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
Kairosfocus: Checking the map it seems that the recent volcanic explosion is too far away from you to affect your country but I guess that does depend on which way the ash cloud is blown. Any problems?JVL
April 10, 2021
April
04
Apr
10
10
2021
02:30 AM
2
02
30
AM
PDT
Silver Asiatic: After all this long, long conversation I’m getting an idea about what is bothering you. You’re trying to say that “ID is not science”? You think this is a religious campaign? I think it depends on how it's held and approached by an individual. For example, if you look you will see a post by Jerry saying he thinks ID is more logic than science . . . whatever that means. Similarly, a person can 'religiously' believe in unguided evolution when they haven't got a clue about the reasons or evidence. I think some people support ID because they are convinced by the arguments based on the evidence. I think some people support ID because of their faith. But yes, everything could have been guided and we simply cannot see it. So, is it really possible to show that unguided evolution is true if someone can always say: that could have been guided?JVL
April 10, 2021
April
04
Apr
10
10
2021
02:02 AM
2
02
02
AM
PDT
My quibble is with Christians who try to insert their creation myth into the science classroom and claim it is a scientific theory of similar standing to something like evolution.
So you must disapprove of the teaching of Darwin’s ideas in the classroom. They are no different than a creation myth. There is no basis for Darwin’s ideas in evolution. Genetics definitely but not evolution.jerry
April 9, 2021
April
04
Apr
9
09
2021
06:58 PM
6
06
58
PM
PDT
Another point of view for which I agree. There are no certainties.
Nassim Taleb, popularized the idea of the black swan, which is that no number of white swans disproves the existence of a black swan. You can never conclusively say all swans are white. You can never establish a final truth. All you can do is work with the best explanation you have today, which is still far better than ignorance. At any time a black swan can show up and disprove your theory, and then you have to go find a better one.
https://nav.al/settled So while ID remains the best explanation for OOL and macro evolution events, there is always the possibility of a black swan event. Aside: my wife and I saw some black swans while in New Zealand. They were apparently brought there from Australia.jerry
April 9, 2021
April
04
Apr
9
09
2021
06:55 PM
6
06
55
PM
PDT
I think ID is essentially a religious movement. Founding figures like Philip Johnson were quite open about their religious purposes and there was nothing wrong with that. That said, there are also a few such as William Dembski, Winston Ewert, Robert Marks and Michael Behe who have taken the scientific approach and good for them. My quibble is with Christians who try to insert their creation myth into the science classroom and claim it is a scientific theory of similar standing to something like evolution.Seversky
April 9, 2021
April
04
Apr
9
09
2021
06:48 PM
6
06
48
PM
PDT
I don’t believe ID is science. I believe it is right reasoning based on scientific findings. So it uses the findings of science but it’s mainly logic. Aside: I have to thank Kf for introducing the concept of right reasoning to the site. I was quite familiar with logic and the principles of argument which make it up. But I had never heard the term before. Aside2: there is no confusion with ID being religious. Anyone who defends evolution as being unguided is someone who does not understand evolution or science. Objections to ID have nothing to do with religion.jerry
April 9, 2021
April
04
Apr
9
09
2021
05:41 PM
5
05
41
PM
PDT
JVL
Also, ET, and perhaps Dr Behe, would say: how do you know the mutations which led to that eventuality (the emergence of a single celled organism) were unguided. What’s the response to that? How does one demonstrate that mutations are random with respect to fitness?
The point they're making is that nobody can say that they know that evolution is unguided. Evolutionists have made that claim. Biology textbooks have said it: "evolution does not have goals and is unguided". We repeat those things to use their ideas and terminology. But yes, everything could have been guided and we simply cannot see it.Silver Asiatic
April 9, 2021
April
04
Apr
9
09
2021
03:29 PM
3
03
29
PM
PDT
JVL
So . . . we’re not talking about science at all. Are we?
