eye Foundation
  3. Vision and Light-Induced Molecular Changes

Excerpt : “The retina is lined with many millions of photoreceptor cells that consist of two types: 7 million cones provide color information and sharpness of images, and 120 million rods (Figure 3) are extremely sensitive detectors of white light to provide night vision.” – Rachel Casiday and Regina Frey Department of Chemistry, Washington University

  1. – Number of Colors Distinguishable by the Human Eye – 2006 “Experts estimate that we can distinguish perhaps as many as 10 million colors.” – Wyszecki, Gunter. Color. Chicago: World Book Inc, 2006: 824…. “Our difference threshold for colors is so low that we can discriminate some 7 million different color variations (Geldard, 1972).” – Myers, David G. Psychology. Michigan: Worth Publishers, 1995: 165. From Number of Colors Distinguishable by the Human Eye
  2. Study suggests humans can detect even the smallest units of light – July 21, 2016

Excerpt: Research,, has shown that humans can detect the presence of a single photon, the smallest measurable unit of light. Previous studies had established that human subjects acclimated to the dark were capable only of reporting flashes of five to seven photons…

it is remarkable: a photon, the smallest physical entity with quantum properties of which light consists, is interacting with a biological system consisting of billions of cells, all in a warm and wet environment,” says Vaziri. “The response that the photon generates survives all the way to the level of our awareness despite the ubiquitous background noise. Any man-made detector would need to be cooled and isolated from noise to behave the same way.”…

The gathered data from more than 30,000 trials demonstrated that humans can indeed detect a single photon incident on their eye with a probability significantly above chance.

“What we want to know next is how does a biological system achieve such sensitivity? How does it achieve this in the presence of noise?

  1. How many photons get into your eyes? – 2016

Excerpt : About half a billion photons reach the cornea of the eye every second, of which about half are absorbed by the ocular medium. The radiant flux that reaches the retina is therefore approx. 2*10^8 photons/s.

  1. Photon Excerpt For visible light the energy carried by a single photon is around a tiny 4×10–19 joules; this energy is just sufficient to excite a single molecule in a photoreceptor cell of an eye, thus contributing to vision.[4]
  2. How Far Can We See and Why? Excerpt: “Detecting a candle flame: Researchers believe that without obstructions, a person with healthy but average vision could see a candle flame from as far as 1.6 miles.”
  3. An Eye for Exercise Your eye is a very active organ – December 28, 2001

(HealthDayNews) — The cells in the retina are so sensitive that if you’re sitting on a mountain top on a clear, moonless night you can see a match struck 50 miles away.

  1. Vision and Light-Induced Molecular Changes

Excerpt: “Thus, when 11-cis-retinal absorbs a photon in the visible range of the spectrum, free rotation about the bond between carbon atom 11 and carbon atom 12 can occur and the all-trans-retinal can form. This isomerization occurs in a few picoseconds (10-12 s) or less.” – Rachel Casiday and Regina Frey, Department of Chemistry, Washington University

  1. Fiber optic light pipes in the retina do much more than simple image transfer – Jul 21, 2014

Excerpt: Having the photoreceptors at the back of the retina is not a design constraint, it is a design feature. The idea that the vertebrate eye, like a traditional front-illuminated camera, might have been improved somehow if it had only been able to orient its wiring behind the photoreceptor layer, like a cephalopod, is folly. Indeed in simply engineered systems, like CMOS or CCD image sensors, a back-illuminated design manufactured by flipping the silicon wafer and thinning it so that light hits the photocathode without having to navigate the wiring layer can improve photon capture across a wide wavelength band. But real eyes are much more crafty than that.

A case in point are the Müller glia cells that span the thickness of the retina. These high refractive index cells spread an absorptive canopy across the retinal surface and then shepherd photons through a low-scattering cytoplasm to separate receivers, much like coins through a change sorting machine. A new paper in Nature Communications describes how these wavelength-dependent wave-guides can shuttle green-red light to cones while passing the blue-purples to adjacent rods. The idea that these Müller cells act as living fiber optic cables has been floated previously. It has even been convincingly demonstrated using a dual beam laser trap….

…In the retina, and indeed the larger light organ that is the eye, there is much more going on than just photons striking rhodopsin photopigments. As far as absorbers, there are all kinds of things going on in there—various carontenoids, lipofuscins and lipochromes, even cytochrome oxidases in mitochondria that get involved at the longer wavelegnths….

,,In considering not just the classical photoreceptors but the entire retina itself as a light-harvesting engine… that can completely refigure (its) fine structure within a few minutes to handle changing light levels, every synapse appears as an essential machine that percolates information as if at the Brownian scale, or even below….

