Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The Blind leading the Blind.

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

When you have made a bad call, hold on to it with all your might.  From NEW SCIENTIST.

The eye was evolution’s great invention  06 May 2010 

“Creationists have used the eye to make the “argument from design”. Evolutionary biologists say that the “inside out” vertebrate retina – leaves us with a blind spot – one of evolution’s “greatest mistakes”. Creationists have argue that the backwards retina has no problems providing excellent vision – and its structure enhances vision.

A study by (non-creationist) neurophysicists in Israel has found just that. Müller cells, which support and nourish the neurons overlying the retina’s light-sensitive layer, also collect, filter and refocus light, before delivering it to the light sensors to make images clearer.

Findings that coincide with the claims of creationists do not mean they have a point. It still creates a blind spot. It would make much more sense to put Müller-like cells in front of the sensors, with the wiring behind.

Rather than provide evidence in support of intelligent design, the new work is actually yet another example of evolution’s extraordinary ability to create workaround solutions to problems arising from earlier iterations. Kenneth Miller calls the Müller cells “a retrofit: a successful and highly functional adaptation made necessary by the original architecture of the retina, but a retrofit”. The eye’s structure, and the blind spot in particular, bears the unmistakable fingerprints of Darwinian evolution.”

Evolution gave flawed eye better vision    06 May 2010

IT LOOKS wrong, but the strange, “backwards” structure of the vertebrate retina actually improves vision. Certain cells act as optical fibres, and rather than being just a workaround to make up for the eye’s peculiarities, they help filter and focus light, making images clearer and keeping colours sharp.

Although rods and cones are responsible for capturing light, they are in a curious position. Hidden at the base of the retina, they are covered by several layers of cells as well as the bed of nerves that carries visual information to the brain. One result is a blind spot in our visual field, leading the vertebrate retina to be listed among evolution’s biggest “mistakes”.

In 2007 researchers reported that the glial cells act as optical fibres for the rods and cones. New findings suggest that sending light via the Müller cells act as light filters, keeping images clearnd that the intrinsic optical properties of Müller cells seemed to be tuned to visible light. The cells also seem to help keep colours in focus. Müller cells’ wide tops allow them to “collect” any separated colours and refocus them onto the same cone cell, ensuring that all the colours from an image are in focus.

However, Kenneth Miller, cautions that this doesn’t mean that the backwards retina itself helps us to see.”