After all this long, long conversation I'm getting an idea about what is bothering you. You're trying to say that "ID is not science"? You think this is a religious campaign? I'll have to agree with many others on this thread. You're taking a confused approach. If you have a critique, offer it clearly. Additionally, your contradictory view has been pointed out several times and you haven't addressed it to correct or explain.Silver Asiatic
April 9, 2021
April
04
Apr
9
09
2021
03:26 PM
3
03
26
PM
PDT
. About the design inference, JVL asks:
Is it not possible to have a differing view on that and still be honest and true?
Of course it is, but you have to actually do that, which is the very thing you have not done. This is all very simple JVL. Your position is that there is no valid scientific inference to design in biology. Several months ago, you and I had a conversation where we carefully walked through that evidence, as well as the documented history of discovery surrounding it. You acknowledged the verity of both the evidence presented and its history. At the same time, you spoke of your enthusiastic expectation that the design inference in SETI would be successful. And when confronted with the fact that SETI and ID use the same logic to draw the same conclusion, you quickly applied a double-standard to your reasoning in order to avoid the design inference in ID. As you are keenly aware, this is all very well documented here — i.e. empirical facts that you cannot dispute; and logic that you both affirm and use yourself. The contradiction is unambiguous. So, JVL, is it “reasonable” or “rational” to insert a gratuitous logical fallacy (a double standard) in your reasoning, then ignore it and began repeatedly asking for the very evidence that you deny by way of that reasoning? Of course not. Speaking only for myself, all I’d like to see from you is an honest answer. Let me give you an example: 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. But you are not able.Upright BiPed
April 9, 2021
April
04
Apr
9
09
2021
01:10 PM
1
01
10
PM
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.
:) Some people can't be unbrainwashed.Lieutenant Commander Data
April 9, 2021
April
04
Apr
9
09
2021
01:02 PM
1
01
02
PM
PDT
Jerry: The letter combination “JVL” is now over 300. This includes the message feed. Well done for adding to the total. Not that anyone, including me, cares.JVL
April 9, 2021
April
04
Apr
9
09
2021
12:25 PM
12
12
25
PM
PDT
The letter combination "JVL" is now over 300. This includes the message feed. JVL has won.jerry
April 9, 2021
April
04
Apr
9
09
2021
12:15 PM
12
12
15
PM
PDT
Silver Asiatic: Yes, make it logical and coherent. See #387 above. If you make a contradictory statement, either correct it or admit that you’re wrong. Don’t change the topic and don’t just ignore it. Those rules are the foundation of a rational discourse. Okay. “Ok, the design inference has the strongest evidential support. Unguided chance and mechanism does not explain what we observe in nature. I accept both facts. However, for reasons I cannot explain, I cannot accept the intelligent design inference. I know this is illogical, but I reject intelligent design, even though it is the best explanation. I do not like the idea that a god or gods exist out there. I’m not prepared to accept that concept.” I cannot sign onto that statement. I do not think the design inference has the strongest evidential support. I think that unguided processes have been demonstrated to be perfectly adequate for explaining the variety of life we observe. I do not think that intelligent design is the BEST explanation because it assumes and depends on a cause which has not been shown to exist. I'm happy to accept the idea of a god or gods IF someone can define what that means and establish with some amount of surety that such beings exist. Something like that, I would accept – at least temporarily, with the goal of overcoming that obstacle and finally embracing the truth about the matter. So . . . we're not talking about science at all. Are we?JVL
April 9, 2021
April
04
Apr
9
09
2021
12:14 PM
12
12
14
PM
PDT
William J Murray: JVL, you’re either a troll or an idiot. And that’s coming from someone who cherishes the principle of charity in a debate and loathes to use ad hominem. There’s just no other possible explanation for what you have said above. Well done for conflating two responses to two different questions together. Your technique is awesome and powerful. I should just give up now.JVL
April 9, 2021
April
04
Apr
9
09
2021
12:06 PM
12
12
06
PM
PDT
JVL
So, based on that, is there any reason or point for me defending my opposing view?
Yes, make it logical and coherent. See #387 above. If you make a contradictory statement, either correct it or admit that you're wrong. Don't change the topic and don't just ignore it. Those rules are the foundation of a rational discourse. I would accept this from you, JVL: "Ok, the design inference has the strongest evidential support. Unguided chance and mechanism does not explain what we observe in nature. I accept both facts. However, for reasons I cannot explain, I cannot accept the intelligent design inference. I know this is illogical, but I reject intelligent design, even though it is the best explanation. I do not like the idea that a god or gods exist out there. I'm not prepared to accept that concept." Something like that, I would accept - at least temporarily, with the goal of overcoming that obstacle and finally embracing the truth about the matter.Silver Asiatic
April 9, 2021
April
04
Apr
9
09
2021
11:44 AM
11
11
44
AM
PDT
WJM asks:
How was homochirality achieved in the prebiotic world?
JVL responds:
No one knows. I don’t know.
JVL a few posts later:
I think it has been amply demonstrated that unguided processes have, in fact, done just that.
JVL, you're either a troll or an idiot. And that's coming from someone who cherishes the principle of charity in a debate and loathes to use ad hominem. There's just no other possible explanation for what you have said above.William J Murray
April 9, 2021
April
04
Apr
9
09
2021
11:01 AM
11
11
01
AM
PDT
William J Murray: First, that’s an appeal to a consensus of authorities. That’s not part of a rational, evidence-based defense of the “natural forces” theory; that’s just saying a lot of smart people agree with your view. Fine, it was just a question. Because it’s not “biologists” that know what it takes at the chemical level to fashion a rudimentary, functional molecular machine. Who do you think would know better? If you haven’t looked into bio-molecular engineering, you haven’t even seen that evidence, much less become familiar with it, much less have the capacity to develop a rational opinion concerning the evidence. The process is staggeringly difficult requiring things that we do not see in nature outside of biological systems, like a ready supply of purified chemicals and contaminant-free isolated environments with different, highly specialized internal conditions. Are you assuming I haven't considered that perspective? The only agency we are aware that does this kind of thing is intelligence, and doing so requires multiple levels of design procedures to be successful. I think it has been amply demonstrated that unguided processes have, in fact, done just that. When you say "The only agency we are aware" you are queering the pitch to your view. Why don't we discuss the actual evidence instead of the interpretations?JVL
April 9, 2021
April
04
Apr
9
09
2021
10:32 AM
10
10
32
AM
PDT
Kairosfocus: JVL, simply provide the evidence that blind chance and/or mechanical necessity can and does produce FSCo/I st or beyond 500 – 1,000 bits 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.JVL
April 9, 2021
April
04
Apr
9
09
2021
10:27 AM
10
10
27
AM
PDT
JVL @ 358 asks:
Do you think someone can rationally and honestly disagree with the design inference?
People can honestly believe anything, regardless of how absurd it is, and believe their views are completely rational. Are those views rational? Internally, that depends on the extent of their knowledge and whether or not they can (1) defend their premise with reason and logic, (2) support their premises and reasoning via evidence (not what people say about the evidence) If they cannot do that, they do not have a rational view; they just believe their views - however absurd - are rational. For example, you found it a perfectly rational defense of your view to say:
So, how do you account for the thousands (if not millions) of working biologists who have also come to the non-design conclusion?
