Intelligent Design

Darwinians make their living off claims of bad design – eye division

Spread the love

And it works, so no, they won’t stop:

Yesterday we looked at a paper by Tom Baden and Dan-Eric Nilsson in Current Biology debunking the old canard that the human eye is a bad design because it is wired backwards. We saw them turn the tables and show that, in terms of performance, the inverted retina is actually as good or better than the everted retina. Vertebrate eyes “come close to perfect,” they said. Ask the eagles with “the most acute vision of any animal,” which would include cephalopods with their allegedly more logical arrangement. Eagles win! Squids lose! Baden and Nilsson looked at eyes from an “engineer’s perspective” and shared good reasons for the inverted arrangement. They even spoke of design seven times; “the inverted retinal design is a blessing,” they argued.

And yet they maintain that eyes evolved by blind, unguided natural processes. How can they believe that? In this follow-up, we look at the strategies they use to maintain the Darwinian narrative despite the evidence.

David Coppedge, “Darwinists Seek to Explain the Eye’s Engineering Perfection” at Evolution News and Science Today (April 22, 2022)

10 Replies to “Darwinians make their living off claims of bad design – eye division

  1. 1
    BobRyan says:

    When people are conditioned to believe Darwin without question, they use the language that goes with it. The problem with programming is the people programmed have no idea it has happened.

  2. 2
    martin_r says:

    here you go “the inverted retinal design is a blessing,”

    poor Richard Dawkins …

    Anyway, just another example illustrating that Darwinists are always wrong …
    They were brainwashing millions of their followers for decades ….

    Going from “poor design” to “a blessing design / Vertebrate eyes come close to perfect” … this is a grotesque …

    This is what happens, when biologists, natural science graduates, in other words people who have no idea about engineering or designing things, who never made anything, commenting on very advanced engineering masterpiece ….

  3. 3
    polistra says:

    The vertebrate design is needed for sharp long-distance vision in air. Birds need it more than mammals, and fish don’t need it. In water, light is low and distances are often blocked by mud. Were fish the first vertebrates as we commonly assume, or did they return to water later in the same way as whales?

  4. 4
    Querius says:

    It’s my understanding that the retina performs better “inverted” for the reason of maintaining an adequate blood supply.

    Yes, with engineering of any kind, there are always compromises and trade-offs based on performance criteria.

    Darwinism covers over their embarrassments with numerous returns to sea, returns to land, convergent evolution, co-evolution, and/or repeated evolution whenever needed and as often as needed supported by the magic word, “musta.”

    -Q

  5. 5
    Seversky says:

    The design argument for the inverted retina is that it allows the light-sensitive cells or photoreceptors to be plugged into the blood supply which brings in oxygen and nutrients and carries away heat and waste products. Why that couldn’t be done with an everted retina isn’t clear.

    The other feature of the retina, which Coppege ignores, is the fovea. This is the small pit in the retina which is packed with a much higher density of photoreceptors than the rest of the retina and provides the highest resolution imaging. The significant property of the fovea is that the blood vessels and other structures which overlay the rest of the retina are pulled aside here, presumably because allowing unobstructed access to incoming image-forming light gives the best image.

    That the human visual system provides excellent vison is not in doubt but, to do so, it requires workarounds and additional image-processing that might not be necessary with a different design. I’m sure human designers could come up with a better solution so why not aliens?

  6. 6
    jerry says:

    I’m sure human designers could come up with a better solution so why not aliens

    You have been told several times that optimal individual design is bad design and not optimal overall design.

    Why do you continually ignore an obvious explanation? My guess you will now go after some other supposedly nit mistake somewhere else while ignoring the 2000 lb gorilla next to you

  7. 7
    asauber says:

    “Is there any reason talking
    ‘Bout your crazy point of view?
    You can’t even try to answer
    The questions that I put to you
    ‘Cause we don’t see eye to eye
    ‘Cause we don’t see eye to eye” – From the song “Eye To Eye” by the band ASIA from the underrated Alpha album.

    Andrew

  8. 8
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Seversky

    That the human visual system provides excellent vison is not in doubt but, to do so, it requires workarounds and additional image-processing that might not be necessary with a different design.

    You’re referencing “design” and how humans or aliens could do better. You remark that it is an excellent visual system. It’s contained in a self-replicating organism. Supposedly some of the variations in vision systems “arose” independently in different species by a naturalistic mechanism. A blind process produced excellent vision, multiple times – the right mutations came along for the task at hand.
    I have a feeling that you know that really does not make sense.

  9. 9
    ET says:

    LoL! @ seversky!

    Human designers can’t even design a simple living organism. The vision system in humans arises from a SINGLE CELL> All vision systems arise from a single cell. There isn’t any way that humans could design something like that. seversky once again demonstrates its cluelessness.

  10. 10
    Sandy says:

    All vision systems arise from a single cell.

    I guess not directly because in that single cell are some super-compressed codes that are extracted and processed by newly formed brain structures in embrio.

Leave a Reply