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
.
JVL: I would not be surprised at all if we find electromagnetic evidence of intelligent beings in other solar systems UB: How would we know if we found “electromagnetic evidence of intelligent beings”? What would that be? JVL: Something like in the movie Contact. A signal that’s very clearly NOT produced by unguided processes. A signal which, after inspection, was shown to have compressed data. UB: So you accept encoded symbolic content as a universal inference to the presence of an unknown intelligence in one domain, while immediately denying that same physical evidence in another domain. Why the double standard? JVL: Because there is no plausible designer available.
You don’t find it “lacking”. You use a gratuitous double standard in your reasoning in order to avoid it. It is right there in your own words. And thus, you will be back here tomorrow saying “No evidence of a designer means no design”. Correct?Upright BiPed
April 10, 2021
April
04
Apr
10
10
2021
10:18 AM
10
10
18
AM
PDT
Upright BiPed: Because you will be back here tomorrow saying “No evidence of a designer means no design”. Correct? As I've explained: accepting the design hypothesis depends on a) accepting the claims for design found in nature and b) finding independent evidence of a designer. When I find evidence for a) is lacking then I look for b). I've said this already. How many times do you want me to repeat it?JVL
April 10, 2021
April
04
Apr
10
10
2021
10:12 AM
10
10
12
AM
PDT
. Because you will be back here tomorrow saying “No evidence of a designer means no design”. Correct?Upright BiPed
April 10, 2021
April
04
Apr
10
10
2021
10:07 AM
10
10
07
AM
PDT
Upright BiPed: If you can deal with the double standard, then do so. I think I have. You don't think so. Why can't we just leave it? Why can't you just leave it?JVL
April 10, 2021
April
04
Apr
10
10
2021
10:02 AM
10
10
02
AM
PDT
. Here are the “contrasting statements”:
JVL: I would not be surprised at all if we find electromagnetic evidence of intelligent beings in other solar systems UB: How would we know if we found “electromagnetic evidence of intelligent beings”? What would that be? JVL: Something like in the movie Contact. A signal that’s very clearly NOT produced by unguided processes. A signal which, after inspection, was shown to have compressed data. UB: So you accept encoded symbolic content as a universal inference to the presence of an unknown intelligence in one domain, while immediately denying that same physical evidence in another domain. Why the double standard? JVL: Because there is no plausible designer available.
If you can deal with the double standard, then do so.Upright BiPed
April 10, 2021
April
04
Apr
10
10
2021
09:58 AM
9
09
58
AM
PDT
Silver Asiatic: That is good, but following UBP @424 above – it does require a commitment from you to pursue and seek to understand the evidence provided. I think i have already made that commitment. I stand by my previous statement to be open to new evidence and data.JVL
April 10, 2021
April
04
Apr
10
10
2021
09:56 AM
9
09
56
AM
PDT
Upright BiPed: When you typed out the sentence “I think I have addressed that issue elsewhere”, you knew it was false. Not correct. We are not “agreeing to disagree” – that is a sentiment for disagreements about facts of matter. You are using it to avoid the double standard in your reasoning. I'm sorry you aren't happy to leave our contrasting statements as they are and letting all observers make up their own minds. If you want to continue to pursue our disagreement then you'll have to try and find something we haven't already discussed.JVL
April 10, 2021
April
04
Apr
10
10
2021
09:54 AM
9
09
54
AM
PDT
JVL
I don’t think that statement is terribly far from what I’ve said.
That is good, but following UBP @424 above - it does require a commitment from you to pursue and seek to understand the evidence provided.Silver Asiatic
April 10, 2021
April
04
Apr
10
10
2021
09:49 AM
9
09
49
AM
PDT
. When you typed out the sentence “I think I have addressed that issue elsewhere”, you knew it was false. We are not “agreeing to disagree” - that is a sentiment for disagreements about facts of matter. You are using it to avoid the double standard in your reasoning.Upright BiPed
April 10, 2021
April
04
Apr
10
10
2021
09:46 AM
9
09
46
AM
PDT
Silver Asiatic: “I’m open to the ID inference and it seems promising. However, I’m not an expert and I cannot sign-on to ID without more support from the scientific community in general.” I could accept that I don't think that statement is terribly far from what I've said. I'll just stick to what I've already said.JVL
April 10, 2021
April
04
Apr
10
10
2021
09:45 AM
9
09
45
AM
PDT
"I'm open to the ID inference and it seems promising. However, I'm not an expert and I cannot sign-on to ID without more support from the scientific community in general." I could accept that.Silver Asiatic
April 10, 2021
April
04
Apr
10
10
2021
09:30 AM
9
09
30
AM
PDT
Upright BiPed: You failed to address the double standard in your reasoning.. I think I have addressed that issue elsewhere. You disagree. I've got nothing to add. Shall we just leave it? I'm happy to just agree to disagree.JVL
April 10, 2021
April
04
Apr
10
10
2021
09:29 AM
9
09
29
AM
PDT
Kairosfocus: Just talked with a schoolmate and old friend in Barbados. Cloud overhead, night like in the day, maybe 1/8 inch ash precipitated from fine ash, maybe 1/2 way up B’dos. Cloud this morning and sustained so there is steady venting from the volcano. Familiar stuff, stay indoors, protect from inhaling and from getting in the eyes. Do not use wind shield wipers, abrasive. As you say: familiar stuff. Good luck! JVL, beyond a certain point when gaps are systematically absent, it reinforces the pattern we see from other things. There is a natural regularity here. Body plans are discrete not continuous, the nodes are there as observed, the arcs in the tree at top level are relational in terms of archetypes not in terms of ancestral patterns of descent. That has been force fitted, we are looking at islands without stepping stones, esp as the Cambrian fossil revolution underscores. I understand. PS, the biggest gap is the root, ool. Design is strongly indicated there and readily explains the onward pattern. Notice OO programming languages. Begin with object then branch onward. The origin of life is a big question mark.JVL
April 10, 2021
April
04
Apr
10
10
2021
09:26 AM
9
09
26
AM
PDT
Silver Asiatic: One way to do that is to show that evolution is deterministic – the result of a regularity or natural law. I think that has been shown. We'll have to agree to disagree about that. The same for evolution. It has been claimed that the process is law-like and predictable. But that has not been demonstrated. I think it has been demonstrated. You offered a good summary @411. I think you’re still missing some significant issues within your own view, but you’re open to what ID offers, even if not convinced. That is appreciated. Good. We done good. But my view (and I think we see it presented here on UD every day in the news items) is the radical opposite. Almost everything we discover cuts against Darwin. Understood.JVL
April 10, 2021
April
04
Apr
10
10
2021
09:22 AM
9
09
22
AM
PDT
.
Question: ”JVL is there a scientifically valid inference to design in biology?” Answer: ”Yes, but I personally believe that it will someday be falsified by an unknown material process” That would be an honest answer JVL. It truthfully integrates both the recorded science and history with your personal beliefs.
Upright BiPed
April 10, 2021
April
04
Apr
10
10
2021
09:04 AM
9
09
04
AM
PDT
. #411 is a positioning statement. You failed to address the double standard in your reasoning..Upright BiPed
April 10, 2021
April
04
Apr
10
10
2021
08:49 AM
8
08
49
AM
PDT
Jerry @ 397 & 399
Another point of view for which I agree. There are no certainties.
When it comes to right reasoning, and KF will agree here, I think - we have to be careful about the difference between science and the rational-logical structure that makes science possible. We can say there are no certainties from what we observe, test and categorize within nature, but philosophically that phrase is impossible and contradictory. From the Naval site linked, the author says:
And then, of course, there’s philosophy, which is a mere matter of opinion.
This is a common view. Even among the most educated academics, authors, teachers, researchers - there is a firm belief that scientific evaluation is the true test of reality. I'm reading Jordan Peterson now and he subjects almost all of his theories to scientific verification. However, philosophy is not a mere matter of opinion. Philosophy is the necessary foundation for science and math. And philosophy gives us absolute certainties within the realm of human rationality and reasoning. Science cannot do this, nor can math (as the article points out). KF does a nice job on this topic starting with the existence of the first created thing - and from that, showing that the First Principles of Reason are necessarily given to us in reality itself. From those, we attain certainty about the truth of things.Silver Asiatic
April 10, 2021
April
04
Apr
10
10
2021
08:38 AM
8
08
38
AM
PDT
JVL, beyond a certain point when gaps are systematically absent, it reinforces the pattern we see from other things. There is a natural regularity here. Body plans are discrete not continuous, the nodes are there as observed, the arcs in the tree at top level are relational in terms of archetypes not in terms of ancestral patterns of descent. That has been force fitted, we are looking at islands without stepping stones, esp as the Cambrian fossil revolution underscores. KF PS, the biggest gap is the root, ool. Design is strongly indicated there and readily explains the onward pattern. Notice OO programming languages. Begin with object then branch onward.kairosfocus
April 10, 2021
April
04
Apr
10
10
2021
08:36 AM
8
08
36
AM
PDT
Just talked with a schoolmate and old friend in Barbados. Cloud overhead, night like in the day, maybe 1/8 inch ash precipitated from fine ash, maybe 1/2 way up B'dos. Cloud this morning and sustained so there is steady venting from the volcano. Familiar stuff, stay indoors, protect from inhaling and from getting in the eyes. Do not use wind shield wipers, abrasive.kairosfocus
April 10, 2021
April
04
Apr
10
10
2021
08:29 AM
8
08
29
AM
PDT
JVL You offered a good summary @411. I think you're still missing some significant issues within your own view, but you're open to what ID offers, even if not convinced. That is appreciated.
And, I think, everything we’ve discovered since [Darwin's] time has only strengthened his idea, in the general sense. Obviously there have been some major tweaks and additions.
I think that's the most widely-held view within the science community today. But my view (and I think we see it presented here on UD every day in the news items) is the radical opposite. Almost everything we discover cuts against Darwin.Silver Asiatic
April 10, 2021
April
04
Apr
10
10
2021
08:25 AM
8
08
25
AM
PDT
JVL
So, is it really possible to show that unguided evolution is true if someone can always say: that could have been guided?
One way to do that is to show that evolution is deterministic - the result of a regularity or natural law. For example, something like snowflakes falling from clouds. Normally, we wouldn't say they were guided to the ground because there's no need for that. If however, the snow landed in a pile that gave the precise shape and details of a 6 ft tall statue of Abraham Lincoln - the idea that that was just part of the regularity of snow, gravity and climate would not be accepted. It would be hard to claim that there was an unguided process. The same for evolution. It has been claimed that the process is law-like and predictable. But that has not been demonstrated.Silver Asiatic
April 10, 2021
April
04
Apr
10
10
2021
08:20 AM
8
08
20
AM
PDT
Kairosfocus: 60 k foot is bad, a 120 k foot super column blast would be a different story, Yellowstone or Indonesia being my main candidates. Not quite on that scale but . . . Mt Saint Helen's and that Icelandic volcano a few years ago were bad enough for me!! As for the photo record, no, it is a pattern of dots fitted into an inverted pyramid theoretical structure. And the gaps really count, starting with OOL. Gaps don't mean there was nothing in them! It might mean some species popped into existence (your view) or it might mean that some of the missing phenotypes didn't fossilise, it might mean some of the missing phenotypes did fossilise but we haven't found them yet. This is why I would never, ever depend on just one thread of evidence to come to the conclusion of unguided evolution. When you weave the threads together and realise they are all telling the same general story (given the nature of the evidence) then, for me, it's clear. I did hear one biologist say he thought the genomic record alone was enough to conclude no design. I wouldn't go that far myself. Nor would I agree with Dr Dawkins that the evidence is overwhelming even if you throw out the fossil record. Historical science, like archaeology or history itself, depends on drawing inferences from what data we have and making a parsimonious call. No archaeologist would draw a definite conclusion based on one site or artefact nor would a historian want to depend on only one source. I think evolutionary science is the same. Look at all the data and evidence you have, come up with some explanations for what you've seen, generally it's a good idea to pick the explanation with the fewest assumptions but some evidence or data may be more powerful than others so you take that into account as well. I think part of the impasse between me and Kairosfocus and Upright BiPed are because they finds some data overwhelmingly important but I don't. No matter what explanation you plunk your money down on you must, always consider any new data and evidence that comes to light. I find it pretty amazing that Darwin drew a conclusion without some of the major threads of evidence we now have but I guess that tells you how strong he thought the data was that he had at the time. And, I think, everything we've discovered since his time has only strengthened his idea, in the general sense. Obviously there have been some major tweaks and additions. But he realised he was going out on a limb by leaving a designer out of the picture and I see no reason (yet) to bring one back in. The parts of the design hypothesis I find the most compelling are the semiotic argument (hat tip to Upright BiPed) addressing the origin of life and the prospect of finding a truly irreducibly complex biological structure. Clearly both of those have the capacity to kill the unguided origin of life or the unguided evolutionary theory dead on the spot. Both of those issues are complicated and require a certain level of expertise to properly grasp. I will admit, that my views on the semiotic issue are greatly governed by the experts in the field whose work I have read. Upright BiPed and I have had a go-around with this which he occasionally brings up in case someone finds some of his comments confusing. My view on that area is: I didn't come across any of those dealing with symbolic systems saying they supported the design inference (and I think I found a couple of quotes indicating at least some of them clearly disagreed with the design hypothesis) so I decided that the science of semiotics was not in support of design. Upright BiPed very clearly disagrees. I'm not sure we'll come to an agreement unless the experts in the field weigh in clearly on one side or the other. But I know that Upright BiPed sincerely and honestly believes that semiotics is the smoking gun, and a very big one. As far as irreducible complexity is concerned: I respect and admire Dr Behe, he has always been willing to engage with his detractors (I even heard him on one of the Point of Inquiry podcasts put out by the Center for Skeptical Inquiry). And he generously testified in the Dover trial when others from the Discovery Institute failed to do so. I have no doubt that he sincerely and deeply feels he is right. And his arguments are very much science. For myself, again, I found the arguments contrary to his more compelling, especially some of those involving statistics which I understand fairly well. If this has been a helpful exercise on my part then I'm glad I bothered. I realise some of you will still think I'm deluded or crazy or a liar or a troll. I promise you I DO NOT go back to other sites and make fun of anyone here or their rationales. I hold my views honestly and I have thought about them. If I'm crazy or deluded well . . . that would be hard for me to discern from within my own thoughts.JVL
April 10, 2021
April
04
Apr
10
10
2021
07:57 AM
7
07
57
AM
PDT
Kairosfocus Circular argument, tied to a distractive context. First, the focal issue is origin of life, where there was no reproduction available to foster the process [as you imagine]. The matter is a physical-chemical-informational one. This is the root level issue, and you know or should know the sum of the matter — after decades of effort, failure. The reason is, that FSCO/I — information and organisation to build a self-sustaining metabolising, kinematic von Neumann self-replicating machine, specifically — cannot empirically or analytically be bought by blind chance and/or mechanical necessity. The search challenge and evvironmental hostility are just too great. It is too uphill thermodynamically [and no, open systems are MORE prone to disorder than isolated ones, esp when they are materials flow through systems]. The simplest plausible cell requires hundreds, and an embedded coded, algorithmic system to direct self replication. As I pointed out, the only empirically warranted source for such is intelligence. Indeed, observe the key stage in protein synthesis, a molecular nanotech, stepwise assembly instruction tape [mRNA] controlled machine [the ribosome] that fixes the components and forces an uphill reaction using assembled, isolated, correct monomers [Amino acids of correct type and chirality] carried on specific position-arm devices [tRNA] at their universal joint tool tips [CCA-end] coded to work with the information tape. That is a big hint on the sort of technology we are playing with. The first cell discussion implies a genome of 100 – 1,000 k bases. At 2 bits info carrying capacity per base, 100k is 200 kbits [and is strictly speaking too low]. That’s 200 TIMES the upper end of the FSCO/I threshold that wipes out the search capacity of the observed cosmos. In short, you cannot get TO your hoped for descent from first life forms by incremental descent with unlimited modification through blind chance variation and differential reproductive success. Where, secondly, note your hoped for engine of information-generation. Did you note the emphasised aspect of the claimed mechanism, unguided differential reproductive success, aka NATURAL — as opposed to the observed artificial selection of breeders — SELECTION? That is, a CULLING of already present variation? That is, further, a SUBTRACTION of information, not a creator of information? Haven’t you been curious as to why the shift of focus? The answer is, that the claimed source is incremental chance variation [in dozens of varieties but it comes back to that], which implies writing body plan origination code a few bits at a time, filtered for success all the way. That’s not how significant fresh code gets written, as we all know from programming 101, which is of course language based, algorithmic in other words, and intelligently created. Why? Because, functional organisation for the facets to all work together implies tight, tight specification without any reasonable incremental bridge. That is, complex function comes in deeply isolated islands amidst a sea of non-functional gibberish. How isolated? Novel body plans can be calculated as needing about 10 mn fresh bases at bottom, or observed from genomes at 100+ mn bases. That is vastly beyond the OOL threshold, making it an informationally far harder problem. [Each additional base quadruples the scope of the configuration space.] You are not going to get an out by appealing to redundancy and junk dna when that sort of scale is looking at you. Furthermore, the classic tree of life pattern smuggles in an unchallenged assumption: a continent of life forms with several dozen main body plans accessible “embryologically” through small increments. That fails at every level. For starters, embryos or equivalent build an organism body plan first, so body plan level variations get expressed early, and small variations within the plan later. The evidence is, late stage mutations overwhelmingly tend to be deleterious [see Behe’s breaking rule and the Tom Cods of the Hudson or sickle cell trait etc etc] and early ones, embryologically lethal. That underscores the point from complex well fitted together, properly arranged and oriented then coupled to get a machine to work. Parts that have to be there to begin with. Complex function comes in deeply isolated islands in huge, beyond astronomical, configuration spaces. In fact, the evidence of biogeography [most famously Darwin’s Finches etc] is about fairly minor variations, well within body plans, not body plan level origin. Morphology shows much the same, and a tree structure with architecturally elaborating nodes and branches testifies to DISCRETE stepwise specific structure not a smooth continent of being in various body forms [surprise]. As for the fossils, despite many angry denials and arguments to explain the gaps away, from the Cambrian on we consistently find sudden emergence of body plans and main varieties, stasis of form with variations, then disappearance. The evidence — and this is fair comment — has been force-fitted to an institutionalised framework, as over the decades Darwin’s hoped for filling in of gaps has failed to occur. We are north of 1/4 million fossil species from all eras and places, millions of specimens and billions in the ground, speaking clearly to the islands of function pattern. Indeed, that extends to the molecular scale, with thousands of isolated fold domains in AA sequence space. So, your hoped for one liner comeback meant to blow away those IDiots labouring away foolishly on a failed paradigm has backfired. FSCO/I is real, it comes in deeply isolated islands of function in vast configuration spaces, you don’t have a viable, empirically warranted OOL model, you cannot account for a continent of smoothly, incrementally varying life forms, the geographical, fossil and embryological evidence points to the same pattern of islands, and that is backed up by the molecules and nanotech. Fail. KF
You should publish an article//book(s) about this subject. Actually is the most sensitive subject for darwinist fairytale.Lieutenant Commander Data
April 10, 2021
April
04
Apr
10
10
2021
06:35 AM
6
06
35
AM
PDT
JVL, Yes, for now, Atlantic. Barbados may get some further air mailed soil, in many places that's 6 inches over fossil limestone. If we get a 60k footer, that becomes a much more serious story and it is part of a 100 year pattern of increased activity on the arc. Last time, the ash put up a global pulse of dust. 60 k foot is bad, a 120 k foot super column blast would be a different story, Yellowstone or Indonesia being my main candidates. Okay, I take it you are thinking on the conventional presentation. Pardon over reading, then. As for the photo record, no, it is a pattern of dots fitted into an inverted pyramid theoretical structure. And the gaps really count, starting with OOL. Currently, there is a suggestion that key parts of the Cambrian were 410 ky, not 10+ mn, as though even 10+ bn would be near enough. The plausible narrative works on sidelining the gaps. Nor is that novel, it is why punctuated equilibria was put on the table what some 50 y ago now, time is passing. It is gaps that tell. KFkairosfocus
April 10, 2021
April
04
Apr
10
10
2021
06:09 AM
6
06
09
AM
PDT
