Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

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

Share
Facebook
Twitter
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
"What’s your ‘why’ answer then?" JVL, I already gave you my answer. You are just trolling. Andrewasauber
April 1, 2021
April
04
Apr
1
01
2021
12:46 PM
12
12
46
PM
PDT
Asauber: All you’ve done here is kick the can backwards towards the past. This is an evasion. There is no answer to “why” with this. What's your 'why' answer then? AND . . . What's a good, plausible ID research agenda? What questions should ID researchers be working on?JVL
April 1, 2021
April
04
Apr
1
01
2021
12:36 PM
12
12
36
PM
PDT
Bornagain77: His theological argument boils down to this 1. “IF” I were God I imagine I could design an eye better than God did. 2. Therefore I imagine that God did not design the eye. 3. Therefore I imagine that God does not exist. That is just BS, pardon my French. I am trying to understand the ID position while at the same time admitting my own position and trying to explain it when asked. I, personally, don't see any compelling evidence for God but, forgive me if I am wrong, I thought ID DID NOT propose God as the intelligent designer. Nowhere in his theological argument does JVL assume that mindless processes are capable of designing anything. He imagines that he could have designed an eye better than God did. PERIOD! That wasn't my question at all! I asked: IF the eye was designed then why were certain capacities not granted to the human eye. JVL, as smart as he may fancy himself to be, simply has no clue what he is talking about. The eye is exquisitely designed. The human eye is fine. It works pretty well. BUT there are animal eyes that work even better. So WHY do humans have eyes that are functionally sub-par to other animal eyes? What reason is there that our eyes don't have greater acuity? What reason is there that our eyes don't have four colour detectors? What reason is there that our eyes can't see into the ultraviolet range? I notice that NO ONE has even tried to answer those questions. Why is that? Does ID not have an answer to that question? I'm not going to mock anyone for believing in God but I do think it's fair to ask: why would God do it that way? Because we're talking about science aren't we?JVL
April 1, 2021
April
04
Apr
1
01
2021
12:35 PM
12
12
35
PM
PDT
"using what your predecessors already have" JVL, All you've done here is kick the can backwards towards the past. This is an evasion. There is no answer to "why" with this. Andrewasauber
April 1, 2021
April
04
Apr
1
01
2021
12:28 PM
12
12
28
PM
PDT
Asauber: Because I think you already know there is nothing available you would consider a scientific answer, and you are just trolling. I have no idea what is available, that's why I ask. What's the harm in spelling out a tentative ID research agenda? Even if I make fun of it, what's the harm? And I'm not going to make fun of it because I'd like to see ID move forward and progress. So do I. A long-winded non-answer. But I suspect you don’t troll them with irrelevant questions. Because I know what evolutionary theory says and because I (mostly) feel that case is sound I don't feel the need to troll them. And I'm not trying to troll ID, I'm trying to understand and solidify, in my mind, what it is really saying. I'm trying to understand what ramifications it has. I'm trying to test my own beliefs against the best that ID has to offer to see if my own beliefs can stand up. There is ID stuff linked all over this blog. Are you really reading any of it? Yup. Where is the research agenda? Tell me what questions ID researcher are or should be working on. Why is that so hard?JVL
April 1, 2021
April
04
Apr
1
01
2021
12:27 PM
12
12
27
PM
PDT
"I think I qualified the evolutionary answer. Any such response is always tentative. But you didn’t give any kind of answer. Why is that?" JVL, Because I think you already know there is nothing available you would consider a scientific answer, and you are just trolling. "I know what unguided evolution supporters will say." So do I. A long-winded non-answer. But I suspect you don't troll them with irrelevant questions. "No guess on the ID research agenda? Any one? Hello?" There is ID stuff linked all over this blog. Are you really reading any of it? Andrewasauber
April 1, 2021
April
04
Apr
1
01
2021
12:04 PM
12
12
04
PM
PDT
I guess I was hoping for a more 'scientific' reply from JVL rather that just philosophical posturing on his part as to "IF" he were God he imagines that he could design a better eye than God did. And note that JVL, in his theological argument, is assuming himself as a designer. He is not assuming mindless processes could design an eye. His theological argument boils down to this
1. "IF" I were God I imagine I could design an eye better than God did. 2. Therefore I imagine that God did not design the eye. 3. Therefore I imagine that God does not exist.
