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
Silver Asiatic: I appreciate your questions. That’s a good way to dialogue. Maybe we can all learn something – refine our arguments. Let's hope so! None exists as far as I can see. I have watched anti-IDists encounter the logic and seek an escape. The one view is alien life as designer. But that’s not a refutation. The other view which is the most common for design-denial among those who understand what ID is saying is “the multiverse did it”. But that’s not logical either because the multiverse is unexplained in its origin and indicates deep levels of design. So I don’t see an escape from the logic of ID. That's very clear, thank you. So, based on that, is there any reason or point for me defending my opposing view? By the way, I'm not a big fan of the multiverse hypothesis. Pure conjecture without much, if any, evidence. I set the standard very high. I wouldn’t accept some minor modifications, especially based on allele drop-outs or DNA degradation of the kind Behe has detailed. Having a high standard is fine. I'm just wondering if there is a standard that you would find convincing. Consider: The claim is extraordinary. All biological life – palm trees, flowers, birds, dolphins, insects, alligators … still unknown species discovered every year – everything came from the power of mutations in bacteria. Uh . . . I don't think that's quite the claim but I get your general point. And yes, it does sound extraordinary without due consideration of the evidence. So, what would I expect from Lenski’s experiments, now going on the equivalent of a half-million years of mammalian life on earth? If a single celled organism emerged, I’d consider that a victory for the blind watchmaker. How long would you be willing to wait to see if such a thing were possible? Given that Dr Lenski's experiment is NOT happening in the real world with widely varying conditions and environmental pressures? AND it's not exactly equivalent to a half-million years of mammalian life. 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? Do you think Lenski has demonstrated the success of unguided evolution? Umm . . . I think the results of his long term experiment are consistent with our up-to-date unguided evolutionary theory. It's not a slam-dunk result by any means.JVL
April 9, 2021
April
04
Apr
9
09
2021
08:43 AM
8
08
43
AM
PDT
AS, actually, JVL is inadvertently exposing the bankruptcy of the reigning evolutionary materialistic orthodoxy. KFkairosfocus
April 9, 2021
April
04
Apr
9
09
2021
08:27 AM
8
08
27
AM
PDT
Asauber: If you want ME to take you seriously, less Woe Is Me and less I Oppose The Design Inference signalling and more commenting on the actual content of OPs. I shall try and follow that advice. The All Comment Paths Lead To Opposition To The Design Inference has been done already. Fair enough. What about when someone enters into an on-topic point I've made with something from another thread from weeks or months ago? Upright Biped does this. 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. I'm sure you have your reasons.JVL
April 9, 2021
April
04
Apr
9
09
2021
08:27 AM
8
08
27
AM
PDT
JVL I appreciate your questions. That's a good way to dialogue. Maybe we can all learn something - refine our arguments.
What would be a logical basis for for disagreeing with the design inference?
None exists as far as I can see. I have watched anti-IDists encounter the logic and seek an escape. The one view is alien life as designer. But that's not a refutation. The other view which is the most common for design-denial among those who understand what ID is saying is "the multiverse did it". But that's not logical either because the multiverse is unexplained in its origin and indicates deep levels of design. So I don't see an escape from the logic of ID.
What specific discoveries by someone like Dr Lenski would you accept as a reason for doubting the design inference?