First, that's an appeal to a consensus of authorities. That's not part of a rational, evidence-based defense of the "natural forces" theory; that's just saying a lot of smart people agree with your view. Second, if you had investigated the issue, what "biologists" have to say on the matter is entirely irrelevant. Why is that? Because it's not "biologists" that know what it takes at the chemical level to fashion a rudimentary, functional molecular machine. The question is: how does a Bio-molecular Engineer build a single, simple, functioning molecular machine, and what does that process entail? Are "natural" elements and conditions sufficient to the task? If you haven't looked into bio-molecular engineering, you haven't even seen that evidence, much less become familiar with it, much less have the capacity to develop a rational opinion concerning the evidence. The process is staggeringly difficult requiring things that we do not see in nature outside of biological systems, like a ready supply of purified chemicals and contaminant-free isolated environments with different, highly specialized internal conditions. That's just to build a single, simple, functioning molecular machine; the simplest living organism requires at least hundreds of such machines that are finely tuned to work together via some sort of programming that has fantastically come into being with information about the proper function of each component molecular machine. The only agency we are aware that does this kind of thing is intelligence, and doing so requires multiple levels of design procedures to be successful.William J Murray
April 9, 2021
April
04
Apr
9
09
2021
10:20 AM
10
10
20
AM
PDT
UJVL, simply provide the evidence that blind chance and/or mechanical necessity can and does produce FSCo/I st or beyond 500 - 1,000 bits: ______Meanwhile, we rest on trillions of cases in point, note the visual system and infer the manifestly empirically warranted conclusion, design, high quality, effective design. KFkairosfocus
April 9, 2021
April
04
Apr
9
09
2021
10:20 AM
10
10
20
AM
PDT
Jerry: He’s playing a game and winning big time. He knows exactly what he is doing You're too kind. I'd love to think I had some plan that I was successfully implementing. Why is it that you're so distrustful of people? Is it because I disagree with you regarding the design inference? Is it not possible to have a differing view on that and still be honest and true? Do a search for the letters “JVL” and it appears over 250 times. He probably has a bet with some friends. ‘Watch me drive these ID loonies out of their minds.”k Completely false. But why would you think that was the case? What assumptions are you operating with? Let me state clearly and unequivocally: I only participate online here and on ET's personal blog. I do not have an agenda or desire to change anyone's mind or to 'bring down' ID. Perhaps you all have become way too sensitive to disagreement.JVL
April 9, 2021
April
04
Apr
9
09
2021
09:45 AM
9
09
45
AM
PDT
Kairosfocus: this very thread provides abundant evidence of intelligence providing FSCO/I, in the form of code bearing informational strings well beyond the ASCII form threshold, at 7 bits per character. I have never disagreed that intelligent agents can produce complex, specified, functional information. But I also think that there is plenty of positive evidence that unguided evolutionary processes brought about life on Earth. I have chosen not to present a lengthy and extended explanation of the reasons for my views because, as I have mentioned, anything I had to say would merely mirror much of which is already available, including the material you have been quoting from Wikipedia. You have chosen to portray this as me 'running away' from a challenge or opportunity. I consider it a matter of not wanting to waste your time with arguments you are already well aware of and for which you have an answer already queued up. No doubt you will find some reason to criticise and marginalise this statement from me just as you have done will all my previous statements. So be it. If you'd rather have a specific and narrower conversation about an aspect of the places where we disagree then I'd be happy to respond. If you're just going to continue to reject things I have to say based on what you think I would say then I don't feel guilty not rising to your faux bait.JVL
April 9, 2021
April
04
Apr
9
09
2021
09:41 AM
9
09
41
AM
PDT
I think JVL is living in a bubble
He’s playing a game and winning big time. He knows exactly what he is doing Do a search for the letters “JVL” and it appears over 250 times. He probably has a bet with some friends. ‘Watch me drive these ID loonies out of their minds.”jerry
April 9, 2021
April
04
Apr
9
09
2021
09:36 AM
9
09
36
AM
PDT
F/N: To understand the truly destructive nature of what Wikipedia's ideologues are doing, consider global site rankings:
# Domain Monthly traffic 1 youtube.com 5,499,685,753 2 facebook.com 2,771,671,874 3 en.wikipedia.org 2,291,137,488 4 twitter.com 1,202,065,409 5 whatsapp.com 873,041,934 6 amazon.com 690,007,385 7 instagram.com 665,554,560 8 live.com 574,340,723 9 pinterest.com 541,906,846 10 ja.wikipedia.org 497,224,556 11 es.wikipedia.org 441,234,275
That should give context to the crooked yardstick metaphor. KFkairosfocus
April 9, 2021
April
04
Apr
9
09
2021
09:28 AM
9
09
28
AM
PDT
JVL, you might find it useful to start with 293 above:
this very thread provides abundant evidence of intelligence providing FSCO/I, in the form of code bearing informational strings well beyond the ASCII form threshold, at 7 bits per character. We have an observation base of trillions of cases of such FSCO/I, just start with the Internet, and go to a hardware store and look at screws for the organisation side. In every case, the source is design, and we can readily see that search challenge in config spaces for 500 to 1,000 bits for the atoms of the sol system at the low end and for the observed cosmos at the high end for ~ 10^17 s would round down to negligible search. That’s why; essentially the reasoning behind the stat mech support to the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Further to this, again, March 22, I presented an excerpt on the infinite monkeys theorem as a test, precisely as a case in point https://uncommondescent.com/education/wikipedia-presents-pseudo-knowledge-fake-knowledge-on-id-yet-again/ The result was 10^100 as a factor short of a 72 character ASCII string. Now, you have been around UD for a while so you should know about such and certainly you know about the nature of DNA as a code bearing complex string in the heart of the cell. This implies complex code, algorithms, i.e. linguistic, goal directed information, which on factors on the table is a strong sign of design as cause. So, I think we can safely conclude, bluff called.