Comments
Blind spots are never detected unless one eye is blacked out and even then the blind spot is "filled in" by the brain's software. The blind spot is not in the macula (the high visual acuity part of the retina) so where one is actually looking at something, there is no blind spot. The only blind spot here is in the eyes of the Darwinists who keep insisting that they were right when they made claims based on their own flawed common sense. When they are proven wrong, they still refuse to see design in the eye. Claiming that they could design the eye better, without backing it up experimentally, makes them look even more lame and pathetic.idnet.com.au
May 10, 2010
May
05
May
10
10
2010
02:58 AM
2
02
58
AM
PDT
This morning I had a discussion about unbridled arrogance being at the heart of greed and the downfall of modern financial systems. Looking at Darwinist claims like these and many other modern scientific claims the same level of arrogance are exposed. Darwinian scientists’ behaviour are therefore consistent with the common human condition. Claiming otherwise becomes a very tough sell if you want to fit Darwinism with the data. What you need is a proven moral system that successfully counteracts the evils of human nature. Something truly exceptional is required. Thing is... In Nietzsche's world he had some of the basics very wrong. The few "Super men" is not super in any meaningful or useful way and instead of being lifted up by the masses they are consumed in an immoral fight to maintain their make-belief-position. Face it, arrogance is a tough master to serve.mullerpr
May 10, 2010
May
05
May
10
10
2010
01:54 AM
1
01
54
AM
PDT
PaV re 10: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-blind-leading-the-blind/#comment-354157 PaV: "Just a few thoughts. It seems that the “optical fibers” are flared open at the unattached end. Is this so that the optical fiber can accept longer wavelengths of light?" Here’s what the scientists said above: “The cells also seem to help keep colours in focus. Müller cells’ wide tops allow them to “collect” any separated colours and refocus them onto the same cone cell, ensuring that all the colours from an image are in focus.” But PaV you just did the impossible. Every Darwinists KNOWS that Intelligent Design is not science because it does not ever make any correct predictions.bornagain77
May 10, 2010
May
05
May
10
10
2010
01:51 AM
1
01
51
AM
PDT
Sorry, some minor formatting issues in that post.cirus
May 9, 2010
May
05
May
9
09
2010
09:25 PM
9
09
25
PM
PDT
The "backwards wiring" is not a flaw. From Boron & Boulpaep (2003), Medical Physiology, p. 334 (emphasis added):The retina is a highly laminated structure. Through a quirk of evolution, the photoreceptors of the vertebrate eye are on the outer surface of the retina, that is, the side facing away from the vitreous humor and incoming light. Thus, to reach the transducing cells, light has to first pass through all the retinal neurons. This path causes only minor distortion of image quality because of the thinness and transparency of the neural layers. This seemingly inverted arrangement may actually be an advantage for housekeeping of the eye.Photoreceptors undergo a continuous process of renewal, sloughin off membrane from their outer segments and rebuilding them. They also demand a relatively high energy supply. Because they face the back of the eye, photoreceptors are close to the pigment epithelium, which aids the renewal process, and to the blood vessels that supply the retina. These poorly transparent structures (i.e., the pigment epithelium and blood vessels) are thus isolated from the light path. In fact, the pigment epithelium also absorbs photons that are not first captured by photoreceptors, before they can be reflected and degrade the visual image.One thing that Boron and Boulpaep do not mention is that the choroid plexus (i.e. the network of blood vessels that supports the retina) also acts as a heat sink for the photoreceptors.cirus
May 9, 2010
May
05
May
9
09
2010
09:24 PM
9
09
24
PM
PDT
PAV, !!Upright BiPed
May 9, 2010
May
05
May
9
09
2010
08:36 PM
8
08
36
PM
PDT
Here's a UD thread from almost exactly three years ago. Here's what I said back then:
Just a few thoughts. It seems that the “optical fibers” are flared open at the unattached end. Is this so that the optical fiber can accept longer wavelengths of light? In the case of the octupus, I imagine that the kind of light it “sees” is confined to a much more limited range of wavelengths than in the case of mammals. Is this then the reason for mammals having—as someone nicely put it—”living optical fibers”? From a “design theorist” POV, these seem like questions that deserve some research. Or, should we (as the Darwinists do) just call this “bad design” and move on to other things? If so, then perhaps the “inversion” of the retina is for the very precise reason that these “living optical fibers” need to be properly localized; i.e., you don’t want the flared end pointing in any old direction. Do the various neural and circulatory structures that are present in front of the retina, then, serve as a kind of matrix within which these “fibers” are fixed?