Nowhere in his theological argument does JVL assume that mindless processes are capable of designing anything. He imagines that he could have designed an eye better than God did. PERIOD! I guess he just expects us to assume that mindless Darwinian processes can design an eye better than both he and God can design one without explicitly saying so? (much less does JVL ever provide any explicit empirical evidence for either he, or mindless processes, creating anything) But, since JVL is into playing God, (instead of concentrating on the science at hand), and arrogantly imagines he can do a better job than God did at designing the eye, I have an old joke for him, "You go find your own dirt JVL!"
There’s an old joke about human arrogance. One day a group of scientists got together and decided that humanity had come a long way and no longer needed God. So they picked one scientist to go and tell Him that they were done with Him. The scientist walked up to God and said, “God, we've decided that we no longer need you. We’re to the point where we can clone people, manipulate atoms, build molecules, fly through space, and do many other miraculous things. So why don’t you just go away and mind your own business from now on?” God listened very patiently and kindly to the man. After the scientist was done talking, God said, “Very well. How about this? Before I go, let’s say we have a human-making contest.” To which the scientist replied, “Okay, we can handle that!” “But,” God added, “we’re going to do this just like I did back in the old days with Adam.” The scientist nodded, “Sure, no problem” and bent down and picked up a handful of dirt. God wagged a finger at him and said, “Uh, uh, uh. Put that down. You go find your own dirt.”
JVL, as smart as he may fancy himself to be, simply has no clue what he is talking about. The eye is exquisitely designed. To quote Princeton physics professor William Bialek, "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,”... “This is as far as it goes.” … 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.
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.” … 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.com/2013/03/william-bialek-more-perfect-than-we.html
And along that line of thought, here are a few notes strongly suggesting that JVL, besides getting his own dirt, should also 'go find his own light' as well.
"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." https://www.chemeurope.com/en/encyclopedia/Photon.html Creation of the Cosmos - Dr. Walter Bradley - Walter Bradley - (35:49 minute mark) video https://youtu.be/T4_SQzM-1AY?t=2149 Is There Scientific Evidence for the Existence of God? How the Recent Discoveries Support a Designed Universe - Dr. Walter L. Bradley Excerpt: Furthermore, the frequency distribution of electromagnetic radiation produced by the sun must be precisely tuned to the energies of the various chemical bonds on Earth. Excessively energetic photons of radiation (i.e., the ultraviolet radiation emitted from a blue giant star) destroy chemical bonds and destabilize organic molecules. Insufficiently energetic photons (e.g., infrared and longer wavelength radiation from a red dwarf star) would result in chemical reactions that are either too sluggish or would not occur at all. All life on Earth depends upon fine-tuned solar radiation, which requires, in turn, a very precise balancing of the electromagnetic and gravitational forces. As previously noted, the chemical bonding energy relies upon quantum mechanical calculations that include the electromagnetic force, the mass of the electron, the speed of light (c), and Planck's constant (h). Matching the radiation from the sun to the chemical bonding energy requires that the magnitude of six constants be selected to satisfy the following inequality, with the caveat that the two sides of the inequality are of the same order of magnitude, guaranteeing that the photons are sufficiently energetic, but not too energetic.{22},,, Substituting the values in Table 2 for h, c, G, me, mp, and e (with units adjusted as required) allows Equation 3 to be evaluated to give:,,, In what is either an amazing coincidence or careful design by an intelligent Creator, these constants have the very precise values relative to each other that are necessary to give a universe in which radiation from the sun is tuned to the necessary chemical reactions that are essential for life. This result is illustrated in Figure 3, where the intensity of radiation from the sun and the biological utility of radiation are shown as a function of the wavelength of radiation. The greatest intensity of radiation from the sun occurs at the place of greatest biological utility.,,, http://www.leaderu.com/offices/bradley/docs/scievidence.html