I set the standard very high. I wouldn't accept some minor modifications, especially based on allele drop-outs or DNA degradation of the kind Behe has detailed. Consider: The claim is extraordinary. All biological life - palm trees, flowers, birds, dolphins, insects, alligators ... still unknown species discovered every year - everything came from the power of mutations in bacteria. So, what would I expect from Lenski's experiments, now going on the equivalent of a half-million years of mammalian life on earth? If a single celled organism emerged, I'd consider that a victory for the blind watchmaker. Do you think Lenski has demonstrated the success of unguided evolution?Silver Asiatic
April 9, 2021
April
04
Apr
9
09
2021
08:26 AM
8
08
26
AM
PDT
JVL, you know full well that a specific bit was put up from 293 on and you ducked. I turned to Wiki in your absence and did an overdue lawn mowing. KFkairosfocus
April 9, 2021
April
04
Apr
9
09
2021
08:25 AM
8
08
25
AM
PDT
F/N: Let us continue to mow the Wikipedia lawn. Tellingly, they become much more expansive when attacking the idea that there may be a designer of life or cosmos: >>The contemporary intelligent design movement formulates its arguments in secular terms and intentionally avoids identifying the intelligent agent (or agents) they posit.>> 43: No, this is a matter of what empirical evidence addresses, and that is very explicitly discussed in the relevant literature from Thaxton et al on. Notice, the subtle suggestion of deceit, an unwarranted inference when there is a valid reason on the table. Empirically observable, reliable, signs of design as process are not in themselves indicia of a particular designer or class of designer. Wikipedia's ideologues do or should know this. 44: Again, evidence of arson is the means by which we first conclude that this is not a natural fire. The fact of arson, evidence of how specifically it was carried out and identifying and proving guilt of a particular arsonist may be related but are distinct. >> Although they do not state that God is the designer, the designer is often implicitly hypothesized to have intervened in a way that only a god could intervene.>> 45: Projection, on the part of world of life. On the part of coismos, what is an extracosmic figure of intelligence able to design and effect a cosmos, but its creator with powers of a god relative to those within it? Hoyle had that figured out 40 years ago. >>Dembski, in The Design Inference (1998), speculates that an alien culture could fulfill these requirements.>> 46: What has been pointed out is that life on earth could be produced by a sufficiently advanced molecular nanotech lab. We are taking the first steps down the road with Venter et al, this is common knowledge so the suggestion with a loaded "these" is patently disingenuous. >> Of Pandas and People proposes that SETI illustrates an appeal to intelligent design in science.>> 47: What has been pointed out that scientists have been able to acquire funding to use in a grand investigation of EM signals looking for observable signs of design. Which is obviously related to the design inference. >> In 2000, philosopher of science Robert T. Pennock suggested the Raëlian UFO religion as a real-life example of an extraterrestrial intelligent designer view that "make[s] many of the same bad arguments against evolutionary theory as creationists".[63]>> 48: guilt by invidious association in the context of a case of search for signs of design in EM signals. Of course, since 1953, we have known that FSCo/I-rich coded signals are present in DNA. >>The authoritative description of intelligent design,[6] however, explicitly states that the Universe displays features of having been designed.>> 49: A loaded way of saying that it alludes to fine tuning. >>Acknowledging the paradox, Dembski concludes that "no intelligent agent who is strictly physical could have presided over the origin of the universe or the origin of life."[64]>> 50: No paradox, once one incorporates design of the physical, fine tuned cosmos as basis for onward design of C-chem, aqueous medium, cell based life, than obviously one is discussing a designer of the cosmos antecedent to its existence. Thus, beyond physicality. >> The leading proponents>> 51: Notice, ongoing studious refusal to acknowledge relevant scientific and mathematical qualifications. >> have made statements to their supporters that they believe the designer to be the Christian God, to the exclusion of all other religions.[29]>> 52: There have been design thinkers forever, going beyond theists, e.g. Plato makes the first design inference on record in his The Laws Bk X, 2360+ years ago. In recent times, Hoyle was an agnostic. Among theists we have Jews etc. And that Christians who are design thinkers on empirical evidence grounds go on to hold worldview level opinions is irrelevant to the empirical warrant for the inference. 53: We could easily highlight the sort of a priori imposed evolutionary materialistic scientism that patently drives much of the thinking on the other side of the issue, e.g. Monod:
[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.]
