14 May 15
Originally posted by Proper KnobI'd say some time between when they were first made and when evolution started making
You are correct, it was me who missed your response.
What flaws has evolution introduced to the eye? Are you talking specifically of the human eye? And when did these flaws come about?
small changes to them.
14 May 15
Originally posted by RJHindsNo, I was referring to evolution, because "degeneration" could be a part of it just as
What he is referring to is actually degeneration, as I pointed out in my previous post. I have been saying for a long time that there is really no such thing as biological evolution, but when people keep talking about it so much, even creationist begin to accept the term.
We don't know exactly when so-called flaws were introduced into the eye, if that is ...[text shortened]... light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! [/quote]
(Isaiah 5:20 KJV)
some improvement. The change from one point to another is evolution, there isn't a path
to good, or a path to bad, it is just the process.
14 May 15
Originally posted by Proper Knob"You are correct, it was me who missed your response. "
You are correct, it was me who missed your response.
What flaws has evolution introduced to the eye? Are you talking specifically of the human eye? And when did these flaws come about?
If that is the worst that happens to us we are in great shape!
14 May 15
Originally posted by KellyJayActually, what has happened is that someone has combined serveral things with myths and called it all evolution or evilution. 😏
No, I was referring to evolution, because "degeneration" could be a part of it just as
some improvement. The change from one point to another is evolution, there isn't a path
to good, or a path to bad, it is just the process.
14 May 15
Originally posted by KellyJayLet me get this straight, you think the 'blind spot' found in the human eye, and all vertebrates for that matter, is something which has only happened in the last few thousand years as a result of evolution?
I believe there is a blind spot in our eyes people bring up with some frequency, we see
some with color blindness, blindness, and so on.
15 May 15
Originally posted by Proper KnobIt is often claimed that the human retina is poorly designed because it appears to be placed in the eye backwards. This design requires that light travel through the nerves and blood vessels in order to reach the photoreceptor cells which are located behind the eye’s wiring. This design also requires the nerves to pass through the retina in an area that lacks photoreceptors, producing a blind spot, the focus of this paper. One reason the blind spot is not a problem is that the brain uses information from the retina only to construct an image and does an excellent job of dealing with the many “blind spots” such as shadows, reflection problems, dim light, and dirt on a person’s glasses. Furthermore, the blind spot is located in a region used only for peripheral vision to scan beyond a person’s main focus for areas of potential interest.
Let me get this straight, you think the 'blind spot' found in the human eye, and all vertebrates for that matter, is something which has only happened in the last few thousand years as a result of evolution?
The Research Findings Refute the Poor Design Argument
Most invertebrates possess a verted eye type (where the rods and cones face the light source); most vertebrates (including mammals, birds, amphibians, and fish) possess an inverted type of eye, where the rods and cones face away from the source of light. Most verted eye types are comparatively simple, at least compared to inverted design, although a few types, such as the cephalopod eye (squids and octopus), are almost as complex as the vertebrate eye (Abbott, Williamson, and Maddock 1995; Land and Nilsson 2005). Even the better verted eyes are still “overall quite inferior to the vertebrate eye,” a conclusion usually determined by measuring performance in response to visual stimuli (Hamilton 1985, p. 60).
In contrast to the claims of Dawkins no evidence exists that even the most advanced verted eye is superior to the inverted eye. The sensitivity of the existing human inverted design is so great that only one photon is able to elicit an electrical response (Baylor, Lamb, and Yau 1979). Consequently, functional sensitivity of the inverted retina could not be significantly improved:
Neurobiologists have yet to determine how such a negative system of operation might be adaptive, but they marvel over the acute sensitivity possible in rod cells. Apparently rod cells are excellent amplifiers. A single photon (unit of light) can produce a detectable electrical signal in the retina, and the human brain can actually “see” a cluster of five photons—a small point of light, indeed (Ferl and Wallace 1996, p. 611).
The blind spot does not reduce vision quality for several reasons. One is that each eye sees a slightly different visual field, and a large area overlaps. Although each eye has a blind spot caused by the hole in the retina where the optic nerve (the axons and ganglion cells) passes through in order to travel to the brain, this blind spot falls on a different place in each retina (He and Davis 2001). The information from both eyes is then combined so that these visual blind spots are not normally perceived. As a result, because the other eye fills in the gap, special tests are normally required to even notice it. This system not only eliminates flaws but also produces the binocular visual field that is required to produce stereovision. The blind spot is close to 5° in diameter and is located about 15° from the fovea on the temporal side of the visual space (He and Davis 2001, p. 835).
The degree of correction by the brain is so great that it can invert the entire image. Light rays from an object in the temporal half of the visual field that faces away from the nose will fall in the nasal half of the retina, and, conversely, light rays from an object in the nasal half of the visual field will fall on the temporal half of the retina. This optically inverts the image, such as what occurs when a 35 mm slide is projected on a screen by a slide projector. Also, light rays at the top of the visual field strike the inferior portion of the retina, and those at the bottom of the visual field are projected on the superior portion of the retina, again inverting the image. Both the left-right and up-down reversal must be corrected by the brain.
The binocular system would be important even if the blind spot did not exist because it corrects for shadows, dirt on one’s glasses, floaters in the eyeball, and other imperfections. Actually the major blind spot is the visual blockage created by the nose, as can easily be seen when one closes one eye. One eye also sees a crescent shaped peripheral monocular visual field that the other eye cannot see, and the same will occur on the opposite side with the opposite eye. Furthermore, filling-in the natural blind spot contributes to binocular rivalry, the necessary slight differences between the two images to form a single three-dimensional image from two slightly different images (He and Davis 2001, p. 835).
Information received by the brain must be extensively processed in other ways as well. The eye itself does not correct for chromatic aberration, the failure of a lens to focus all colors to the same convergence point. Thus the “image painted” on the retina is “actually rather badly affected by spurious color, and most of the sorting-out is done by the human brain” (Watson 2004, p. 140). This complex operation involves at least three separate systems located in the cerebral cortex, each with a specific function. One system processes information related to shape, another regarding color, and a third processes information about movement, location, and spatial organization of objects. The optical design of the vertebrate eye “approaches optima predicted from physics,” and in the real world
The blind spot, and poor retina design claims in general, are often raised by neo-Darwinists to argue against intelligent design (Peet 1999; Sarfati 1998, p. 33; Wieland 1996). Ainsworth and LePage call it the most famous flaw which is “a mistake whichever way you look at” it (Ainsworth and LePage 2007, p. 28). A review of research on the vertebrate retina indicates that the existing inverted design in vertebrates is superior to the verted design, even the system used by the most advanced cephalopods. New research has discovered that the retina has a complex neurological feedback system that improves contrast and sharpens edges without sacrificing shadow detail. (Jackman et al. 2011). As a result, the human eye is superior to a camera at simultaneously capturing contrast while at the same time picking up faint details. Its design has been maximized for life in our environment and would no doubt function poorly in another environment such as that experienced by undersea bottom dwellers. The blind spot does not, even to a minor degree, interfere with vision effectiveness. This review supports Hamilton’s conclusion that
instead of being a great disadvantage, or a “curse” or being incorrectly constructed, the inverted retina is a tremendous advance in function and design compared with the simple and less complicated verted arrangement. One problem amongst many, for evolutionists, is to explain how this abrupt major retinal transformation from the verted type in invertebrates to the inverted vertebrate model came about as nothing in paleontology offers any support. (Hamilton 1985, p. 63)
https://answersingenesis.org/human-body/eyes/the-human-retina-shows-evidence-of-good-design/
15 May 15
Originally posted by Proper KnobI said flaws were introduced due to evolution if that is a flaw yes, if it isn't no.
Let me get this straight, you think the 'blind spot' found in the human eye, and all vertebrates for that matter, is something which has only happened in the last few thousand years as a result of evolution?
15 May 15
Originally posted by KellyJay1. How does one decide whether or not it is a flaw?
I said flaws were introduced due to evolution if that is a flaw yes, if it isn't no.
2. Given that all invertebrates have it, did all invertebrates devolve in exactly the same way for some reason?
3. If it is a flaw, how did evolution manage to introduce it given that it is a major structural change and you don't believe evolution is capable of such?
Originally posted by twhiteheadI believe he had backed away from the so-called blind spot as being a flaw and is speaking mainly of human color blindness, night blindness, and blindness in general.
1. How does one decide whether or not it is a flaw?
2. Given that all invertebrates have it, did all invertebrates devolve in exactly the same way for some reason?
3. If it is a flaw, how did evolution manage to introduce it given that it is a major structural change and you don't believe evolution is capable of such?
15 May 15
Originally posted by KellyJayWhat you are proposing here contradicts your previous views you have expressed on evolution. If we just take the blind-spot we as humans and all other vertebrates have, then that leaves you with a few problems.
I said flaws were introduced due to evolution if that is a flaw yes, if it isn't no.
Firstly, for a human to have had 'perfect' eye which degenerates into an eye with a blind-spot requires major structural change of the eye mechanism. The notion that this has all happened in the last few thousand years is implausible. Add to that the notion that ALL vertebrates have undergone the same process in the same time span is now beyond implausible. That's just the blind spot, when we take into consideration that photoreceptor cells in the eye are misplaced, blood vessels block the entering of light into the eye and others such design flaws we can see that they eye, as according to you, has undergone massive structural changes. All this in the last few thousand years.
All this doesn't even take into account colour blindness and all the factors which cause the condition. Some of the inherited diseases known to cause color blindness are:
cone dystrophy
cone-rod dystrophy
achromatopsia (a.k.a. rod monochromatism, stationary cone dystrophy or cone dysfunction syndrome)
blue cone monochromatism (a.k.a. blue cone monochromacy or X-linked Achromatopsia)
Leber's congenital amaurosis
retinitis pigmentosa (initially affects rods but can later progress to cones and therefore color blindness).
What you are proposing is implausible, and contradicts your previous claims on evolution.
15 May 15
Originally posted by Proper Knob🙂 This is all just some hypothesis the distant past is out of our reach. You and I both can
What you are proposing here contradicts your previous views you have expressed on evolution. If we just take the blind-spot we as humans and all other vertebrates have, then that leaves you with a few problems.
Firstly, for a human to have had 'perfect' eye which degenerates into an eye with a blind-spot requires major structural change of the eye me ...[text shortened]... s).
What you are proposing is implausible, and contradicts your previous claims on evolution.
talk about what we think happen and why and all that is really going on is our opinions
are being expressed. I acknowledge I could be completely wrong about this, more than a
few of those debating just accept their own opinions and those of others as if they were
facts. I don't know if the blind spot is really a flaw, for all I know it is there for a very valid
reason we don't know yet.
I'd say your point about all vertebrates having the same issue, is very valid.