Then, 296:
do you hear the echo in the cave, at this point you are projecting. There is no preponderance of evidence favouring blind chance and mechanical necessity as plausibly causing FSCO/I in Darwin’s pond or anywhere in the cosmos. There are trillions of observed cases of FSCO/I coming about by design. The string data structures in the living cells speak eloquently as to their empirically warranted cause — coding, we call it these days, used to be programming.
Also, 297:
The ideological bias driving the imposition of evolutionary materialistic scientism is clear from Monod, yes, a Nobel Prize winner [and French Resistance fighter]: https://uncommondescent.com/atheism/monods-objectivity-naturalistic-scientism-and-begging-big-questions/ [T]he basic premise of the scienti?c method, . . . [is] that nature is objective and not projective [= a project of an agent]. Hence it is through reference to our own activity, con-scious and projective, intentional and purposive-it is as | makers of artifacts-that we judge of a given object’s “naturalness” or “arti?cialness.” [pp. 3 – 4, Chance and Necessity, 1971] . . . . [T]he postulate of objectivity is consubstantial with science: it has guided the whole of its prodigious develop-ment for three centuries. There is no way to be rid of it, even tentatively or in a limited area, without departing from the domain of science itself. [p. 21] On a TV interview: [T]he scientific attitude implies what I call the postulate of objectivity—that is to say, the fundamental postulate that there is no plan, that there is no intention in the universe. Now, this is basically incompatible with virtually all the religious or metaphysical systems whatever, all of which try to show that there is some sort of harmony between man and the universe and that man is a product—predictable if not indispensable—of the evolution of the universe.— Jacques Monod [Quoted in John C. Hess, ‘French Nobel Biologist Says World Based On Chance’, New York Times (15 Mar 1971), p. 6. Cited in Herbert Marcuse, Counter-Revolution and Revolt (1972), p. 66.] Ideology, not evidence.