54: So, ideology cancels out. Let us instead address empirical evidence. >>Beyond the debate over whether intelligent design is scientific, a number of critics argue that existing evidence makes the design hypothesis appear unlikely, irrespective of its status in the world of science.>> 55: Trivial red herrings when the pivotal issue on the table is FSCO/I in R/DNA >> For example, Jerry Coyne asks why a designer would "give us a pathway for making vitamin C, but then destroy it by disabling one of its enzymes" (see pseudogene) and why a designer would not "stock oceanic islands with reptiles, mammals, amphibians, and freshwater fish, despite the suitability of such islands for these species". Coyne also points to the fact that "the flora and fauna on those islands resemble that of the nearest mainland, even when the environments are very different" as evidence that species were not placed there by a designer.[65]>> 56: Irrelevancies that even the much derided Creationists readily answer. Recall, to this point Wikipedia has not cogently addressed the source and cause of FSCO/I in R/DNA. >> Previously, in Darwin's Black Box, Behe had argued that we are simply incapable of understanding the designer's motives, so such questions cannot be answered definitively. Odd designs could, for example, "...have been placed there by the designer for a reason—for artistic reasons, for variety, to show off, for some as-yet-undetected practical purpose, or for some unguessable reason—or they might not."[66]>> 57: Without knowing goals one cannot adequately decide their achievement. However, the general quality and astonishing cleverness and subtlety in the designs are all over the world of life. >> Coyne responds that in light of the evidence, "either life resulted not from intelligent design, but from evolution; or the intelligent designer is a cosmic prankster who designed everything to make it look as though it had evolved."[65]>> 58: Evasive rhetorical turnabout once one knows Dawkins' implicit concession that the world of life appears designed. >>Intelligent design proponents such as Paul Nelson avoid the problem of poor design in nature by insisting that we have simply failed to understand the perfection of the design.>> 59: Notice, onward silence on FSCO/I in R/DNA, and the implicit assumption of poor designs that have to be defended. This of course came up above and it is clear it is the wrong question. Designs seldom seek narrow optimality as that is brittle, instead robust adequacy on the range of possible circumstances and adaptability are characteristics of good design. In the case of say vit c, loss by mutation is to be considered for instance. >>Behe cites Paley as his inspiration, but he differs from Paley's expectation of a perfect Creation and proposes that designers do not necessarily produce the best design they can. Behe suggests that, like a parent not wanting to spoil a child with extravagant toys, the designer can have multiple motives for not giving priority to excellence in engineering.>> 60: More on the poor design fallacy, when even poor designs are -- designs. And, where, we have strong evidence of good design manifest to all but the purblind. >>He says that "Another problem with the argument from imperfection is that it critically depends on a psychoanalysis of the unidentified designer. Yet the reasons that a designer would or would not do anything are virtually impossible to know unless the designer tells you specifically what those reasons are."[66]>> 61: It is now obvious that this is a main objection as this is where we see details, and a targetting of one party on the other side. And Behe is right that unless you know the goals you cannot infer to failure to meet them. Meanwhile, the purblindness to a world of design and continuing silence on where the FSCO/I in R/DNA with language and goal- orientation of algorithms comes from, meets short shrift above and silence now. Once design is acknowledged we can address quality issues. Qualioty of design issues are irrelevant to presence of design. >>This reliance on inexplicable motives of the designer makes intelligent design scientifically untestable.>> 62: False, blatantly false. Show FSCOP/I rich string data structures coming about by blind chance and mechanical necessity without intelligent direction and you test and falsify. The inference, given the infinite monkeys article is they know or should know this. >>Retired UC Berkeley law professor, author and intelligent design advocate Phillip E. Johnson puts forward a core definition that the designer creates for a purpose,>> 63: A designer designs towards a goal, a purpose. >> giving the example that in his view AIDS was created to punish immorality and is not caused by HIV, but such motives cannot be tested by scientific methods.[67]>> 64: if that is a fair representation of his personal view, it lacks warrant. For, viruses notoriously mutate and can acquire virulence and damaging effects. HIV could credibly have bridged over from say Simians, with deadly effect on the new population. Similar to CV19 per common suggestions on bats. >>Asserting the need for a designer of complexity also raises the question "What designed the designer?"[68]>> 65: Repeating a fallacy. No, humans are far more complex than what we design but that does not render them not designed. Suppose we had visitors from the Andromeda Galaxy with a molecular nanotech lab who seeded life to terraform then fill earth with variety. They would be more complex than their design but it would be a design. The argument fails. 66: Going onward to an extra cosmic necessary being root of reality, such could be complex and sophisticated without being a complex of independent prior parts. Which is what necessity of being would rule out -- the construct from prior parts is necessarily contingent. That's logic of being, just a note. >> Intelligent design proponents say that the question is irrelevant to or outside the scope of intelligent design.[n 9]>> 67: Irrelevant to inferring design for this case and beyond the scope of evidence and argument so far. Acceptance that evidence has limits shows maturity of thought, not error. >> Richard Wein counters that "...scientific explanations often create new unanswered questions. But, in assessing the value of an explanation, these questions are not irrelevant.>> 68: We hardly need to more than point out obvious advocacy, so much for vaunted neutrality. More to the point, fact A is established -- arson, before issues B and C can be addressed: means and suspect. >> They must be balanced against the improvements in our understanding which the explanation provides.>> 69: Empirical warrant towards truth is an improvement in understanding. >> Invoking an unexplained being>> 70: Again, strawman. Inference to design as process on sign is antecedent to assessing how or who or what of what ontological nature. Besides, even God would not be unexplained or inexplicable: we have good reason to seek a necessary being root of reality though that is in another discipline. Science does not gobble up all of knowledge. Such is scientism a fallacy. >> to explain the origin of other beings (ourselves) is little more than question-begging.>> 71: Projection. The issue is, are there reliable empirical signs of design, ans yes. Do we exhibit such, yes. We are designed, now let us see how and who. >> The new question raised by the explanation is as problematic as the question which the explanation purports to answer."[50]>> 72: You just advocated for opening up onward inquiry as a virtue. That is not a failure it is an achievement! >> Richard Dawkins sees the assertion that the designer does not need to be explained>> 73: No one has seriously argued that beings do not require some sense-making. Even the argument, brute given is a kind of rational explanation. Obviously, the weak, inquiry form principle of sufficient reason is relevant. If X is or may be or is not or may not be, we can inquire as to why that is the case. X can take in anything from FSCO/I in R/DNA to us to the cosmos to a square circle to God. The issue is not whether such can be explored but under what head, with what tools of inquiry. Repeat, scientism is a fallacy. >>as a thought-terminating cliché.[69][70]>> 74: He set up and knocked over a strawman, likely due to his notorious ignorance of the senior discipline, philosophy. This would not be his first blunder due to that. >>In the absence of observable, measurable evidence,>> 75: FSCO/I in life and finetuning of cosmos are massive domains of evidence being brushed aside. >> the very question "What designed the designer?" leads to an infinite regression>> 76: Ignorance of philosophy again, here, logic of being. Infinite causal temporal, finite stage succession to now cannot be traversed, but a finitely remote beginning -- as evidence we actually have points to c 14 BYA -- raises the issue of necessary being reality root. And this is Ontology, metaphysics and philosophical cosmology not Creationism in a fig leaf or cheap tuxedo. >> from which intelligent design proponents [--> loaded again . . . ] can only escape by resorting to religious creationism or logical contradiction.[71] >> 77: Underlying philosophical ignorance again. It is infinite causal temporal succession that cannot be traversed in finite stage steps [as we hammered out here at UD over 3 years], esp once we use R* to frame the question adequately. And if you use calculus, infinitesimals lurk in the dx, dt or Newton's h so that we see transfinite hyperreals in 1/h --> H where H exceeds any finite n in N mileposting R. 78: likewise, circular cause by which a later stage not yet being reaches back to cause itself fails. 79: That leaves finitely remote causal temporal beginning and points to necessary being reality root. This is beyond science's domain but not beyond inquiry through the senior discipline philosophy and that is not religion. _______ Wikipedia's fallacy riddled ID hit piece is duly mowed. KFkairosfocus
