Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  1. Vision and Light-Induced Molecular Changes

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

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

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

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

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

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

  1. The Wonder of Sight – April 15, 2020

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

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

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

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

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

  1. Retina – Spatial encoding

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  1. Why Only Humans Shed Emotional Tears – 2018

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lacrimal glands above each eye produce your tears…

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

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

“That’s a seriously bodacious experiment”…

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

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

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

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

Comments
JVL:
If unguided evolution is not true then why attack it for what it supposedly does not contribute?
Because it is the reigning paradigm for no apparent scientific reason. It is very important to attack paradigms that do not deserve their status, duh.ET
April 7, 2021
April
04
Apr
7
07
2021
05:44 AM
5
05
44
AM
PDT
Silver Asiatic: But if ID is not true, then why attack it for what it supposedly does not contribute? If unguided evolution is not true then why attack it for what it supposedly does not contribute?JVL
April 7, 2021
April
04
Apr
7
07
2021
01:32 AM
1
01
32
AM
PDT
SA2, biomimetics is imitation, the sincerest form of flattery. Here, we are reverse engineering effective and adequately robust design. KFkairosfocus
April 7, 2021
April
04
Apr
7
07
2021
12:10 AM
12
12
10
AM
PDT
Silver Asiatic “ Biomimetics is proof that the design really is of an extremely high quality.” Is it? Or is it just an easy way to develop designs that are functional?Steve Alten2
April 6, 2021
April
04
Apr
6
06
2021
04:24 PM
4
04
24
PM
PDT
SA2
I think they take the bait and argue for the extremely high quality (perfection is the wrong word) of the design because most ID proponents believe in a personal God. As such, this personal God is the designer and their personal God is infallible. I think this is supported by the over-the-top, and often cognitively dissonant reaction to my claim that ID does not preclude poor quality design.
Biomimetics is proof that the design really is of an extremely high quality. This book is mentioned on another thread -- entire book about the marvels and qualities of the human hand: https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Hand.html?id=7VgOAAAAQAAJ If a person can look at the beauty, diversity and symmetry of nature and never be moved by a spirit of awe and wonder, there's something wrong with the spiritual development of that person. There's something wrong in the intellect and soul - a serious deficiency. But it seems, more and more, people are dead to such wonders and they can only find flaws and evils and never the unity in diversity, the harmony amid light and dark.Silver Asiatic
April 6, 2021
April
04
Apr
6
06
2021
11:15 AM
11
11
15
AM
PDT
RT, the design inference on evidence is in itself revolutionary and liberating; the confirmed yes that we can reliably infer from signs such as FSCO/I to design as cause is a breakthrough. It does not deliver everything but what it does deliver is epochal. Beyond, as I noted from TRIZ, there is a whole theory of inventive problem solving that explores how design works, with promising results. On the empirical side, genetic modification is intelligent design research, though many doing that may not acknowledge such. So, too, are applications in cryptanalysis, design detection on hidden patterns. That is about as grittily practical as you get, and it speaks to statistics and to communication theory. The myth that ID is a scientific dead end has long since exploded. KFkairosfocus
April 6, 2021
April
04
Apr
6
06
2021
11:03 AM
11
11
03
AM
PDT
RT
The notion that we should stop at this statement will actually makes ID fall into the other part of the critic that “ID doesn’t contribute anything from its theory”.
That's an attempt to distract and switch focus. If they're admitting "yes, ID is true" - we'll take every criticism that comes after that about the need for follow up. But if ID is not true, then why attack it for what it supposedly does not contribute? This reveals the strength of ID. Yes, it's limited. But it's a truth which is otherwise widely denied in our culture. That's a huge contribution in itself.
The next step should be trying to infer the “mind” characteristic through the quality of its creation, which at best I can tell is very good.
That's one approach that could work. But I also think that's where the flawed design and arguments about the evils in nature come in though. I prefer moving from ID towards the origin of immaterial mind, and this to first causal arguments, etc.Silver Asiatic
April 6, 2021
April
04
Apr
6
06
2021
07:23 AM
7
07
23
AM
PDT
Silver asiatic “ But aside from all of this, it seems you are probing for some kind of inner motive at work among ID supporters. You stated earlier that you have your idea on why this tendency (to take the bait) occurs and you do not like the ideas given – so it will be helpful to know what you think. Why do you think ID supporters do this sort of thing?” I think they take the bait and argue for the extremely high quality (perfection is the wrong word) of the design because most ID proponents believe in a personal God. As such, this personal God is the designer and their personal God is infallible. I think this is supported by the over-the-top, and often cognitively dissonant reaction to my claim that ID does not preclude poor quality design.Steve Alten2
April 6, 2021
April
04
Apr
6
06
2021
07:20 AM
7
07
20
AM
PDT
In it the author tells one how to form good habits that will make us happy but also describes how she escaped the doom and gloom of academia. Habits of a happy brain.
Helpful recommendation - thank you.Silver Asiatic
April 6, 2021
April
04
Apr
6
06
2021
07:17 AM
7
07
17
AM
PDT
KF, I myself convinced that the best we can tell about life is it is designed by mind. The notion that we should stop at this statement will actually makes ID fall into the other part of the critic that "ID doesn't contribute anything from its theory". The next step should be trying to infer the "mind" characteristic through the quality of its creation, which at best I can tell is very good. The critics of poor design is like (paraphrasing what someone have mentioned) "judging War and Peace is not a good literature through its grammar mistake, instead through its story"RavenT
April 6, 2021
April
04
Apr
6
06
2021
06:59 AM
6
06
59
AM
PDT
Down this road lies the philosophy of TRIZ, seeking innovations that find robust balances
Highly recommend Matt Ridley’s book on innovation. I also have “TRIZ for Dummies” but have not started it yet. Thanks to a previous comment on TRIZ by Kf. The Ridley book goes over the evolution of innovation in various technical areas. It’s never neat or obvious but progresses to incredible improvements. My son put me on to the Ridley book. He’s an IT consultant who has witnessed the amazing changes in computer softwares over the years. To the point they are not referred to as software anymore but apps. Highly recommend Human Progress as a site. Here’s a recent article on human innovation and where we are headed. https://www.humanprogress.org/the-six-laws-of-zero-that-will-shape-our-future/ Despite all this progress the elites are telling another story to our children. We are doomed if we don’t abandon all this. Here is another book, this one on how to be happy with personal progress. In it the author tells one how to form good habits that will make us happy but also describes how she escaped the doom and gloom of academia. Habits of a happy brain. https://www.amazon.com/Habits-Happy-Brain-Serotonin-Endorphin-ebook/dp/B0178M3LNA/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1617713678&sr=8-2 We often hear of the malevolent ideas that young people are subjected to in college. Here is a book by a woman who managed to escape this nonsense after accommodating her life to it for several years.jerry
April 6, 2021
April
04
Apr
6
06
2021
05:43 AM
5
05
43
AM
PDT
"I simply have not seen any ID proponent confront an ID opponent over this fallacy." It's been done on UD many, many times over the years. Andrewasauber
April 6, 2021
April
04
Apr
6
06
2021
05:26 AM
5
05
26
AM
PDT
Jerry
Then the next step will be that there could not have been a designer but was natural because there wouldn’t have been flawed design with God or a massive intelligence who had billions of years as the director.
Right - this is the classic "God would not have done it that way" argument. So evolutionists rely on this theological argument to support their claims, whereas ID is just talking about the science.Silver Asiatic
April 6, 2021
April
04
Apr
6
06
2021
05:08 AM
5
05
08
AM
PDT
SA2
Where I disagree is your claim that they are being corrected. I simply have not seen any ID proponent confront an ID opponent over this fallacy. For some reason, they prefer to take the bait and argue that the design is not flawed.
Aside from what I said before, and good reasons given by others - here's another reason: Pro-IDists see the "flawed design" argument very frequently. Not only is that argument a logical fallacy within the debate about ID, but it's confused and incorrect on its own terms. So, from the ID side, we keep working to kill off this argument just to get rid of it finally. ID opponents simply ignore the fact that the argument is a logical fallacy. So, we try to convince them that it's a bad argument on its own terms, trying to help them gain a better understanding of what they're talking about. They usually don't even know what they mean by "flawed" and they don't explain why they keep repeating this argument and why they are so fond of it. The scientific data argues against evolutionary claims. They can't win on that point. So instead, supposedly, the idea that "there are flaws", means that evolution actually created the results. I think IDists are surprised at how incredibly weak that argument is. It takes us back to 19th century science. "That organ looks useless so it must have evolved". Even having been embarrassed by the claim of Junk DNA, anti-IDists persist with this losing strategy. So, I think we're just trying to put an end to it - even though, as you rightly say, it's unnecessary even to engage in that discussion since its a non-scientific claim. Doesn't that tell us something though? ID opponents have to resort to a non-scientific claim (flawed design) to defend their theory of evolution. I think we just take advantage of that. It's yet another death-strike against the Darwinian narrative (which people swallow down unthinkingly). But aside from all of this, it seems you are probing for some kind of inner motive at work among ID supporters. You stated earlier that you have your idea on why this tendency (to take the bait) occurs and you do not like the ideas given - so it will be helpful to know what you think. Why do you think ID supporters do this sort of thing?Silver Asiatic
April 6, 2021
April
04
Apr
6
06
2021
05:05 AM
5
05
05
AM
PDT
I simply have not seen any ID proponent confront an ID opponent over this fallacy.
Why would they and more importantly why should they? There is no evidence that there is bad or flawed design with the design of the universe or life. Why admit to the possibility of something for which there is no evidence. Who ever designed life had billions of years to get it right. Or maybe was such a massive intelligence that this intelligence got it right the first time. It’s a bait and switch technique. Say ID admits there’s a possibility of flawed design in life but it’s still design. then the next step will be that ID admits life is flawed because why admit it. Then the next step will be that there could not have been a designer but was natural because there wouldn’t have been flawed design with God or a massive intelligence who had billions of years as the director. This is another form of the theistic evolution acquisition to the anti ID people. ID will quite willingly admit that much of what humans design can be flawed. They only have limited time and resources. But even with humans with limited intelligence the designs keep getting better as they experiment. Just imagine if humans were designed with much higher intelligence that these designs might have happened sooner. But then again with their superior intelligence and maybe better and more advanced physical characteristics such as super eyes they might have destroyed all their competitors in nature and then destroyed the ecology on which their lives depended. And thus, perish.jerry
April 6, 2021
April
04
Apr
6
06
2021
03:56 AM
3
03
56
AM
PDT
Acartia sock:
Where I disagree is your claim that they are being corrected. I simply have not seen any ID proponent confront an ID opponent over this fallacy.
Your willful ignorance is not an argument. And all you have is your willful ignorance.ET
April 6, 2021
April
04
Apr
6
06
2021
03:10 AM
3
03
10
AM
PDT
RT, part of the correction of the perfection ratchet fallacy behind bad design arguments is to point out that designs almost always involve tradeoffs. Indeed, for the more cynical critics, it is that knowledge that gives them confidence that they can always find some real or imagined defect or limitation of performance to focus distractively on. Instead, above, it has been highlighted that good designs very rarely seek optimal performance on any one dimension, as that is liable to result in brittle, inflexible designs. Instead, the target is to find robust, adequate or good performance, preferably with graceful degradation rather than catastrophic collapse. This often reflects the Pareto principle, the first 80% of effect comes from the first 20% of effort and after that one is fighting diminishing returns tradeoffs. Down this road lies the philosophy of TRIZ, seeking innovations that find robust balances. KF PS: Do you notice, an outline analysis of what design involves, which also addresses the notion that ID is a one-trick pony?kairosfocus
April 6, 2021
April
04
Apr
6
06
2021
12:25 AM
12
12
25
AM
PDT
UB, 223, you have highlighted a pivotal issue. First duties of reason (which are actually inescapable, true, self-evident) lie at the crux of the divergence in approach seen above. Or rather, refusal to heed duties to truth, right reason, warrant and broader prudence, fairness and more. Such patterns of evasion of the merits and duties to think, communicate and act aright have sobering consequences. Notwithstanding, above, there is abundant laying out of relevant facts, especially on how the eye is actually a marvel of sophisticated, effective, highly efficient design -- contrast energy usage and compactness with a comparably advanced camera. As I look at the LMS cones and how exotic, heavy/rare earth metal chemistry is avoided, just that speaks volumes. The evident use of weighted sum, subtractive techniques to isolate channels and generate a stereo, 3-d, real time world imaging is astonishing, especially when we note how roboticists struggle with a similar challenge.The ability to detect down to the single photon level without need for exotic, toxic chemistry and supercooling, etc, is yet another striking achievement. These and many other marvels point to how we are visual-dominant creatures and how the eye and the hand, with the responsible, rational mind, have led us to become the globally dominant species, through the creation of civilisation. KFkairosfocus
April 6, 2021
April
04
Apr
6
06
2021
12:09 AM
12
12
09
AM
PDT
Perhaps rather than arguing ad infinitum about "bad design fallacy", it will be more beneficial for everyone to provide an example where the proponent of ID engaging their critics on this fallacy without mentioning that "bad design is not equivalent to no design". Just my 2cRavenT
April 6, 2021
April
04
Apr
6
06
2021
12:03 AM
12
12
03
AM
PDT
SA2, you unfortunately continue on a side track, led away to strawmen soaked in ad homs and sparked to trigger choking, confusing toxic clouds that frustrate finding our way back to sound, balanced thinking. . That side tracking has significant danger in an era where progress is technologically driven. Profound, widespread misunderstanding of the nature and workings of design leads to bad policy in a democratic age where technology is pivotal. That in turn points to further flaws, the fallacies of relativism and rejection of self-evident first duties of reason. Unresponsiveness to truth, right reason, prudence, fairness etc are bad signs for our civilisation. Signs, we unfortunately see all about us. Speaking of seeing, it tells us something that many can look at a marvel of highly effective, powerfully successful design, the eye and spend huge effort in trying to distract from and taint its appreciation, to discredit the significance of such a marvel; too often because they are obviously deeply resentful and rebellious towards their Creator. The bitter sourness of heart behind that, driving education, opinion, key institutions and policy is a further bad sign for our civilisation. Indeed, it is an obvious material contribution to the US theatre of operations in the 4th generation civilisational civil war that warps our ability to stand soundly in the face of mounting geostrategic threats at both ends of Asia. Strategic misjudgement, quite evident, is a consequence and such misjudgement is often fatal. The price we as a civilisation are liable to pay for our willful mutiny and voyage of folly on the ship of state is horrific. KFkairosfocus
April 5, 2021
April
04
Apr
5
05
2021
11:55 PM
11
11
55
PM
PDT
Silver Asiatic “ It seems that you accepted my explanation for why anti-IDists use (and reuse again and again) this logical fallacy even after being corrected about the nature of ID. ” I agree that ID opponents repeatedly use this logical fallacy. Where I disagree is your claim that they are being corrected. I simply have not seen any ID proponent confront an ID opponent over this fallacy. For some reason, they prefer to take the bait and argue that the design is not flawed. Just read many of the comments above in this thread.Steve Alten2
April 5, 2021
April
04
Apr
5
05
2021
09:27 PM
9
09
27
PM
PDT
UPB 223 I hope one or more ID-critics will take up your gracious invitation and set aside biases - and engage the topic from that starting point.Silver Asiatic
April 5, 2021
April
04
Apr
5
05
2021
08:58 PM
8
08
58
PM
PDT
SA2
But that still doesn’t address why ID proponents respond to an obvious fallacy with trying to counter the points made rather than stating that ID does not infer perfect design.