In the preceding paper Dr. Bradley also lists four graphs. At the bottom of the four graphs he states: “The visible portion of the electromagnetic spectrum (~1 micron) is the most intense radiation from the sun (Figure 3.1); has the greatest biological utility (Figure 3.2); and passes through atmosphere of Earth (Figure 3.3) and water (Figure 3.4) with almost no absorption. It is uniquely this same wavelength of radiation that is idea to foster the chemistry of life. This is either a truly amazing series of coincidences or else the result of careful design.”,,, It is remarkable that both the Earth's atmosphere and water have "optical windows" that allow visible light (just the radiation necessary for life) to pass through with very little absorption, whereas shorter wavelength (destructive ultraviolet radiation) and longer wavelength (infrared) radiation are both highly absorbed, as seen in Figure 3.{23} Also of note: the light coming from the CMB (Cosmic Microwave Background) is such that "the value of the photon to baryon ratio is such that it maximizes the CMB (as observed by typical observers)"
The Fine-Tuning for Discoverability - Robin Collins - March 22, 2014 Excerpt: Examples of fine-tuning for discoverability. The most dramatic confirmation of the discoverability/livability optimality thesis (DLO) is the dependence of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMB) on the baryon to photon ratio.,,, ...the intensity of CMB depends on the photon to baryon ratio, (b), which is the ratio of the average number of photons per unit volume of space to the average number of baryons (protons plus neutrons) per unit volume. At present this ratio is approximately a billion to one (10^9) , but it could be anywhere from one to infinity; it traces back to the degree of asymmetry in matter and anti - matter right after the beginning of the universe – for approximately every billion particles of antimatter, there was a billion and one particles of matter.,,, The only livability effect this ratio has is on whether or not galaxies can form that have near - optimally livability zones. As long as this condition is met, the value of this ratio has no further effects on livability. Hence, the DLO predicts that within this range, the value of this ratio will be such as to maximize the intensity of the CMB as observed by typical observers. According to my calculations – which have been verified by three other physicists -- to within the margin of error of the experimentally determined parameters (~20%), the value of the photon to baryon ratio is such that it maximizes the CMB (as observed by typical observers). This is shown in Figure 1 below. (pg. 13) It is easy to see that this prediction could have been disconfirmed. In fact, when I first made the calculations in the fall of 2011, I made a mistake and thought I had refuted this thesis since those calculations showed the intensity of the CMB maximizes at a value different than the photon - baryon ratio in our universe. So, not only does the DLO lead us to expect this ratio, but it provides an ultimate explanation for why it has this value,,, This is a case of a teleological thesis serving both a predictive and an ultimate explanatory role.,,, http://home.messiah.edu/~rcollins/Fine-tuning/Greer-Heard%20Forum%20paper%20draft%20for%20posting.pdf
bornagain77
April 1, 2021
April
04
Apr
1
01
2021
11:43 AM
11
11
43
AM
PDT
Asauber: The above was your initial question to me. Your subsequent appeal to Evolution didn’t answer it either. I think I qualified the evolutionary answer. Any such response is always tentative. But you didn't give any kind of answer. Why is that? According to all the evidence, you could just as well be on your favorite Evolution blog asking these kind of questions. But I guess you just like UD better. ? I know what unguided evolution supporters will say. I'm trying to figure out what ID's view on such issues are so I ask here. No guess on the ID research agenda? Any one? Hello?JVL
April 1, 2021
April
04
Apr
1
01
2021
11:37 AM
11
11
37
AM
PDT
"I’d love to have a greater visual range, greater acuity, no blind spot, etc. So, why don’t I?" JVL, The above was your initial question to me. Your subsequent appeal to Evolution didn't answer it either. According to all the evidence, you could just as well be on your favorite Evolution blog asking these kind of questions. But I guess you just like UD better. ;) Andrewasauber
April 1, 2021
April
04
Apr
1
01
2021
10:44 AM
10
10
44
AM
PDT
Asauber: That’s for sure. Welcome to science! Do we know what 'causes' gravity? Not really. Can we model it? Yes! Pretty well now. With better measuring tools and data we may have to refine our model, again. Anyway, this is what we expect: as our knowledge and experience and data get more and more comprehensive our models of the real world should get better and better. Will they every be 'true'? I think we're getting closer and closer. The laws of thermodynamics seem pretty rock solid. But, who knows . . . maybe next year, next month or tomorrow we'll have to revise those as well. That's the way it goes with science. We're running really fast just to keep up!! So is three better than four to Evolution? Or Is four better than three and we’ll switch someday? Who knows? IF I remember correctly: four cones arose and got fixed in one population but we're not sure why. Sometimes you just have to say: we don't know. That's honest, that's true. The thing about saying it all was designed is that that implies, to me at least, that there was a reason for all such decisions. Okay, maybe you can say the designer just figured they'd role the dice and not care that much. But that seems kind of callous. Not what most ID proponents want to believe. Anyway, why aren't ID proponents working on answering questions like that? What is the ID research agenda? What questions are first up for ID? All sciences have unanswered questions and issues that are prime for research. What are they for ID? IF I could grant y'all a few million dollars what research would you engage in?JVL
April 1, 2021
April
04
Apr
1
01
2021
10:13 AM
10
10
13
AM
PDT
"good enough OR better." JVL, So is three better than four to Evolution? Or Is four better than three and we'll switch someday? Andrewasauber
April 1, 2021
April
04
Apr
1
01
2021
10:12 AM
10
10
12
AM
PDT
"Unguided evolution explanations are not ‘answers’ in the usual sense" JVL, That's for sure. Andrewasauber
April 1, 2021
April
04
Apr
1
01
2021
10:08 AM
10
10
08
AM
PDT
Asauber: So what’s the answer? Unguided evolution depends on using what your predecessors already have and passing on that which is good enough OR better. So, it seems, that the line leading to humans made do with three colour detecting cones and sometimes good enough wins the day. Perhaps, if there had been some environment pressure or clear advantage to having four cones instead of three the human line might have kept such a modification IF it ever occurred. If I'm remembering correctly, at least one line of new world monkeys got the four cones, lucky them! Was it an advantage or did it get fixed for another reason? You can find discussions of this particular topic if you're really interested. Unguided evolution explanations are not 'answers' in the usual sense; they are models that seem to address most of the data we have.JVL
April 1, 2021
April
04
Apr
1
01
2021
09:53 AM
9
09
53
AM
PDT
William J Murray: Short of asking the designer, this is more of a philosophical exercise. It doesn’t really have anything to do with science. It is a scientific question if one answer is: it's down to blind, dumb science. Why do you think it comes down to philosophy? Even if the human eye was designed it could be a purely engineering decision. You're showing your bias. If we find a piece of alien technology, the proper question isn’t “what are the design goals.” The scientific question is: what does it actually do? Can we reverse-engineer it? Can we apply that technology? Is there entirely new technology, even new technological concepts we can learn from it? Those are all good questions and I think it's fair to ask all of them. Remember: ID is contrasting itself with another paradigm which attempts to answer some of those questions. IF ID wants to be a 'better' answer then it must answer those questions more parsimoniously and, I think, answer some more questions. Design means a designer, means intent, means a goal or target, means there should be a reason why some animals got some features and others didn't. Yes?JVL
April 1, 2021
April
04
Apr
1
01
2021
09:45 AM
9
09
45
AM
PDT
Bornagain77: JVL, so what you are really trying to say is that “IF” you were God then you would have designed a human eye better than God did? I'm just wondering why we don't have four colour detecting cones? I can't see why not if we were intelligently designed. Maybe the designer had a reason . . . what could it be? Ours is not to reason why? But that assumes that you know all God’s reasons for designing the human eye as amazingly as He did and that you could improve on it (Basically you are assuming you are omniscient)) I'd love to know the reason, if there was one. And your argument also assumes that you have some basic knowledge on how to build eyeballs in the first place. I know some of the other ones that exist. Shoot, design a better photosynthesis system for plants while you are at it. ? I think someone has actually tried to look at that! I don't know as much about photosynthesis unfortunately. Without that empirical demonstration., your argument boils down to, basically, a philosophical, even a theological, argument and it has left the realm of empirical science. I'd just like to know why, according to ID, we don't have eyes with greater capacities since other animals do have 'em. It's not a philosophical or theological argument unless you want it to be. For me it's just blind, dumb evolution or an engineering choice.JVL
April 1, 2021
April
04
Apr
1
01
2021
09:40 AM
9
09
40
AM
PDT
JVL @22 asks:
Okay. Is it possible to know what the design goals are? Do you think ID should be asking questions like these? Can the answers be discovered?
Short of asking the designer, this is more of a philosophical exercise. It doesn't really have anything to do with science. If we find a piece of alien technology, the proper question isn't "what are the design goals." The scientific question is: what does it actually do? Can we reverse-engineer it? Can we apply that technology? Is there entirely new technology, even new technological concepts we can learn from it?William J Murray
April 1, 2021
April
04
Apr
1
01
2021
09:21 AM
9
09
21
AM
PDT
JVL, so what you are really trying to say is that "IF" you were God then you would have designed a human eye better than God did? But that assumes that you know all God's reasons for designing the human eye as amazingly as He did and that you could improve on it (Basically you are assuming you are omniscient)) And your argument also assumes that you have some basic knowledge on how to build eyeballs in the first place. OK, I'll wait, in your presupposed omniscient ability to build better eyeballs, whip us up a human eyeball that is better than the one God created. :) Shoot, design a better photosynthesis system for plants while you are at it. :) Without that empirical demonstration., your argument boils down to, basically, a philosophical, even a theological, argument and it has left the realm of empirical science. Which is no surprise, Darwinists have been crucially dependent on faulty theological argumentation, (not empirical demonstration), ever since Darwin first published his book 'Origin of Species", since there simply is no evidence that mindless processes can create anything, much less the amazing human eye.
"How came the Bodies of Animals to be contrived with so much Art…. Was the Eye contrived without skill in Opticks, and the Ear without Knowledge of Sounds?" - Sir Isaac Newton
bornagain77
April 1, 2021
April
04
Apr
1
01
2021
09:07 AM
9
09
07
AM
PDT
"I think it does, partially at any rate." JVL, So what's the answer? Andrewasauber
April 1, 2021
April
04
Apr
1
01
2021
08:34 AM
8
08
34
AM
PDT
Asauber: Doesn’t Evolution answer this question adequately? I think it does, partially at any rate. But does ID answer that question? What do you think?JVL
April 1, 2021
April
04
Apr
1
01
2021
08:28 AM
8
08
28
AM
PDT
"Again, aren’t you curious why we only have three colour detectors instead of four?" JVL, Doesn't Evolution answer this question adequately? Evolution claims to make sense of biology, doesn't it? Please go to your favorite Evolution Blog and get the answer for us, JVL. Thanks. Andrewasauber
April 1, 2021
April
04
Apr
1
01
2021
08:27 AM
8
08
27
AM
PDT
William J Murray: How would I know? I’m just admitting I don’t know the entirety of the design goals, so the argument about whether or not the design of the eye is “optimal” is a groundless argument because what it refers to (all the design goals) are unknown. Okay. Is it possible to know what the design goals are? Do you think ID should be asking questions like these? Can the answers be discovered?JVL
April 1, 2021
April
04
Apr
1
01
2021
08:25 AM
8
08
25
AM
PDT
JVL asks:
Okay, why do you think humans don’t have the same visual acuity as other animals? Why can’t we see into the ultraviolet range like other animals? Why don’t we have four colour cones like other animals? Why do we have a blind spot where other animals do not?