April 9, 2021
April
04
Apr
9
09
2021
08:22 AM
8
08
22
AM
PDT
"So, what would you prefer I do? Say my piece and then not defend it when people ask me why?" JVL, If you want ME to take you seriously, less Woe Is Me and less I Oppose The Design Inference signalling and more commenting on the actual content of OPs. The All Comment Paths Lead To Opposition To The Design Inference has been done already. Andrewasauber
April 9, 2021
April
04
Apr
9
09
2021
08:09 AM
8
08
09
AM
PDT
Silver Asiatic: ID is a science program. We’re open to alternative theories. Anyone who denies the design inference on no logical basis, or even out-of-hand without knowing anything about it (which many do) is wrong. The ID inference stands as correct until refuted. What would be a logical basis for for disagreeing with the design inference? A person can try to falsify ID. Lenski has been mutating bacteria for 20+ years trying to demonstrate unguided evolution. Until he (or someone) does, ID is the best inference. What specific discoveries by someone like Dr Lenski would you accept as a reason for doubting the design inference?JVL
April 9, 2021
April
04
Apr
9
09
2021
08:06 AM
8
08
06
AM
PDT
Asauber: You are deliberately missing the point of my comments. Sorry. The fact that you assert that you don’t accept the design inference is tolerable. Good. The fact that you seem to be on UD every day commenting just to oppose the design inference and then claim to be treated unfairly is tedious and ultimately unhelpful to anyone. So, what would you prefer I do? Say my piece and then not defend it when people ask me why? UD already has its fair share of regular noisemakers. I don’t have to like the next one that rolls in. I comment accordingly when I have the inclination. Alright. It cannot explain the origin of complex entities driven by independent information based entities. Translation., it cannot explain the origin of proteins and other complex biological systems and the genetic or other phenomena that lead to these systems. Can you explain those things? Explicitly. Precisely. It’s illogical to accept something without looking for alternatives when it has never been shown to work or could even possibly work. Has ID shown that there was a designer around at the pertinent time that could do . . . .something. I do not expect to change any anti ID person’s admissions but simple replies are best to lay out the logic behind ID. Okay. Can you answer when design was implemented?JVL
April 9, 2021
April
04
Apr
9
09
2021
08:03 AM
8
08
03
AM
PDT
JVL
can someone honestly and truly disagree with the design inference in your own personal opinion?
A person can try to falsify ID. Lenski has been mutating bacteria for 20+ years trying to demonstrate unguided evolution. Until he (or someone) does, ID is the best inference.Silver Asiatic
April 9, 2021
April
04
Apr
9
09
2021
07:55 AM
7
07
55
AM
PDT
What is illogical about the unguided evolutionary hypothesis?
It cannot explain the origin of complex entities driven by independent information based entities. Translation., it cannot explain the origin of proteins and other complex biological systems and the genetic or other phenomena that lead to these systems. It’s illogical to accept something without looking for alternatives when it has never been shown to work or could even possibly work. I do not expect to change any anti ID person’s admissions but simple replies are best to lay out the logic behind ID.jerry
April 9, 2021
April
04
Apr
9
09
2021
07:51 AM
7
07
51
AM
PDT
JVL
Can ID be said to be ‘science’ if it cannot accept falsification? Look at what you wrote.
Jerry @357 answers. ID is a science program. We're open to alternative theories. Anyone who denies the design inference on no logical basis, or even out-of-hand without knowing anything about it (which many do) is wrong. The ID inference stands as correct until refuted.Silver Asiatic
April 9, 2021
April
04
Apr
9
09
2021
07:50 AM
7
07
50
AM
PDT
"What would you accept as reasonable reasons for not accepting the design inference?" JVL, You are deliberately missing the point of my comments. The fact that you assert that you don't accept the design inference is tolerable. The fact that you seem to be on UD every day commenting just to oppose the design inference and then claim to be treated unfairly is tedious and ultimately unhelpful to anyone. UD already has its fair share of regular noisemakers. I don't have to like the next one that rolls in. I comment accordingly when I have the inclination. Andrewasauber
April 9, 2021
April
04
Apr
9
09
2021
07:50 AM
7
07
50
AM
PDT
Jerry: Not unless they can show a logical alternative. What is illogical about the unguided evolutionary hypothesis? Are there any logical alternatives to the design inference?JVL
April 9, 2021
April
04
Apr
9
09
2021
07:44 AM
7
07
44
AM
PDT
Can someone rationally and honestly disagree with the design inference?
