Scientists have examined the ability of the human eye to detect single photons. It turns out that they can. Previously it was thought that the eye could detect as few as five to seven, but the present study shows that they human eye is capable of detecting a single photon: this is really a remarkable feat.
Here’s what one of the authors had to say:
“If you imagine this, 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.”
Wow. “Nature” is really something. Through trial and error, it built this high-tech system. Actually, I don’t think even high-tech scientists could do this given the constraints of living organisms.
Isn’t it amazing how “nature” can build a system of vision that not even high-tech scientists can duplicate? And to imagine that Trilobytes had amazing vision systems back in the Cambrian. Boy, evolution sure can work fast!
The level of “faith” in Darwinism, or, essentially it’s equivalent, “materialism,” is light years beyond what religious people are required to have.
“But you say that you ‘see,’ and so your blindness remains.”
They overturned the 5 to 7 claim!
of related note:
In a Neil Degrasse Tyson Simulated Universe, detecting a single photon is merely a programming step. Easy peasy.
In a Darwinistic Unguided NS & RM world, detecting a single photon is merely impossible. Oops.
BA77:
Thanks for the correction. Obviously I read it in a hurry.
The line that really sticks out for me is this:
This is an admission that modern-day technology, as advanced as it now is, cannot duplicate what has happened in nature.
To then assert that this scientific “miracle” occurred through random mutations is simply stunning. It defies reason.
While I’m on a roll, let me just add this about the neo-Darwinian rescue of Darwinism (for, indeed, it was a rescue since Darwinism was almost entirely abandoned after the discovery of Mendelian genetics): Malthus pointed out that populations grow geometrically, while resources grow linearly. This was a pivotal point for Darwin in his thinking since it seemed to give impetus to the power of NS.
What Malthus is really pointing out—and this applies, then, to population genetics, or, neo-Darwinism—is the “normalization” of populations.
Fred Hoyle in his book, The Mathematics of Evolution, makes this his first point against neo-Darwinism, demonstrating that when “normalization” is taken into account, straight exponential growth no longer applies, and that changes in populations that are thought to take place readily, actually take much longer to bring about.
Yet, the really devastating blow to all of this is the following: populations don’t ‘double’ and then fall back to their normal range; they always stay in their normal range. This means that the ‘young’ who are born, e.g., are the ones who are preyed upon. If, then, Darwin thought that the real power of NS is derived from this ‘winnowing’ of populations, let us note that this ‘winnowing’ is likely a very random process itself. IOW, if a bird is going to grow up and be very colorful, attracting many mates, and siring many offspring, thus multiplying its numbers within the populations (i.e., a selection effect), the reality is that none of this will help the young bird escape its predators. Its eventual coloring helps it not one bit in escaping death. It might be the first one to fall out of the nest.
Therefore, if the ‘winnowing’ of populations which we call “normalization” occurs in every generation, and is sizable—probably a two-fold, if not a three-fold decrease in new offspring—then this tremendous ‘neutral’ elimination of new members of a population must slow NS down to almost nothing. You would expect populations to continue on as they are without change for long periods of time. This is what the fossil record in fact records.
I guess the only way around this is to do what population geneticists do: say that the ‘real’ change in populations takes place in small populations. But, of course, in small populations any needed mutation takes much longer to arrive, which would, again, slow down the effects of NS, and, further, small populations are subject to extinction, which doesn’t seem to make this a good long-term solution.
All this said, the point here is that Darwin, bereft of the actual rules of genetic inheritance, seized upon Malthus’ proposition regarding the disproportion between resources and growth of population as the driving force of his idea; but, in actual fact, this disproportion, results in the “normalization” of the population, and, so, actually works contra NS, and therefore, Darwinism.
PaV, here are a couple of peer reviewed papers and points you may appreciate:
As to the ‘waiting time’ problem of population genetics which you touched upon, Dr. Sanford has this recent paper:
Moreover, population genetics, besides falsifying Darwinian evolution because of the waiting time problem, also casts Charles Darwin’s main claim to scientific fame, i.e. Natural Selection itself, under the bus:
In other words, Neutral theory, and the concept of junk DNA itself, was not developed because of any empirical observation, but was actually developed because it was forced upon Darwinists by the mathematics of population genetics. In plain English, neutral theory, and the concept of junk DNA, is actually the result of a theoretical failure of Darwinism within the mathematics of population genetics!
Here are a few quotes on the implications of neutral theory:
And, as if the waiting time problem and the casting of Natural Selection under the bus were not bad enough, Donald Hoffman has, through rigorous treatment of population genetics, extended Plantinga’s ‘Evolutionary Argument against Naturalism’ and made it a much more devastating ‘Evolutionary Argument against Reality’
More specifically, Donald Hoffman has, through numerous computer simulations of population genetics, proved that if Darwinian evolution were actually true then all of our perceptions of reality would be illusory.
Thus, in what should be needless to say, a worldview that undermines the scientific method itself by holding all our observations of reality are illusory is NOT a worldview that can be firmly grounded within the scientific method!
Moreover, completely contrary to materialistic premises, conscious observation, far from being unreliable and illusory, is experimentally found to be far more integral to reality, i.e. far more reliable of reality, than the math of population genetics predicts. In fact, in the following experiment it was found that reality doesn’t exist without an observer.
Apparently science itself could care less if atheists are forced to believe, because of the math of population genetics, that their observations of reality are illusory!
Thus PaV, the mathematics of population genetics is not kind to Darwinian claims in the least. Three devastating problems are revealed by population genetics. The Waiting Time problem, Natural selection is ineffective, and perception of reality itself become illusory.
I would say that is three strikes and Darwinism is out! 🙂