Kairosfocus: JVL, several hundred miles away to the S and the upper winds trend eastwards. Which should send the ash out into the Atlantic and away from most of the Caribbean islands. The issue up this end is refugees and Antigua will be taking in some. Some of those may move here. I hadn't thought of that. The coverage here is pretty minimal especially since HRH Prince Phillip died. With only 40 years between eruptions maybe this time the authorities will declare a no go zone and move settlement away from the foot of the mountain. I was astonished years ago to learn that people had built up settlements there after 1979. But then, that is a consistent pattern of human settlement in disaster prone areas. I've lived in several places which have areas that are prone to flooding. When buying a house it's easy to avoid those areas but, gosh darn, it's very common for people to buy or build houses on or near flood plains and then blame everything but themselves when they're knee-deep in water. So, your hoped for one liner comeback meant to blow away those IDiots labouring away foolishly on a failed paradigm has backfired. That wasn't my intent at all. I thought I would make a short statement about the big picture view of why I think unguided evolutionary theory is true. The fossil record is like a photo album: it's going to be spotty with lots of gaps and holes. Which is why I find the combination of all the threads or lines of data (which I mentioned) convincing as opposed to just one. I admit that when I was much younger I thought the fossil record alone was convincing. As I learned about ID (and spent time here reading the arguments in support of it) I started wondering . . . which is when I took the time to learn more about both the guided and unguided views. That includes not only reading material here but also listening to the Discovery Institute's ID: the Future podcast (which I still do but sadly many of them are repeats from years past), I checked out your blog and material after a discussion of Dr Dembski's metric, etc. Report that to your circle in the penumbra of attack sites. I don't do that. I know some do but not me. Not an activity I'm interested in or respect.JVL
April 10, 2021
April
04
Apr
10
10
2021
05:13 AM
5
05
13
AM
PDT
F/N: It is time to hear the inadvertent warning in Lewontin's 1997 NYRB review again:
. . . to put a correct [--> Just who here presume to cornering the market on truth and so demand authority to impose?] view of the universe into people's heads
[==> as in, "we" the radically secularist elites have cornered the market on truth, warrant and knowledge, making "our" "consensus" the yardstick of truth . . . where of course "view" is patently short for WORLDVIEW . . . and linked cultural agenda . . . ]
we must first get an incorrect view out [--> as in, if you disagree with "us" of the secularist elite you are wrong, irrational and so dangerous you must be stopped, even at the price of manipulative indoctrination of hoi polloi] . . . the problem is to get them [= hoi polloi] to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world [--> "explanations of the world" is yet another synonym for WORLDVIEWS; the despised "demon[ic]" "supernatural" being of course an index of animus towards ethical theism and particularly the Judaeo-Christian faith tradition], the demons that exist only in their imaginations,
[ --> as in, to think in terms of ethical theism is to be delusional, justifying "our" elitist and establishment-controlling interventions of power to "fix" the widespread mental disease]
and to accept a social and intellectual apparatus, Science, as the only begetter of truth
[--> NB: this is a knowledge claim about knowledge and its possible sources, i.e. it is a claim in philosophy not science; it is thus self-refuting]
. . . . To Sagan, as to all but a few other scientists [--> "we" are the dominant elites], it is self-evident
[--> actually, science and its knowledge claims are plainly not immediately and necessarily true on pain of absurdity, to one who understands them; this is another logical error, begging the question , confused for real self-evidence; whereby a claim shows itself not just true but true on pain of patent absurdity if one tries to deny it . . . and in fact it is evolutionary materialism that is readily shown to be self-refuting]
that the practices of science provide the surest method of putting us in contact with physical reality [--> = all of reality to the evolutionary materialist], and that, in contrast, the demon-haunted world rests on a set of beliefs and behaviors that fail every reasonable test [--> i.e. an assertion that tellingly reveals a hostile mindset, not a warranted claim] . . . . It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us [= the evo-mat establishment] to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes [--> another major begging of the question . . . ] to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute [--> i.e. here we see the fallacious, indoctrinated, ideological, closed mind . . . ], for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door . . . [--> irreconcilable hostility to ethical theism, already caricatured as believing delusionally in imaginary demons]. [Lewontin, Billions and billions of Demons, NYRB Jan 1997,cf. here. And, if you imagine this is "quote-mined" I invite you to read the fuller annotated citation here.]