How would I know? I'm just admitting I don't know the entirety of the design goals, so the argument about whether or not the design of the eye is "optimal" is a groundless argument because what it refers to (all the design goals) are unknown.William J Murray
April 1, 2021
April
04
Apr
1
01
2021
08:20 AM
8
08
20
AM
PDT
Jerry: Optimal design is almost impossible to discern. Every species including humans live in an ecology. If one species was dominant in every possible way it would eliminate itself since it would probably destroy the ecology and thus, its ability to survive. Oooo, is that an ecological and evolutionary argument I see before me? So when someone points to a so called sub-optimal design, they may be looking at exquisite design. No idea what exquisite design means. But I do know some animals have better acuity that we do, some animals can see into the ultraviolet range, some animals have four colour detectors instead of three. I'd love to have those enhancements. This has been discussed probably a hundred times before. The same irrelevant questions always seem to come up. Again, aren't you curious why we only have three colour detectors instead of four? Would that really give us such an advance that we would have destroyed our environment eons ago? I find all such questions really fascinating. So I'm prone to wonder why things are the way they are. Those may be irrelevant questions but science is about asking questions and looking for answers. What questions do you think ID should be looking at and working on?JVL
April 1, 2021
April
04
Apr
1
01
2021
08:03 AM
8
08
03
AM
PDT
Asauber: ID doesn’t exclude any question-asking as far as I know. That's good! But I can tell you that some questions are worth spending more time on than others. Personally, I think the “why” questions you ask aren’t worth spending much time on. I don’t feel inadequate because I don’t have enhanced vision the way you seem to feel. Okay!JVL
April 1, 2021
April
04
Apr
1
01
2021
07:57 AM
7
07
57
AM
PDT
"The same irrelevant questions" Precisely, Jerry. Andrewasauber
April 1, 2021
April
04
Apr
1
01
2021
07:42 AM
7
07
42
AM
PDT
Optimal design is almost impossible to discern. Every species including humans live in an ecology. If one species was dominant in every possible way it would eliminate itself since it would probably destroy the ecology and thus, its ability to survive. So when someone points to a so called sub-optimal design, they may be looking at exquisite design. This has been discussed probably a hundred times before. The same irrelevant questions always seem to come up.jerry
April 1, 2021
April
04
Apr
1
01
2021
07:31 AM
7
07
31
AM
PDT
"ID should ask such questions?" JVL, ID doesn't exclude any question-asking as far as I know. But I can tell you that some questions are worth spending more time on than others. Personally, I think the "why" questions you ask aren't worth spending much time on. I don't feel inadequate because I don't have enhanced vision the way you seem to feel. Andrew PS In fact my vision is deteriorating with age. I don't feel bad about it. I "see" it as a stage in the journey. I just put on some readers.asauber
April 1, 2021
April
04
Apr
1
01
2021
07:26 AM
7
07
26
AM
PDT
Asauber: No. I don’t ever ask myself such questions. Okay! PS: do you think ID should ask such questions?JVL
April 1, 2021
April
04
Apr
1
01
2021
07:17 AM
7
07
17
AM
PDT
"Don’t you ever ask yourself such questions?" No. I don't ever ask myself such questions. As for curiosity about how our vision developed, you probably love this OP because you have to know what the eye is and does first, before you back track. But I'm glad you have more an appreciation for the eye than your buddy Sev does. Andrewasauber
April 1, 2021
April
04
Apr
1
01
2021
07:16 AM
7
07
16
AM
PDT
Asauber: Yes it is. I guess I'm just more curious than you are about how our vision developed. I'm very happy to have eyes that work pretty well but . . . I'd love to have a greater visual range, greater acuity, no blind spot, etc. So, why don't I? Don't you ever ask yourself such questions?JVL
April 1, 2021
April
04
Apr
1
01
2021
07:10 AM
7
07
10
AM
PDT
1 13 14 15 16

Leave a Reply