  1. The Wonder of Sight – April 15, 2020

Excerpt: The eye processes approximately 80% of the information received from the outside world. In fact, the eyes can handle 500,000 messages simultaneously. It happens all the time, and you don’t even have to think about it. Your eyes just do it! The eye is infinitely more complex than any man-made camera or telescope.

  1. Walk By Faith – Now See Here, Touch & Smell to Discern Good & Evil – July 6, 2018

Excerpt: “I Am Joe’s Eye” (from the Reader’s Digest series) says “For concentrated complexities, no other organ in Joe’s body can equal me … I have tens of millions of electrical connections and can handle 1.5 million simultaneous messages. I gather 80 percent of all the knowledge Joe absorbs.”

  1. Fearfully and Wonderfully Made – Philip Yancey, Paul Brand

Excerpt: The brain receives millions of simultaneous reports from the eyes. When its designated wavelength of light is present, each rod or cone triggers an electrical response to the brain, which then absorbs a composite set of yes-or-no messages from all the rods and cones.

  1. Retina – Spatial encoding

Excerpt: When the retina sends neural impulses representing an image to the brain, it spatially encodes (compresses) those impulses to fit the limited capacity of the optic nerve. Compression is necessary because there are 100 times more photoreceptor cells than ganglion cells. This is done by “decorrelation”, which is carried out by the “centre–surround structures”, which are implemented by the bipolar and ganglion cells.

There are two types of centre–surround structures in the retina – on-centres and off-centres. On-centres have a positively weighted centre and a negatively weighted surround. Off-centres are just the opposite. Positive weighting is more commonly known as excitatory, and negative weighting as inhibitory.

These centre–surround structures are not physical apparent, in the sense that one cannot see them by staining samples of tissue and examining the retina’s anatomy. The centre–surround structures are logical (i.e., mathematically abstract) in the sense that they depend on the connection strengths between bipolar and ganglion cells. It is believed that the connection strength between cells is caused by the number and types of ion channels embedded in the synapses between the bipolar and ganglion cells.

The centre–surround structures are mathematically equivalent to the edge detection algorithms used by computer programmers to extract or enhance the edges in a digital photograph. Thus, the retina performs operations on the image-representing impulses to enhance the edges of objects within its visual field.

  1. JPEG for the mind: How the brain compresses visual information – February 11, 2011

Excerpt “Computers can beat us at math and chess,” said Connor, “but they can’t match our ability to distinguish, recognize, understand, remember, and manipulate the objects that make up our world.” This core human ability depends in part on condensing visual information to a tractable level. For now, at least, the brain format seems to be the best compression algorithm around.

15a. Optimised Hardware Compression, The Eyes Have It. – 2011

  1. Can Evolution Produce an Eye? Not a Chance! by Dr. David Menton on August 19, 2017

Excerpt: In an article in Byte magazine (April 1985), John Stevens compares the signal processing ability of the cells in the retina with that of the most sophisticated computer designed by man, the Cray supercomputer:

“While today’s digital hardware is extremely impressive, it is clear that the human retina’s real time performance goes unchallenged. Actually, to simulate 10 milliseconds (one hundredth of a second) of the complete processing of even a single nerve cell from the retina would require the solution of about 500 simultaneous nonlinear differential equations 100 times and would take at least several minutes of processing time on a Cray supercomputer. Keeping in mind that there are 10 million or more such cells interacting with each other in complex ways, it would take a minimum of 100 years of Cray time to simulate what takes place in your eye many times every second.”

  1. Looking At What The Eyes See – February 25, 2011

Excerpt: We move our eyes three times a second, over 100,000 times each day. Why isn’t life blurrier? Reporting in Nature Neuroscience, psychologist Martin Rolfs and colleagues found that our mind seems to prepare for our eye movements before they occur, helping us keep track of objects in the visual field.

  1. An Eye for Exercise Your eye is a very active organ – December 28, 2001 (HealthDayNews) — Did you know that you’d have to walk 50 miles to give your legs the same workout as the muscles in one of your eyes get in a day?
  2. How do our eyes move in perfect synchrony? By Benjamin Plackett – June 21, 2020

Excerpt: “You have a spare one in case you have an accident, and the second reason is depth perception, which we evolved to help us hunt,” said Dr. David Guyton, professor of ophthalmology at The Johns Hopkins University. But having two eyes would lead to double vision if they didn’t move together in perfect synchrony. So how does the body ensure our eyes always work together?

To prevent double vision, the brain exploits a feedback system, which it uses to finely tune the lengths of the muscles controlling the eyes. This produces phenomenally precise eye movements, Guyton said.

