Eye design

Dr. Clint Hoxie, O.D. dochoxie at hotmail.com
Mon Dec 30 18:13:51 EST 2002


in article v7%N9.11507$p_6.910913 at bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net,
Kenneth 'pawl' Collins at k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net wrote on 12/24/02
9:33 AM:

> I expect the difference has more to do with the difference in
> motion-correlated G-forces experienced.
> 
> On land, the eyes are 'hammered' with every step one takes [shock
> wave absorption is a necessity].
> 
> Anyway, I find evolutionary dynamics to have their own
> 'intelligence' in that they 'read' the environment, and converge
> upon functionality that works in that environment.
> 
> It's why one has to be careful when attempting to cross-correlate
> the products of evolutionary 'engineering' with respect to
> different environments.
> 
> Unless there's non-modal stuff in there, both are 'intelligent',
> but only with respect to the environments in which their
> progenitors have evolved.
> 
> The rest of the "creationism/evolution" 'debate' is just folks
> being prejudiced with respect to that which, through experience,
> they've become familiar.
> 
> k. p. collins
> 
> Kent Paul Dolan wrote in message ...
> |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
> |Design".
> |
> |xanthian.
> |
> |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
> |omnitemporalness.
> 
> 
To make your argument more accurate, xanthian, you would need to replace the
word "Designer" with the phrase "Designer who thinks just like me".

There are numerous advantages to every design feature of every creature on
the planet.  They don't all make sense to you, perhaps, because you make
inaccurate assumptions as to their purposes.
-- 
Clint Hoxie, OD
Overland Park, KS

Neuro-Developmental Vision Care
Pediatric/Behavioral/Functional Vision Care

DocHoxie at hotmail.com







More information about the Neur-sci mailing list