It seems that you accepted my explanation for why anti-IDists use (and reuse again and again) this logical fallacy even after being corrected about the nature of ID. They are not only trying to switch the topic away from ID-as-science, but there's an underlying motive of opposition to God and religion, that comes out in a (not that) subtle ridicule and insult. It shouldn't be surprising that an attempt to ridicule religion and insult God will be met with a defense of the same, even if it's taking the bait of a non-sequitur. For most Christians, for example (among other religious believers, but I'll just refer to them), God is highly beloved in a personal way, is honored and held to be the most sacred aspect of life. So, because of that, the theological aspect carries a very high sensitivity and meaning. A person saying that God's design is flawed is using an emotional argument in the hopes of offending people. It's stirring the pot with contemptuous ideas. It's disrespectful towards those who believe in God at the very least. Many theists believe that God has rights also and that He deserves to be defended for the gift of life He has given and for the magnificence of His Design. Defending God in this way, by opposing the "flawed design" argument, says nothing about ID (as you know and have affirmed, I'm just repeating).Silver Asiatic
April 5, 2021
April
04
Apr
5
05
2021
08:54 PM
8
08
54
PM
PDT
Umm, we respond to it because losers keep bringing it up. It is still a common argument. We don't mind continually proving that our opponents are mindless drones. :razz:ET
April 5, 2021
April
04
Apr
5
05
2021
08:04 PM
8
08
04
PM
PDT
Jerry “ There has been a long history of people trying to disprove ID by invoking flawed design in life. Implying that what appears as design is really not design. This so called flawed design is then used as proof that life was not designed. Richard Dawkins is one such person.” I realize this. But I still don’t understand why ID proponents rise to the bait of such an obvious fallacy. It only plays into the hands of the ID opponents. “I’m not sure what you are trying to show.” It’s really quite simple. I will use Kairosfocusspeak to explain it. 1) The argument of flawed design is irrelevant with regard to the ID inference in biology. It’s a fallacy. 2) Why do ID proponents persistently argue against an irrelevant fallacious argument? Kairosfocus “ Jerry, the point is to distract, caricature and taint.” I guess pointing out what others see as painfully obvious can be interpreted as a type of caricature.Steve Alten2
April 5, 2021
April
04
Apr
5
05
2021
07:18 PM
7
07
18
PM
PDT
Sev @ 197, > If you’re God then make us understand. You must have that power. Can you make the case that God could, and then should, make us understand? How do you figure he could fully explain himself without giving us his full mental capabilities in the process? Why would he be required to do that? Can you make the case that those capabilities would fit into our minds? This was already addressed by someone else above here; not sure the point of repeating the question. But in any case, we're not tired of responding. In fact, this thread has been excellent practice for debating people face-to-face! Thanks everybody! 8-)EDTA
April 5, 2021
April
04
Apr
5
05
2021
06:36 PM
6
06
36
PM
PDT
Jerry, the point is to distract, caricature and taint. It is clear that design seeks robust performance, and that attempted perfection too often runs into embrittlement. It is also obvious that Pareto often rules the roost, first 20% of effort gains 80% of performance, and then one fights a diminishing returns battle to get the last 20%. That is yet another tradeoff right there. Having noted that, we can point out that codes, language, algorithms have just one reliably known source, and such are in the heart of the cell. Beyond, on the eye, I cannot but notice the ongoing studious side-stepping. KFkairosfocus
April 5, 2021
April
04
Apr
5
05
2021
06:00 PM
6
06
00
PM
PDT
ID is just the inference that what is observed is best explained by design. But nowhere does it say anything about the quality of the design.
There has been a long history of people trying to disprove ID by invoking flawed design in life. Implying that what appears as design is really not design. This so called flawed design is then used as proof that life was not designed. Richard Dawkins is one such person. Two examples are junk DNA and the appendix. There are others. I’m not sure what you are trying to show. Yes, designs by humans does not have to be perfect to be deigned. There are enough designs that have failed to meet objectives but rarely does anyone design anything that will knowingly fail.jerry
April 5, 2021
April
04
Apr
5
05
2021
05:48 PM
5
05
48
PM
PDT
SA@222, thank you for the response. But that still doesn’t address why ID proponents respond to an obvious fallacy with trying to counter the points made rather than stating that ID does not infer perfect design. ID is just the inference that what is observed is best explained by design. But nowhere does it say anything about the quality of the design. A Lada is best explained by design. Do you want to spend good money for one?Steve Alten2
April 5, 2021
April
04
Apr
5
05
2021
03:51 PM
3
03
51
PM
PDT
. SA, check. EDIT: If there is an ID critic on this board who wants to set aside their ideological bias and debate the actual scientific merits of the design inference in earnest, I am happy to oblige, as are others.Upright BiPed
April 5, 2021
April
04
Apr
5
05
2021
02:20 PM
2
02
20
PM
PDT
1 6 7 8 9 10 16

Leave a Reply