Each eye has six muscles regulating its movement in different directions, and each one of those muscles must be triggered simultaneously in both eyes for them to move in unison, according to a 2005 review in the Canadian Medical Association Journal. “It’s actually quite amazing when you think about it,” Guyton told Live Science. “The brain has a neurological system that is fantastically organized because the brain learns over time how much stimulation to send to each of the 12 muscles for every desired direction of gaze.”

  1. Why Only Humans Shed Emotional Tears – 2018

Abstract Producing emotional tears is a universal and uniquely human behavior…

  1. Facts About Tears – Dec. 21, 2018 Excerpt Tears Have Layers

Tears are not just saline. They have a similar structure to saliva and contain enzymes, lipids, metabolites and electrolytes. Each tear has three layers:

An inner mucus layer that keeps the whole tear fastened to the eye.

A watery middle layer (the thickest layer) to keep the eye hydrated, repel bacteria and protect the cornea.

An outer oily layer to keep the surface of the tear smooth for the eye to see through, and to prevent the other layers from evaporating.

Lacrimal glands above each eye produce your tears…

  1. How Tears Go ‘Pac-Man’ To Beat Bacteria – January 20, 2012

Excerpt: In 1922, a few years before he won the Nobel Prize for his discovery of penicillin, bacteriologist Alexander Fleming discovered in human tears a germ-fighting enzyme which he named lysozyme. He collected and crystallized lysozyme from his own tears, then wowed contemporaries at Britain’s Royal Society by demonstrating its miraculous power to dissolve bacteria before their very eyes.

“That’s a seriously bodacious experiment”…

  1. Eyelids—Intermittent Wipers – Dr. Don DeYoung – October 20, 2013

Excerpt: The blinking of our eyes is automatic and essential. Its saline washer fluid moistens and protects the outer cornea of the eye while removing dust. Other protective features include our eyebrow “umbrellas” and recessed eyeball sockets.

The average eye blinks one to two times each minute for infants and ten times faster for adults. This blinking adds up to nearly 500 million blinks over an average lifetime. The actual mechanism, however, is not well understood. It may involve a “blinking center” in the brain.

Today billions of windshield wipers duplicate the eye’s intermittent blinking. Yet none last as long or work as efficiently as our God-given eyelids.