A word to the wise. KF PS: If you think that is idiosyncratic, notice Monod as already cited. Here is the US NSTA Board July 2000 (42 months later), giving an inadvertent confirmation that such ideological imposition is indeed an institutionalised reigning orthodoxy:
All those involved with science teaching and learning should have a common, accurate view of the nature of science. [--> yes but a question-begging ideological imposition is not an accurate view] Science is characterized by the systematic gathering of information through various forms of direct and indirect observations and the testing of this information by methods including, but not limited to, experimentation [--> correct so far]. The principal product of science is knowledge in the form of naturalistic concepts [--> evolutionary materialistic scientism is imposed] and the laws and theories related to those [--> i.e. ideologically loaded, evolutionary materialistic] concepts . . . . science, along with its methods, explanations and generalizations, must be the sole focus of instruction in science classes to the exclusion of all non-scientific or pseudoscientific methods, explanations, generalizations and products [--> censorship of anything that challenges the imposition; fails to appreciate that scientific methods are studied through logic, epistemology and philosophy of science, which are philosophy not science] . . . . Although no single universal step-by-step scientific method captures the complexity of doing science [--> a good point, but fails to see that this brings to bear many philosophical issues], a number of shared values and perspectives characterize a scientific approach to understanding nature. Among these are a demand for naturalistic explanations [--> outright ideological imposition and censorship that fetters freedom of responsible thought] supported by empirical evidence [--> the imposition controls how evidence is interpreted and that's why blind watchmaker mechanisms never seen to actually cause FSCO/I have default claim to explain it in the world of life] that are, at least in principle, testable against the natural world. Other shared elements include observations, rational argument [--> ideological imposition may hide under a cloak of rationality but is in fact anti-rational], inference, skepticism [--> critical awareness is responsible, selective hyperskepticism backed by ideological censorship is not], peer review [--> a circle of ideologues in agreement has no probative value] and replicability of work . . . . Science, by definition, is limited to naturalistic [= evolutionary materialistic scientism is imposed by definition, locking out an unfettered search for the credibly warranted truth about our world i/l/o observational evidence and linked inductive reasoning] methods and explanations and, as such [--> notice, ideological imposition by question-begging definition], is precluded from using supernatural elements [--> sets up a supernatural vs natural strawman alternative when the proper contrast since Plato in The Laws, Bk X, is natural vs artificial] in the production of scientific knowledge. [US NSTA Board, July 2000, definition of the nature of science for education purposes]
kairosfocus
April 10, 2021
April
04
Apr
10
10
2021
03:26 AM
3
03
26
AM
PDT
Jerry, StephenB is the one who first consistently used the term. KFkairosfocus
April 10, 2021
April
04
Apr
10
10
2021
03:12 AM
3
03
12
AM
PDT
Seversky, repeating a smear does not make the weight of evidence on source of FSCO/I go away quietly. It only signals that the design inference issue has been clouded by entanglement with an ideological war in our civilisation. The bottomline is, you don't get complex functional organisation and information for free. The only cash acceptable is intelligence and that's because FSCO/I is so thermodynamically uphill. With that on the table, playing the religion card comes out as a toxic distractor from the weakness of the case being pushed by the evolutionary materialistic scientism driven establishment. A now familiar problem that is making a hash of policy decision after policy decision. I predict, after sufficient pain is inflicted, we are going to get fatal disaffection, I only hope we don't tumble back into lawless oligarchy after the dust settles. Blind misanthropy, in short. KFkairosfocus
April 10, 2021
April
04
Apr
10
10
2021
03:10 AM
3
03
10
AM
PDT
JVL, several hundred miles away to the S and the upper winds trend eastwards. The issue up this end is refugees and Antigua will be taking in some. Some of those may move here. It seems Ritchie Robertson [who cut his eye-teeth here and comes from St Vincent] is doing a good job on this one, so far only 30 kft vulcanian explosions. The truly dangerous ones are the 60 k footers -- plinian blasts with radial column collapse pyroclastic flows like AD 79 at Pompeii --and as of yesterday not yet. The St Vincent volcano killed 1500 people caught while evacuating in 1902 with one of those and in 1979 I think a few dozen were killed. With only 40 years between eruptions maybe this time the authorities will declare a no go zone and move settlement away from the foot of the mountain. I was astonished years ago to learn that people had built up settlements there after 1979. But then, that is a consistent pattern of human settlement in disaster prone areas. KFkairosfocus
April 10, 2021
April
04
Apr
10
10
2021
02:49 AM
2
02
49
AM
PDT
JVL,
The genomic, biogeographic, morphological, fossil and experimental records all indicate that natural and unguided forces can produce the functional, complex and specified information you cite.