In 313 I added about 293 which was aleady being left behind:
I would presume this thread with strings of ascii text [7 bits/character] is physical evidence, the Internet, screws in bins at hardware stores [and onward] are such. The observation that such FSCO/I per observation on a trillion case base, consistently comes about by design is a fact. That is, every observed case of FSCO/I origin beyond the 500 – 1,000 bit [or 72 to 143 ascii character threshold] is design. Where, obviously D/RNA in the cell is a similar case of string data structures expressing coded algorithms that are cumulatively highly complex, per multiple Nobel Prize winning work. Codes, plainly, are language and algorithms are stepwise, goal directed procedures. So, why did you suggest that I failed to provide physical cases, especially when I went on to point to text creation, infinite monkeys theorem exercises as conceded by Wikipedia testifying against interest? Are you not aware that coded meaningful text strings come as isolated zones in configuration spaces dominated by gibberish? So that, until one is on the beach of an island of function, incremental performance is not relevant? Thus, the search challenge of relevance is to find such islands? Which then makes the configuration space observation that the atoms of the sol system or cosmos for 500 and 1,000 bit spaces [000 . . . 0 to 111 . . . 1] cannot credibly search more than a negligible fraction blindly, in ~10^17 s [~ 13.8 BY] a relevant physical issue? That strings can be reduced to binary code and that 3-d functional configurations can be similarly expressed in some description language [cf. AutoCAD etc], so consideration of bit strings is WLOG? Where, BTW, this is essentially the same analytical issue and case that has been on the table since Thaxton et al in the early 1980’s. And more? So, why did you set up and knock over a strawman about vagueness and sweeping generalisations? The relevant core case is string data structure, code bearing structures. Molecular nanotech in D/RNA (or onward AA sequences) or computer code or text on paper are just different forms of the string: -*-*-* – . . . -*. once we are beyond 500 – 1,000 bits worth [3.27*10^150 or 1.07*10^301 configs], relevant atomic resources acting as observers at fast chem reaction cycle times per observation, on sol system or observed cosmos scope cannot blindly sample more than a negligible fraction of the config spaces. Where, gibberish dominates over islands of function [unconstrained vs tightly constrained to achieve adequate function]. That is the analytical context for the empirical observation that FSCO/I bearing strings, as opposed to gibberish, consistently come from design. That is, FSCO/I is a strong sign of design. That in DNA we deal with codes so languale and algorithms so goals underscores this. And we pretty well knew that from 1953, as Crick acknowledged in his letter to Michael, his son. He directly compared to printed text. So, we can freely conclude that [a] you are grossly ignorant of the core FSCO/I based ID case, its context of Darwin’s pond or the like, and/or [b] you chose to set up a strawman and knock it over. Those are not the actions of someone standing on a strong case.
This is the third time I am drawing your attention to 293. Onward, I took time to go through Wiki as a stand-in, as you chose not to provide substantiation. Wikipedia confirms the pattern of problems. KFkairosfocus
April 9, 2021
April
04
Apr
9
09
2021
09:21 AM
9
09
21
AM
PDT
Asauber: I wasn’t even thinking of personal experiences with God. I was thinking more of Pop Science/Pop Culture/Herd Manipulation kind of stuff. So, again, what do you think I'm unaware of that would change my perspective significantly? And, again again: You chose (I guess) not to answer my query back to you about whether or not you can explicitly explain “the origin of proteins and other complex biological systems and the genetic or other phenomena that lead to these systems.” Nor did you choose to answer when you thought design was implemented.JVL
April 9, 2021
April
04
Apr
9
09
2021
09:03 AM
9
09
03
AM
PDT
“Well, clearly JVL has not had the same kind of personal experience that I have had of a supreme being” JVL, I wasn't even thinking of personal experiences with God. I was thinking more of Pop Science/Pop Culture/Herd Manipulation kind of stuff. Andrewasauber
April 9, 2021
April
04
Apr
9
09
2021
09:00 AM
9
09
00
AM
PDT
Asauber: I think JVL is living in a bubble of untrue narratives that make him unaware of some important things. What am I unaware of? How do you know what I am unaware of? Because you think I would agree with you if I was aware of those things? If you said something like: "Well, clearly JVL has not had the same kind of personal experience that I have had of a supreme being" then I would agree with you. But I'd rather not guess as to what you meant. And again: You chose (I guess) not to answer my query back to you about whether or not you can explicitly explain “the origin of proteins and other complex biological systems and the genetic or other phenomena that lead to these systems.” Nor did you choose to answer when you thought design was implemented.JVL
April 9, 2021
April
04
Apr
9
09
2021
08:55 AM
8
08
55
AM
PDT
"JVL is inadvertently exposing the bankruptcy of the reigning evolutionary materialistic orthodoxy." KF, Yes. I think JVL is living in a bubble of untrue narratives that make him unaware of some important things. Tough to break out of, I realize. Andrewasauber
April 9, 2021
April
04
Apr
9
09
2021
08:51 AM
8
08
51
AM
PDT
JVL, UB documented your modus operandi. KFkairosfocus
April 9, 2021
April
04
Apr
9
09
2021
08:43 AM
8
08
43
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5 16

Leave a Reply