Comments
So let me redefine evil from my comment above.
Evil in our world just means very unpleasant unwanted things that happen to people either through nature or through the intentional acts of other people
To some stubbing the toe would fit the “very,” to others it wouldn’t. The interesting thing is I have found no one wants to discuss the meaning of this word which shall not be named but which they use all the time. Why?jerry
April 4, 2021
April
04
Apr
4
04
2021
04:31 AM
4
04
31
AM
PDT
what is to them a subjective evil
Define “evil.” If you are going to use the term, then define it. I maintain there is no definition for the word that people commonly use. The most common usage can best be explained by calling “evil,” unwanted unpleasant events. Stubbing your toe then becomes evil under this most frequently used understanding of the word. The “lack of the good” definition is essentially a useless definition. Everything in the universe fits that description. I used the word “bad” in the first sense above and Kf immediately took “bad” to mean the second sense. All this is are word games. Most definitely not an aside: why would nearly everyone object to calling stubbing your toe evil? It fits the definition most people have. So why is it absurd?jerry
April 4, 2021
April
04
Apr
4
04
2021
04:14 AM
4
04
14
AM
PDT
BA77, I agree that atheists are bad at making their argument. That doesn't change the fact that you and Lewis are taking advantage of switching concepts in making your rebuttals. That atheists and theists have a "common bond" in what they identify as evil, or in how they feel about things they agree on are evil, is irrelevant; you're talking about two entirely different things. Saying that the atheist is necessarily referring to an objective good when they point out what is to them a subjective evil (at its conceptual root) is a failure of logic. It doesn't matter if atheists fail to point that out or fail to recognize it; that is what is going on.William J Murray
April 4, 2021
April
04
Apr
4
04
2021
04:04 AM
4
04
04
AM
PDT
Jerry, bad is a synonym for evil. There are reasons for the understanding that evils are privations of what is good in itself out of line with purpose or ends; which may be naturally evident to the eye of reason. KFkairosfocus
April 4, 2021
April
04
Apr
4
04
2021
01:56 AM
1
01
56
AM
PDT
PS: Note, Wiki testifying against interest:
Visual cortex Main article: Visual cortex Visual cortex: V1; V2; V3; V4; V5 (also called MT) The visual cortex is the largest system in the human brain and is responsible for processing the visual image. It lies at the rear of the brain (highlighted in the image), above the cerebellum. The region that receives information directly from the LGN is called the primary visual cortex, (also called V1 and striate cortex). It creates a bottom-up saliency map of the visual field to guide attention or eye gaze to salient visual locations,[34] hence selection of visual input information by attention starts at V1[35] along the visual pathway. Visual information then flows through a cortical hierarchy. These areas include V2, V3, V4 and area V5/MT (the exact connectivity depends on the species of the animal). These secondary visual areas (collectively termed the extrastriate visual cortex) process a wide variety of visual primitives. Neurons in V1 and V2 respond selectively to bars of specific orientations, or combinations of bars. These are believed to support edge and corner detection. Similarly, basic information about color and motion is processed here.[36] Heider, et al. (2002) have found that neurons involving V1, V2, and V3 can detect stereoscopic illusory contours; they found that stereoscopic stimuli subtending up to 8° can activate these neurons.[37] Visual cortex is active even during resting state fMRI. Visual association cortex Main article: Two Streams hypothesis As visual information passes forward through the visual hierarchy, the complexity of the neural representations increases. [--> neural network processing] Whereas a V1 neuron may respond selectively to a line segment of a particular orientation in a particular retinotopic location, neurons in the lateral occipital complex respond selectively to complete object (e.g., a figure drawing), and neurons in visual association cortex may respond selectively to human faces, or to a particular object. [--> memory and learning are implicated, I can remember cases of seeing persons A as persons B because of expectations] Along with this increasing complexity of neural representation may come a level of specialization of processing into two distinct pathways: the dorsal stream and the ventral stream (the Two Streams hypothesis,[38] first proposed by Ungerleider and Mishkin in 1982). The dorsal stream, commonly referred to as the "where" stream, is involved in spatial attention (covert and overt), and communicates with regions that control eye movements and hand movements. More recently, this area has been called the "how" stream to emphasize its role in guiding behaviors to spatial locations. The ventral stream, commonly referred as the "what" stream, is involved in the recognition, identification and categorization of visual stimuli. Intraparietal sulcus (red) However, there is still much debate about the degree of specialization within these two pathways, since they are in fact heavily interconnected.[39] Horace Barlow proposed the efficient coding hypothesis in 1961 as a theoretical model of sensory coding in the brain.[40] Limitations in the applicability of this theory in the primary visual cortex (V1) motivated the V1 Saliency Hypothesis (V1SH) that V1 creates a bottom-up saliency map to guide attention exogenously.[34] With attentional selection as a center stage, vision is seem as composed of encoding, selection, and decoding stages.[41] The default mode network is a network of brain regions that are active when an individual is awake and at rest. The visual system's default mode can be monitored during resting state fMRI: Fox, et al. (2005) have found that "The human brain is intrinsically organized into dynamic, anticorrelated functional networks'",[42] in which the visual system switches from resting state to attention. In the parietal lobe, the lateral and ventral intraparietal cortex are involved in visual attention and saccadic eye movements. These regions are in the Intraparietal sulcus (marked in red in the adjacent image).