Circular argument, tied to a distractive context. First, the focal issue is origin of life, where there was no reproduction available to foster the process [as you imagine]. The matter is a physical-chemical-informational one. This is the root level issue, and you know or should know the sum of the matter -- after decades of effort, failure. The reason is, that FSCO/I -- information and organisation to build a self-sustaining metabolising, kinematic von Neumann self-replicating machine, specifically -- cannot empirically or analytically be bought by blind chance and/or mechanical necessity. The search challenge and evvironmental hostility are just too great. It is too uphill thermodynamically [and no, open systems are MORE prone to disorder than isolated ones, esp when they are materials flow through systems]. This is being routinely glossed over, even as -- as WJM pointed out -- those who run molecular nanotech labs like James Tour [the molecular nanocar man] keep telling us how hard it is . . . therrmodynamically uphill, so it is a challenge to figure out the Le Chetallier principle game to make the reactions go the way we want . . . just one molecular machine. The simplest plausible cell requires hundreds, and an embedded coded, algorithmic system to direct self replication. As I pointed out, the only empirically warranted source for such is intelligence. Indeed, observe the key stage in protein synthesis, a molecular nanotech, stepwise assembly instruction tape [mRNA] controlled machine [the ribosome] that fixes the components and forces an uphill reaction using assembled, isolated, correct monomers [Amino acids of correct type and chirality] carried on specific position-arm devices [tRNA] at their universal joint tool tips [CCA-end] coded to work with the information tape. That is a big hint on the sort of technology we are playing with. The first cell discussion implies a genome of 100 - 1,000 k bases. At 2 bits info carrying capacity per base, 100k is 200 kbits [and is strictly speaking too low]. That's 200 TIMES the upper end of the FSCO/I threshold that wipes out the search capacity of the observed cosmos. In short, you cannot get TO your hoped for descent from first life forms by incremental descent with unlimited modification through blind chance variation and differential reproductive success. Where, secondly, note your hoped for engine of information-generation. Did you note the emphasised aspect of the claimed mechanism, unguided differential reproductive success, aka NATURAL -- as opposed to the observed artificial selection of breeders -- SELECTION? That is, a CULLING of already present variation? That is, further, a SUBTRACTION of information, not a creator of information? Haven't you been curious as to why the shift of focus? The answer is, that the claimed source is incremental chance variation [in dozens of varieties but it comes back to that], which implies writing body plan origination code a few bits at a time, filtered for success all the way. That's not how significant fresh code gets written, as we all know from programming 101, which is of course language based, algorithmic in other words, and intelligently created. Why? Because, functional organisation for the facets to all work together implies tight, tight specification without any reasonable incremental bridge. That is, complex function comes in deeply isolated islands amidst a sea of non-functional gibberish. How isolated? Novel body plans can be calculated as needing about 10 mn fresh bases at bottom, or observed from genomes at 100+ mn bases. That is vastly beyond the OOL threshold, making it an informationally far harder problem. [Each additional base quadruples the scope of the configuration space.] You are not going to get an out by appealing to redundancy and junk dna when that sort of scale is looking at you. Furthermore, the classic tree of life pattern smuggles in an unchallenged assumption: a continent of life forms with several dozen main body plans accessible "embryologically" through small increments. That fails at every level. For starters, embryos or equivalent build an organism body plan first, so body plan level variations get expressed early, and small variations within the plan later. The evidence is, late stage mutations overwhelmingly tend to be deleterious [see Behe's breaking rule and the Tom Cods of the Hudson or sickle cell trait etc etc] and early ones, embryologically lethal. That underscores the point from complex well fitted together, properly arranged and oriented then coupled to get a machine to work. Parts that have to be there to begin with. Complex function comes in deeply isolated islands in huge, beyond astronomical, configuration spaces. In fact, the evidence of biogeography [most famously Darwin's Finches etc] is about fairly minor variations, well within body plans, not body plan level origin. Morphology shows much the same, and a tree structure with architecturally elaborating nodes and branches testifies to DISCRETE stepwise specific structure not a smooth continent of being in various body forms [surprise]. As for the fossils, despite many angry denials and arguments to explain the gaps away, from the Cambrian on we consistently find sudden emergence of body plans and main varieties, stasis of form with variations, then disappearance. The evidence -- and this is fair comment -- has been force-fitted to an institutionalised framework, as over the decades Darwin's hoped for filling in of gaps has failed to occur. We are north of 1/4 million fossil species from all eras and places, millions of specimens and billions in the ground, speaking clearly to the islands of function pattern. Indeed, that extends to the molecular scale, with thousands of isolated fold domains in AA sequence space. So, your hoped for one liner comeback meant to blow away those IDiots labouring away foolishly on a failed paradigm has backfired. FSCO/I is real, it comes in deeply isolated islands of function in vast configuration spaces, you don't have a viable, empirically warranted OOL model, you cannot account for a continent of smoothly, incrementally varying life forms, the geographical, fossil and embryological evidence points to the same pattern of islands, and that is backed up by the molecules and nanotech. Fail. Report that to your circle in the penumbra of attack sites. KFkairosfocus
April 10, 2021
April
04
Apr
10
10
2021
02:36 AM
2
02
36
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 16

Leave a Reply