Jerry Avins jya at ieee.org
Thu Dec 12 17:44:24 EST 2002

"Richard S. Norman" wrote:
> >
> If you are trying to make an evolutionary argument, fish are certainly
> relevant.  The human eye is the primate eye is the mammalian eye is
> the tetrapod eye is the vertebrate eye.  There are all the same basic
> design.  It was the fish who built it backwards!  (Well, not modern
> fish, but aquatic chordates nonetheless.)

> The cephalopod eye is simply an example of a complex, camera eye
> that is build "properly", with the light first striking the receptor
> cells.  It is used to demonstrate that, if there are two ways to do
> something, nature will try both regarless of which is supposedly
> "superior".

I think that's too glib. I assume that there is at least one possible
alternative which has never been realized.

Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list