Human evolution Intelligent Design News

Strange “purpose” of human eye wiring unveiled?

Spread the love

Did we mention Scientific American before? Yes, we did, here, on the Neanderthal mystique (but you have to pay for way too much of it).

Now here, we are informed that the purpose of the strange wiring of our eyes is “unveiled.” Wow. Such mystical language.

The human eye is optimised to have good colour vision at day and high sensitivity at night. But until recently it seemed as if the cells in the retina were wired the wrong way round, with light travelling through a mass of neurons before it reaches the light-detecting rod and cone cells. New research presented at a meeting of the American Physical Society has uncovered a remarkable vision-enhancing function for this puzzling structure.

So, like good old junk DNA, human eye wiring survived all this time, helped lead to remarkable discoveries, et cetera, despite being useless?

Darwin is useful today for only thing: Creating jobs for people who invent problems that even more Darwinism can solve.

Otherwise, how come we are still allowed to use the word “purpose”?

Follow UD News at Twitter!

11 Replies to “Strange “purpose” of human eye wiring unveiled?

  1. 1
    humbled says:

    “But until recently it seemed as if the cells in the retina were wired the wrong way round”

    no…only confused delusional evolutionists made this claim. ID would never have made such a silly prediction in the first place.

  2. 2
    bornagain77 says:

    OT: Big Bazooms theory of evolution strikes again:
    Men prefer beautiful ladies so evolution made them beautiful for us! Lucky us!

    Men’s preference for certain body types has evolutionary roots – March 19, 2015
    Excerpt: The study, published online in Evolution and Human Behavior, investigated men’s mate preference for women with a “theoretically optimal angle of lumbar curvature,” a 45.5 degree curve from back to buttocks allowing ancestral women to better support, provide for, and carry out multiple pregnancies.
    “What’s fascinating about this research is that it is yet another scientific illustration of a close fit between a sex-differentiated feature of human morphology—in this case lumbar curvature—and an evolved standard of attractiveness,”
    http://phys.org/news/2015-03-m.....roots.html

    Personally, I have another theory:

    Genesis 2:18
    Then the LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.”

  3. 3
    bornagain77 says:

    Evolution also explains why people roll their eyes when they hear BS. 🙂

  4. 4
    Curly Howard says:

    Did the designer know we would extend our lifespan to ~80?
    Why did the designer still give us bodies that begin to fail at around 60?
    Does the designer have a sick sense of humor?

  5. 5
    Robert Byers says:

    This eye discovery is a cool thing.
    The design of the eye was from creation week and then later may of had changes due to the fall or other needs in a new world.
    So wiring might be different from the original in creation week.
    Its a option.
    Creatures like the tuatara only have a third eye ish on the top that surely was not there in creation week.
    There is mechanisms to change/introduce the eye concept to bodies.
    Remember however sight , I say, goes straight into the memory and that is ALL that we watch.
    Therefore its edited. Therefore we don’t actually see the woprld as it really is.
    Only a edited memory/video of it.

  6. 6
    not_querius says:

    The fact that we have adaptations that allow us to minimize the negative aspects of a bad design does not mean that it is not a bad design.

  7. 7
    wsread says:

    It is not a case of “minimize the negative aspects of a bad design”. Without the ‘backward design’ of the retina (which does not have any functional negative aspects) the ‘light pipes’ with their beneficial properties would not be possible.

  8. 8
    not_querius says:

    Wsread, how do you figure this. The octopus has a retina with the connective tissue behind the receptors and I have never read that their acuity, peripheral or low light vision is worse than ours.

    And how do you explain the “design” advantage of running the nerves through the centre of the retinal, resulting in a large blind spot.

    And while you are at it, feel free to explain the “design” advantage of an abdominal wall that is prone to herniation, or an appendix that can be fatal when infected, or a throat in which food must pass over the trachea, significantly increasing the risk of death by choking.

  9. 9
    wsread says:

    “Wsread, how do you figure this” – I read the Scientific American article.
    “I have never read that their acuity, peripheral or low light vision is worse than ours” – Nobody has measured it.
    “And while you are at it, feel free to explain the “design” advantage of …” – I have no idea of what it might be, I’m addressing the design of the eye.

  10. 10
    willh says:

    ‘Bad Design’ or ‘Engineering Challenge’? Isn’t the variance of the vertebrate and invertebrate eye due to the physical restrictions encountered during embryonic development? Glial cell function (or more accurately, multi-function) and blind spot compensation are highly successful design adaptations that bridge the challenges are they not?

  11. 11
    willh says:

    “The octopus has a retina with the connective tissue behind the receptors and I have never read that their acuity, peripheral or low light vision is worse than ours.”

    If performance is a measure, then what of vertebrate eyes found in hunting birds, such as hawks? Some bird retinas have cone types that sense 5 colours and not just 3 (as in human eyes), plus oils that create further differentiation of colour. This is thought to aid concise visual acquisition of a flying target.

    Are not the majority of cephalopods colour blind? Seems the ‘fibre optic’ application of the glial cells would provide no benefit to an octopus.

Leave a Reply