Not unless they can show a logical alternative. ID is just the opposite. It considers every scientific fact as true and natural mechanisms as the primary explanation until shown extremely unlikely. So far, no one has shown likely natural mechanisms for several phenomena. So one can not rationally and honestly disagree with ID as a possible explanation.jerry
April 9, 2021
April
04
Apr
9
09
2021
07:42 AM
7
07
42
AM
PDT
William J Murray: We are now in the theater of the absurd. Let's try something else . . . Do you think someone can rationally and honestly disagree with the design inference? If 'yes' then on what basis, i.e. what would you find to be a compelling reason?JVL
April 9, 2021
April
04
Apr
9
09
2021
07:42 AM
7
07
42
AM
PDT
JVL says:
I think we now know that unguided natural processes are capable of being the cause.
WJM asks:
How was homochirality achieved in the prebiotic world?
JVL responds:
No one knows. I don’t know.
We are now in the theater of the absurd.William J Murray
April 9, 2021
April
04
Apr
9
09
2021
07:37 AM
7
07
37
AM
PDT
Asauber: Of course it’s an option. But your repeated theatrics are boring. What would you accept as reasonable reasons for not accepting the design inference?JVL
April 9, 2021
April
04
Apr
9
09
2021
07:36 AM
7
07
36
AM
PDT
Jerry: People can disagree with anything. It’s why they disagree that is usually of interest. If it’s irrational, then disregard unless one wants to use the irrational response as a foil. If it’s rational, then consider it. Can someone rationally and honestly disagree with the design inference? If 'yes' then on what basis?JVL
April 9, 2021
April
04
Apr
9
09
2021
07:35 AM
7
07
35
AM
PDT
"Again, disagreement is not an option. I must be manipulative. I must be irrational. I’m probably crazy. " JVL, Of course it's an option. But your repeated theatrics are boring. See quote. Andrewasauber
April 9, 2021
April
04
Apr
9
09
2021
07:31 AM
7
07
31
AM
PDT
People can disagree with anything. It’s why they disagree that is usually of interest. If it’s irrational, then disregard unless one wants to use the irrational response as a foil. If it’s rational, then consider it.jerry
April 9, 2021
April
04
Apr
9
09
2021
07:28 AM
7
07
28
AM
PDT
Jerry: Yes, he is winning. The losers are those who answer him expecting a logical response. That’s what trolls want. Another entry in the 'they must be irrational or evil' category. And this from Asauber:
No he’s not. He’s just another troll trolling. Happening all the time everywhere in the interwebs. He’s entertainment to himself and others.
Again, disagreement is not an option. I must be manipulative. I must be irrational. I'm probably crazy. Question: can someone honestly and truly disagree with the design inference in your own personal opinion? A yes or no answer is sufficient but more details would be lovely.JVL
April 9, 2021
April
04
Apr
9
09
2021
07:07 AM
7
07
07
AM
PDT
Silver Asiatic: Most of them do not consciously engage with the design question. But in any case, we see their work on a daily basis here and critique the arguments as they come along. A significant effort has been made to show the flaws in evolutionary claims. If you want to do the same against ID, then we’re looking for a robust response. The same with atheism. If it wants to prove itself to be correct, then it needs to engage with the opposition and offer convincing arguments. Why do you think I'm trying to 'do the same against ID'? I want to know what ID is really saying. So I ask questions. I have no beef against ID. But asking questions and supporting my own view is, apparently, worthy of derision. Over and over again. Yes, yours should be respected. I was speaking of theological views, not logical or scientific. If you would deny simple math, for example, then some mockery would ensue. But for theology, nobody has all of the answers and we have to be respectful of tradition and interpretation of sacred texts, etc. I'm good with that. We've seen a lot of opponents of ID on this site over the years. Some are delusional. Some filled with hatred and contempt. Some are trolls looking for attention. Some cannot reason properly at all. Others are thoughtful and stay with the conversation for a long time. There's give and take in those cases. A jab here, a jab back in return. We all slip at times and take it personally or go too far. Both sides do this. A respectful, rational, serious response will be met with the same. Do you think that is always the case? But yes, anyone who opposes the design inference is wrong. That's what we're saying. Evolutionists and materialists say the opposite. Some people are in the middle – not sure either way. So, we try to convince them. Can ID be said to be 'science' if it cannot accept falsification? Look at what you wrote.JVL
April 9, 2021
April
04
Apr
9
09
2021
07:06 AM
7
07
06
AM
PDT
No he’s not
Yes, he is winning. The losers are those who answer him expecting a logical response. That’s what trolls want. Of course I’m getting irrational too expecting those who answer to be rational when they are also continually irrational too.jerry
April 9, 2021
April
04
Apr
9
09
2021
07:02 AM
7
07
02
AM
PDT
William J Murray: JVL’s defense is always, “Hey, people I think are really smart and credible agree with me!” That is false. 1. How was homochirality achieved in the prebiotic world? No one knows. I don't know. 2. How did the isolation, purification and storage of prebiotic chemicals occur? (necessary for the building of the simplest molecular machine, which are necessary for life) There are a lot of assumptions there. Why do you think all those things are necessary? It’s when you make inane statements like this that we all know you’re talking out of your *** from false confidence in what other people say about the evidence, and not from any actual understanding of the evidence. Right. And how did you come to think that those conditions are important to consider? Did you do the work yourself? Did you take the word of someone you trust and agree with?JVL
April 9, 2021
April
04
Apr
9
09
2021
07:01 AM
7
07
01
AM
PDT
JVL
Right. So, how do you account for the thousands (if not millions) of working biologists who have also come to the non-design conclusion?
Most of them do not consciously engage with the design question. But in any case, we see their work on a daily basis here and critique the arguments as they come along. A significant effort has been made to show the flaws in evolutionary claims. If you want to do the same against ID, then we're looking for a robust response. The same with atheism. If it wants to prove itself to be correct, then it needs to engage with the opposition and offer convincing arguments.
Likewise for my view.
Yes, yours should be respected. I was speaking of theological views, not logical or scientific. If you would deny simple math, for example, then some mockery would ensue. But for theology, nobody has all of the answers and we have to be respectful of tradition and interpretation of sacred texts, etc.
To sum up: to disagree with the design inference means you are wrong. Period. You may be delusional, you may be evil, you’re probably a troll, you are attacking ID and clearly you can’t (or won’t) reason properly. Anyone disagree with that?
We've seen a lot of opponents of ID on this site over the years. Some are delusional. Some filled with hatred and contempt. Some are trolls looking for attention. Some cannot reason properly at all. Others are thoughtful and stay with the conversation for a long time. There's give and take in those cases. A jab here, a jab back in return. We all slip at times and take it personally or go too far. Both sides do this. A respectful, rational, serious response will be met with the same. But yes, anyone who opposes the design inference is wrong. That's what we're saying. Evolutionists and materialists say the opposite. Some people are in the middle - not sure either way. So, we try to convince them.Silver Asiatic
April 9, 2021
April
04
Apr
9
09
2021
07:00 AM
7
07
00
AM
PDT
"He's winning!" No he's not. He's just another troll trolling. Happening all the time everywhere in the interwebs. He's entertainment to himself and others. Andrewasauber
April 9, 2021
April
04
Apr
9
09
2021
06:57 AM
6
06
57
AM
PDT
Kairosfocus: JVL has a choice, provide another more credible case for her [I think?] view or else let6 that site stand as the general level case against ID put up by the sort of ideologues that seem to dominate online discussion. Why don't you ask me, personally, a particular question. No for some over-arching, general, this-explains-everything response . . . why don't we just address some particular part or piece of the whole puzzle? Wouldn't that be more productive than just slagging off everyone who disagrees with you? If you're interested in having a discussion that is.JVL
April 9, 2021
April
04
Apr
9
09
2021
06:56 AM
6
06
56
AM
PDT
It’s boring.
He’s winning! He’s getting exactly what he wants. Why should he stop?jerry
April 9, 2021
April
04
Apr
9
09
2021
06:55 AM
6
06
55
AM
PDT
JVL has been through little dramatizations like this several times. It's boring. Andrewasauber
April 9, 2021
April
04
Apr
9
09
2021
06:52 AM
6
06
52
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5 6 16

Leave a Reply