Here's what the scientists said above: "The cells also seem to help keep colours in focus. Müller cells’ wide tops allow them to “collect” any separated colours and refocus them onto the same cone cell, ensuring that all the colours from an image are in focus." From the structure of the Muller cells, I inferred function. I predicted this function based on the presence of design. Where were the Darwinists three years ago? Oh. I forgot. The "inverted retina" is a 'bad design'----hence, Darwinism is the only explanation: that is, only a random, non-directed process can explain this 'bad design.' Also notice that these light fibers produce sharp vision---something that the octupi and squids don't need. The upshot of the octupi and squid not needing sharp vision is that it would mean that their retinas don't need to be 'inverted'.PaV
May 9, 2010
May
05
May
9
09
2010
08:29 PM
8
08
29
PM
PDT
Here's the formula: If it isn't good, then it is proof of Darwinian evolution by refutation of a Designer. If it is good, then it's proof of Darwinian evolution because it was 'selected for'. Heard of: "Heads, I win; tails, you lose!"?PaV
May 9, 2010
May
05
May
9
09
2010
07:59 PM
7
07
59
PM
PDT
Seversky- The day that you create a working eye and then integrate that into a conscious organism will be the day that your argument has any merit aside from being an exhibition of sheer arrogance and hubris.Phaedros
May 9, 2010
May
05
May
9
09
2010
07:58 PM
7
07
58
PM
PDT
That the vertebrate eye works well has never been in question. What is at issue is, if the eye was designed, it was by a being at least more advanced than we are and possibly an all-knowing, all-powerful, perfect God. If we can see how the eye could be improved, why couldn't the designer? Why not get it right first time? Why have a blind spot on a 'device' for seeing if it doesn't need to be there? Why design something with a flaw that needs these Müller cells to correct which sound so much like the corrective optics retrofitted to the Hubble Space Telescope. Hubble's problems were caused by a flaw in the manufacturing process, something you'd expect from fallible and limited creatures like ourselves but not from more advanced aliens and certainly not from a perfect deity. So you either have to square a flawed design with a highly-advanced or even perfect designer or accept that it is more likely to have been the product of an evolutionary process.Seversky
May 9, 2010
May
05
May
9
09
2010
07:56 PM
7
07
56
PM
PDT
As for myself, I consider the fact that we even see at all to be an audacious miracle and pray that I should never become so callous, as seems to be rampant with Darwinists, as to "lose sight" of my child-like wonder of beholding the miracle that seeing truly is; Sarah McLachlan-Ordinary Miracle - music video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Urv7tyeJ7qEbornagain77
May 9, 2010
May
05
May
9
09
2010
07:44 PM
7
07
44
PM
PDT
I am still astonished that the blind spot is considered an enormous flaw; if that's a flaw, what about the fact that eyes can't see anything BEHIND them? People who write these things have obviously never had to design something in real life, and never had to optimize a process. Just because the "backwards" wiring of the eye is beginning to be recognized as the "smart" way to do things, doesn't mean that they've learned any lessons, though, with statements like this:
It would make much more sense to put Müller-like cells in front of the sensors, with the wiring behind.
Lets just repeat the same error, with a new subject. More sense to whom? On what grounds? The lack of humility, and the propensity of the ignorant to judge and rate a design which exceeds by orders of magnitude their own creative abilities is stunning. We've just discovered an extraordinary new thing, but already we know enough to judge it unworthy. But still, they are amazed by the powers of evolution to have come up with these solutions. As they should be. Because it couldn't have done so. Their blind faith is astounding.SCheesman
May 9, 2010
May
05
May
9
09
2010
07:17 PM
7
07
17
PM
PDT
Nope, nothing to see here. Keep moving. /DawinistIRQ Conflict
May 9, 2010
May
05
May
9
09
2010
07:12 PM
7
07
12
PM
PDT
"Retrofit" sounds a lot like something purposeful.CannuckianYankee
May 9, 2010
May
05
May
9
09
2010
03:57 PM
3
03
57
PM
PDT
Great, I have referenced this and eagerly await the next time I am told the eye is a piece of junk by a darwinist: This post I just posted on another thread somewhat relates to this topic: riddick does “true sight” reside within the spirit or within the body? https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/francisco-ayala-but-does-he-really-believe-what-hes-saying/#comment-354133bornagain77
May 9, 2010
May
05
May
9
09
2010
03:07 PM
3
03
07
PM
PDT
Evolutionists did the same with embryology, vestigial organs, gaps in the fossil record, they will twist whatever they can and declare it as evidence for evolution, without blinking, with no shame. Evolutionists are like sales men stuck with a lot of bad stock because head office made some bad choices. Now it's up to the sales men to get rid of this stock.It's the evolutionist's job to sell evolution.Polanyi
May 9, 2010
May
05
May
9
09
2010
02:40 PM
2
02
40
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply