jmdrake_98 at yahoo.com (jmdrake) wrote:
> Actually Bernd there is an "obvious reason" to do this. The extra layers
> of non-sensitive cells that the light must pass through before reaching
> the sensitive cells acts like a "filter" to protect from UV radiation.
> That's such a concern that human "engineers" have devised UV blocking
> sunglasses to further block potentially damaging rays. The eyes of the
> squid work fine under water where the water itself serves to filter out
> extra rays. You're going off of the misconception that squid eyes
> are somehow "better". They might be "better" for their enviornment
> but they'd be a disaster on land. Nice try though.
I just love this habit of Scientific Creationists of making up the
science. Light, to reach the back of the eye, has to pass through the
rest of the eye, millions of times as thick. Given a choice of a one
cell layer deep UV filter, or a synovial(sp?) fluid chosen for its
(very modest, with that much pathlength in which to work) UV filtering
capabilities, which do you suppose an Intelligent (as opposed to "made
up out of whole cloth") Designer would have chosen?
The squid lucked out and evolved it done right, but the luck of blind
evolution was less on the side of the mammals. End of story. Were
there a Designer, the panda would have a real thumb, as has been
famously noted, and which also should be in and of itself evidence
enough to be more than sufficient to quash such idiocy as "Intelligent
Note also that were there a Designer, the chambered nautilus would
have an eye equally capable with the squids', being fairly closely
related and having similar needs for a moderately similar lifestyle.
Instead, it has a "pinhole camera"-style eye. If there were a
Designer, apparently the "Intelligent" aspect faded in and out pretty
often, a total contradiction to claims of omniscience and