There are obvious trade-offs here within and beyond the brain and across the lifespan including issues of reproduction and birth. As a sci fi scenario we could see a tech society that uses uterine replicators and removes constraints as noted to create higher performance levels, in effect using our other capabilities to re-engineer vision. But that would beg the question, why not patch in a camera system instead, which would be more flexible? KFkairosfocus
April 4, 2021
April
04
Apr
4
04
2021
01:15 AM
1
01
15
AM
PDT
JVL, The Munsell/Ostwald type colour spindle or similar colour cylinder models allow us to identify and create reference frameworks for hue, saturation, value [~ luminance or brightness/darkness]. These are related to the CIE tongue of colour, pantone and now de facto Adobe models. The practical import of such is in the ubiquitous presence of colour screens and sensor array based cameras [e.g. in the smart phone that has now taken over from pocket cameras and home movie cameras alike]. These are in turn tied to experimental investigations of human vision. It turns out that practical colour gamuts based on pigments or lights are unable to capture the full gamut of what we can see, indeed, there are models that use artificial colours to span the gamut. As a glance at discussions of say the Enchroma system will tell us, part of the reason is the eye exploits the differences in responses of its various cones to detect colours. When certain cones have response curves that are too close or are missing, various colour deficiencies emerge. In that context, we can obviously see that our colour vision system is on the whole adequate, functionally and aesthetically. Indeed, it even enables us to turn eyes into ears via the invention of text and of reading. Robust adequacy is what we should recognise as the pivot of design. (For top-of-the-head example, the visual system uses a good part of our brains, and there is a trade-off of brain/head size and feasibility of birth. Systems are subject to the facet phenomenon: each part depends on the others and contributes to the others, to attain overall function.) BA77 has a valid point on the import of the complaint against mere adequacy. For, a perfection ratchet applied in the face of obvious adequacy points to a demand for ultimate perfection and the implicit issue, why aren't we just like God in powers. Where, one does not have to explicitly demand ultimate perfection to imply a ratchet, it is present in the implied demand for more, more, more, regardless of manifest adequacy. The mere fact of human dominance speaks to adequacy, and the further fact that we are makers able to collectively use culture to augment our capabilities as needed through invention and manufacture rooted in sci-tech, points to a broader capability than is directly present in our eyes. Overall balance counts, per the facet phenomenon. KFkairosfocus
April 4, 2021
April
04
Apr
4
04
2021
12:52 AM
12
12
52
AM
PDT
Let's try this again: Bornagain77: Whatever, JVL, I am more than satisfied that I have made my case. It is clear that you have no argument, (much less do you have ANY scientific evidence that evolution can create ANYTHING), to support your position, and that you are now just throwing stuff at the wall to see if it sticks. Let’s just clear up one thing: I did not use the terms ‘perfect’ or ‘perfection’ in my arguments/questions about eyes except when responding to your use of those terms. Agreed?JVL
April 3, 2021
April
04
Apr
3
03
2021
10:36 PM
10
10
36
PM
PDT
A different tack on all this. The supposed non-optimality of the human eye design is really all about the inevitable tradeoffs necessitated by the scientific principles of optics and detectors that result from the laws of physics, combined with the design functional performance requirements. Just a little on these tradeoffs the designer, any designer, is faced with. These have resulted in what I think is probably an optimal eye design for human beings considering that they are semi-nocturnal in addition to being active in the daytime under high light conditions, additionally need very high visual acuity, and probably don't need ultraviolet or other color detection outside the bandwidth of the present design. The following is an analysis of some of these tradeoffs in the example case of the design of the hawkmoth's eye and associated neural visual processing. Of course the researchers assumed that undirected RM + NS (a semi-random walk) designed the hawkmoth's eye system, but the tradeoffs still had to be made whatever the process. From the research paper, "Resolving the Trade-off Between Visual Sensitivity and Spatial Acuity—Lessons from Hawkmoths" at https://academic.oup.com/icb/article/57/5/1093/4004722 :
"Synopsis: The visual systems of many animals, particularly those active during the day, are optimized for high spatial acuity. However, at night, when photons are sparse and the visual signal competes with increased noise levels, fine spatial resolution cannot be sustained and is traded-off for the greater sensitivity required to see in dim light. High spatial acuity demands detectors and successive visual processing units whose receptive fields each cover only a small area of visual space, in order to reassemble a finely sampled and well resolved image. However, the smaller the sampled area, the fewer the photons that can be collected, and thus the worse the visual sensitivity becomes—leading to the classical trade-off between sensitivity and resolution. Nocturnal animals usually resolve this trade-off in favour of sensitivity, and thus have lower spatial acuity than their diurnal counterparts. Here we review results highlighting how hawkmoths, a highly visual group of insects with species active at different light intensities, resolve the trade-off between sensitivity and spatial resolution. We compare adaptations both in the optics and retina, as well as at higher levels of neural processing in a nocturnal and a diurnal hawkmoth species, and also give a perspective on the behavioral consequences. We broaden the scope of our review by drawing comparisons with the adaptive strategies used by other nocturnal and diurnal insects. Introduction: A little hawkmoth zooming through the undergrowth on the lookout for flowers on a starlit night might not seem extraordinary, but in order to fly safely and find her favorite flowers, the hawkmoth’s visual system needs to overcome considerable challenges. First, the number of photons its visual system has to operate with is very low: the light intensity on a starlit night can be a hundred million times dimmer than on a sunny day (Warrant 2008). As a consequence, several sources of visual noise impose restrictions on the detection and processing of these sparse visual signals. The most fundamental source of noise is photon shot noise, which is the stochastic uncertainty inherent in the random arrivals and absorptions of photons (Rose 1942; De Vries 1943). It sets the absolute limit to sensitivity and the ability of the eye to reconstruct spatial details (Fig. 1A,B). Photon shot noise scales inversely with the squared average light intensity, so that its relative contribution is higher in dim light than in bright light. The lower signal in dim light and higher (relative) noise results in a reduced bandwidth for vision (Snyder et al. 1977), both in the spatial and the temporal domain..."
doubter
April 3, 2021
April
04
Apr
3
03
2021
07:50 PM
7
07
50
PM
PDT
Jerry, well said.Steve Alten2
April 3, 2021
April
04
Apr
3
03
2021
06:08 PM
6
06
08
PM
PDT
Evil in our world just means very bad things that happen to people either through nature or through the intentional acts of other people. There are all sorts of permutations of this. For example, how wide speed the bad things are, the context surrounding the bad things such as war, people doing bad things to animals or animals doing horrific things to other animals. It might be worthwhile to look at past OP’s to see what has been discussed. What is very bad also varies by person. Often depending on how squeamish they are. I doubt you will find any atheist that doesn’t use the term “evil.” And if you asked them what was evil, the specific events would not differ much from a theist. I’m sure some of them are aware of the theological implications of the term and will use or not use it accordingly. It has been used by atheists to argue against ID but more specifically to argue against the Judeo/Christian God whom they assume ID supporters believe is the intelligence in ID.jerry
April 3, 2021
April
04
Apr
3
03
2021
05:59 PM
5
05
59
PM
PDT
WJM keeps claiming, "When a theist says “evil exists,” it is an entirely different thing than when an atheist says “evil exists.”" First off, to the extent that evil can even be said to objectively exist, it is merely a departure from some objectively good thing that ought to be. Although this is a fictitious account of Einstein as a boy, it still gets this point across very clearly:
Albert Einstein vs. professor https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxWXvh6OVB8
Secondly, although an atheist may deny that good and evil objectively exist,
“In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.” – Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life
although an atheist may deny that good and evil objectively exist, he does actually live his life as if good and evil did not objectively exist.
The Heretic – Who is Thomas Nagel and why are so many of his fellow academics condemning him? – March 25, 2013 Excerpt: ,,,Fortunately, materialism is never translated into life as it’s lived. As colleagues and friends, husbands and mothers, wives and fathers, sons and daughters, materialists never put their money where their mouth is. Nobody thinks his daughter is just molecules in motion and nothing but; nobody thinks the Holocaust was evil, but only in a relative, provisional sense. A materialist who lived his life according to his professed convictions—understanding himself to have no moral agency at all, seeing his friends and enemies and family as genetically determined robots—wouldn’t just be a materialist: He’d be a psychopath. http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/heretic_707692.html?page=3
Richard Dawkins himself admitted that it would be ‘intolerable’ for him to live his life as if he had no moral agency
Who wrote Richard Dawkins’s new book? – October 28, 2006 Excerpt: Dawkins: What I do know is that what it feels like to me, and I think to all of us, we don’t feel determined. We feel like blaming people for what they do or giving people the credit for what they do. We feel like admiring people for what they do.,,, Manzari: But do you personally see that as an inconsistency in your views? Dawkins: I sort of do. Yes. But it is an inconsistency that we sort of have to live with otherwise life would be intolerable. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/10/who_wrote_richard_dawkinss_new002783.html
In what should be needless to say, if it is impossible for you to live as if your worldview were actually true then your worldview cannot possibly reflect reality as it really is but your worldview must instead be based on a delusion.
Existential Argument against Atheism – November 1, 2013 by Jason Petersen 1. If a worldview is true then you should be able to live consistently with that worldview. 2. Atheists are unable to live consistently with their worldview. 3. If you can’t live consistently with an atheist worldview then the worldview does not reflect reality. 4. If a worldview does not reflect reality then that worldview is a delusion. 5. If atheism is a delusion then atheism cannot be true. Conclusion: Atheism is false. http://answersforhope.com/existential-argument-atheism/
Thus although an atheist may say one thing, his actions betray him and testify to an objective morality that he himself intuitively knows to objectively exists. So WJM contrary to whatever an atheist may have told you in the past about him just using the Theist's position on evil to try to argue against him, when we are talking about good and evil, there is in fact a very strong common bond in what we, (atheists and theists), are talking about. They may deny it, but they are in fact referring to things that we all intuitively know to objectively exist i.e. to things we all intuitively know to be be a departure from a good thing that ought to be. The way they live their very own lives testify to this fact. And indeed, if we did not share this very deep, intuitive, grasp of what good and evil is, then I can guarantee you the argument from evil would not be one of the.most powerful, emotionally charged, arguments that atheists have constantly tried to use against Theists. It would certainly lose a lot of its 'emotional' punch if morality really were merely illusory as the atheist holds.
Romans 2:14-15 Even Gentiles, who do not have God’s written law, show that they know his law when they instinctively obey it, even without having heard it. They demonstrate that God’s law is written in their hearts, for their own conscience and thoughts either accuse them or tell them they are doing right.
bornagain77
April 3, 2021
April
04
Apr
3
03
2021
05:05 PM
5
05
05
PM
PDT
William J Murray: What does “fair” mean? Do you mean relevant? It’s not relevant wrt determining design. Clearly it doesn't mean relevant. Can you think of a good reason I should help you with a concept I think is very easy to grasp? And why should I be subject to what you 'think'? And, while we're at it: does what you think have any meaning at all? Does it matter at all? Why should I answer you?JVL
April 3, 2021
April
04
Apr
3
03
2021
12:29 PM
12
12
29
PM
PDT
JVL, you keep asking if it's "fair to ask" these questions, or asserting that it is. What does "fair" mean? Do you mean relevant? It's not relevant wrt determining design.William J Murray
April 3, 2021
April
04
Apr
3
03
2021
11:07 AM
11
11
07
AM
PDT
EDTA @140, said:
They use the existence of evil as a premise, implying that they take it to be the case for their side.
Stringer is either deliberately (arguendo) or unwittingly accepting the theistic concept of objective good and evil in making his argument. When a theist says "evil exists," it is an entirely different thing than when an atheist says "evil exists." Lewis' and BA77's rebuttal to the argument fallaciously capitalizes on this.William J Murray
April 3, 2021
April
04
Apr
3
03
2021
11:04 AM
11
11
04
AM
PDT
Jerry: A completely disingenuous comment since it has been given an extremely plausible answer. I shall look back over the thread and try and find the answer you are referring to. Did you mean this: And it is a flawed argument because no one can show flawed or sub optimal design. People show things they personally don’t like and then claim flawed or sub optimal design but not something actually wrong with the design. We have no idea what the specifics of the design are about from an obviously extremely intelligent designer. Not having an idea of what the design specifications are/were . . . does that mean it's not fair to ask? Look, if your view is: we can't know that, we can never know that . . . well, that's your view. But I thought a science should be open to all questions.JVL
April 3, 2021
April
04
Apr
3
03
2021
09:20 AM
9
09
20
AM
PDT
Clearly it’s possible so why weren’t humans granted that same level of function?
A completely disingenuous comment since it has been given an extremely plausible answer. But what else is new.jerry
April 3, 2021
April
04
Apr
3
03
2021
09:12 AM
9
09
12
AM
PDT
Jerry: And it is a flawed argument because no one can show flawed or sub optimal design. People show things they personally don’t like and then claim flawed or sub optimal design but not something actually wrong with the design. We have no idea what the specifics of the design are about from an obviously extremely intelligent designer. Okay. But do you think it's fair to ask why certain design decisions were made? For example: since other animals have much greater visual acuity can we ask why humans were not chosen to have the same? Clearly it's possible so why weren't humans granted that same level of function?JVL
April 3, 2021
April
04
Apr
3
03
2021
09:06 AM
9
09
06
AM
PDT
EDTA: Why would/should we know this? ID is science, science asks questions. Maybe we'll never know (from the ID perspective) but it's okay to ask surely. To extend BA77’s line of reasoning, would you have a problem if some _other_ creature only had 3-color vision while we had four? Would you say that was unfair, or evidence against design? We’re concerned that your argument can never be satisfied, even when design is still obvious. If you think life was designed then it's fair to ask why certain creatures were given certain abilities and others were not. I'm not saying it's evidence against design; I'm wondering why certain design decisions were made. And I figured that it's fair to ask. It's not a question of me being 'satisfied'; it's a matter of trying to answer questions. Do you think some questions are 'unfair' or inappropriate? Why would that be?JVL
April 3, 2021
April
04
Apr
3
03
2021
09:01 AM
9
09
01
AM
PDT
BA77 @ 109, Very well articulated! :-)EDTA
April 3, 2021
April
04
Apr
3
03
2021
08:57 AM
8
08
57
AM
PDT
SA @ 129, >Why do ID proponents respond the way they do when people argue about poor design... Rather than argue with people who say that the eye or any other biological structure is poorly designed why don’t you just accept the fact that they are acknowledging that it is designed? If I may be allowed to attempt to being some clarity to the discussion...it seems there are two things going on here: 1) The argument over whether biological structures are perfect or not. Some are arguing that the eye is physically perfect in some regards. So there's this disagreement over physical facts. 2) The second argument is whether we can even know whether something is flawed or perfect, if we don't know what the designer was intending in the first place. It's always possible to find a way in which any physical thing could be better. Just pick an aspect that another creature/object has in greater abundance. I think we are agreeing that such creative thinking on our part does not mean the thing was not designed. Settled? We're just trying to put these two points forth. Maybe they get mixed up sometimes. I'm agreeing that in general, imperfect design (by whatever type of lacking we decide to cherry-pick) is still evidence of design. Cool?EDTA
April 3, 2021
April
04
Apr
3
03
2021
08:56 AM
8
08
56
AM
PDT
JVL @ 131, >...ultraviolet and four colour cones then CLEARLY such things could have been granted to human beings. Why weren’t they? Why would/should we know this? To extend BA77's line of reasoning, would you have a problem if some _other_ creature only had 3-color vision while we had four? Would you say that was unfair, or evidence against design? We're concerned that your argument can never be satisfied, even when design is still obvious.EDTA
April 3, 2021
April
04
Apr
3
03
2021
08:46 AM
8
08
46
AM
PDT
Why would they care if there were some flaws in the design?
In a sense they don’t. But the flawed/sub optimal argument has been used against ID hundreds of times if not thousands. My guess is that the real target is the Judeo/Christian God and undermining ID is a way to do this. But in reality ID says nothing about the creator of the universe except that the creator of the universe has a massive intelligence. And it is a flawed argument because no one can show flawed or sub optimal design. People show things they personally don’t like and then claim flawed or sub optimal design but not something actually wrong with the design. We have no idea what the specifics of the design are about from an obviously extremely intelligent designer.jerry
April 3, 2021
April
04
Apr
3
03
2021
08:40 AM
8
08
40
AM
PDT
WJM @ 130, Look at atheists' arguments against God and/or his goodness from the existence of evil, here, for instance: https://infidels.org/library/modern/ryan_stringer/logical-evil.html They use the existence of evil as a premise, implying that they take it to be the case for their side. They consider it so obvious to both sides that they don't even bother defending it, presuming it's the same for both sides. He's not just taking the theist's side and showing a problem with theistic thinking. He's saying a good God doesn't exist from _his_ perspective.EDTA
April 3, 2021
April
04
Apr
3
03
2021
08:38 AM
8
08
38
AM
PDT
Jerry “ You seem to be looking for a weakness in ID.” No. I am just trying to rationalize the behaviour of ID supporters. I simply don’t understand why they get so defensive whenever anyone says that the design is flawed. Why would they care if there were some flaws in the design?Steve Alten2
April 3, 2021
April
04
Apr
3
03
2021
08:37 AM
8
08
37
AM
PDT
even if the design is shoddy
Who says they are shoddy? You? I don’t see any shoddy design with the universe, life, or evolution.
The fact that they are not raises some serious questions about what the ID movement is really all about.
ID is about showing that the universe, life, and most if not all of evolution is intelligence driven. Either directly or indirectly. Your comment is full of non-sequiturs. You seem to be looking for a weakness in ID. There have been thousands before you trying the same. All failed.jerry
April 3, 2021
April
04
Apr
3
03
2021
08:12 AM
8
08
12
AM
PDT
Bornagain77 “ Whatever SA2, you claim the eye is poorly designed, I say it is exquisitely designed.“ But I am wondering why you, as an ID proponent, care one way or the other. They both involve design. ID wins. End of story. But your response is not unique. ID proponents are never happy with the idea that poor design is still proof of design. A true ID scientist would be ecstatic over the demonstration of design, even if the design is shoddy. The fact that they are not raises some serious questions about what the ID movement is really all about. We are repeatedly told that ID is not just a repackaging of scientific creationism. Yet ID proponents get all defensive when it is suggested that the design is less than perfect. Why would ID proponents be concerned one way or the other about the competence of the designer?Steve Alten2
April 3, 2021
April
04
Apr
3
03
2021
08:10 AM
8
08
10
AM
PDT
Bornagain77: Whatever, JVL, I am more than satisfied that I have made my case. It is clear that you have no argument, (much less do you have ANY scientific evidence that evolution can create ANYTHING), to support your position, and that you are now just throwing stuff at the wall to see if it sticks. Let's just clear up one thing: I did not use the terms 'perfect' or 'perfection' in my arguments/questions about eyes except when responding to your use of those terms. Agreed?JVL
April 3, 2021
April
04
Apr
3
03
2021
07:49 AM
7
07
49
AM
PDT
Again WJM, you are missing Lewis's entire point.bornagain77
April 3, 2021
April
04
Apr
3
03
2021
07:47 AM
7
07
47
AM
PDT
Theist’s concept of evil exists
Does evil exist? A word for which there is no definition. Probably should be forgotten on this OP. But it has been discussed in detail elsewhere. Maybe comment here https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-argument-from-evil-is-absurd/#comment-725262jerry
April 3, 2021
April
04
Apr
3
03
2021
07:46 AM
7
07
46
AM
PDT
Whatever, JVL, I am more than satisfied that I have made my case. It is clear that you have no argument, (much less do you have ANY scientific evidence that evolution can create ANYTHING), to support your position, and that you are now just throwing stuff at the wall to see if it sticks. I will gladly let unbiased readers judge for themselves who has the better argument. Have a nice day.bornagain77
April 3, 2021
April
04
Apr
3
03
2021
07:45 AM
7
07
45
AM
PDT
1 9 10 11 12 13 16

Leave a Reply