Creation vs. Evolution

[niky]

Even some scientist disagree with Dawkins poor design arguments since it an unproven assumption instead of looking for the reasons for RLN. They have already learn our eyes are "design" that way for a reason.

Name a scientist with a degree in bioengineering or biology who actually says that our eyes are "well-designed".

Our eyes are, frankly, garbage. Require constant lubrication, improperly wired, giving us a blind spot... hell... if you have to have the nerve comign through the inside, you could put it somewhere else, so it doesn't take the place of much needed rods and cones... the lens is prone to damage or distortion... night vision is poor... we can't see in certain ultraviolet or infrared wavelengths, which would be useful when hunting or gathering...

As amazing as our eyes are, they could've been a whole lot better.

 

[Ophiochus]

Name a scientist with a degree in bioengineering or biology who actually says that our eyes are "well-designed".

Our eyes are, frankly, garbage. Require constant lubrication, improperly wired, giving us a blind spot... hell... if you have to have the nerve comign through the inside, you could put it somewhere else, so it doesn't take the place of much needed rods and cones... the lens is prone to damage or distortion... night vision is poor... we can't see in certain ultraviolet or infrared wavelengths, which would be useful when hunting or gathering...

As amazing as our eyes are, they could've been a whole lot better.

Except that we can see in the first place. Look at moles, or snakes, or sharks. We have developed eyes because that is what we evolved into.

Besides, our evolution stopped AT LEAST 5000 years ago. if we hadnt become the animal we now, we may have grown long ears, sharp claws and no boobies(for example).

 

[niky]

Except that we can see in the first place. Look at moles, or snakes, or sharks. We have developed eyes because that is what we evolved into.

Besides, our evolution stopped AT LEAST 5000 years ago. if we hadnt become the animal we now, we may have grown long ears, sharp claws and no boobies(for example).

We can see. But we can only see well enough for the purposes our eyes were originally used for... for modern purposes... it wouldn't hurt to have 20/10 vision more prevalent, as it is, we have too many people who so near-sighted, they're almost blind.

-

Our evolution hasn't stopped. All you need is a population that is stable and isolated enough that needs to evolve, and it will:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/20/science/20adapt.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

There is, however, evidence that we are still evolving... and maybe evolving faster.

 

[arora]

We can see. But we can only see well enough for the purposes our eyes were originally used for... for modern purposes... it wouldn't hurt to have 20/10 vision more prevalent, as it is, we have too many people who so near-sighted, they're almost blind.

Perhaps, we have evolved our near sightedness to use specifically on the interweb.

 

[TankAss95]

Perhaps, we have evolved our near sightedness to use specifically on the interweb.

De homine nerdus.

 

[Zoom!Zoom!]

Name a scientist with a degree in bioengineering or biology who actually says that our eyes are "well-designed".

Name a scientist who can create a better eye using such low wattage. Man-made devices are very wasteful. Man-made devices fills up the landfills while your eye and other body parts are totally recycled back to the earth.

Our eyes are, frankly, garbage. Require constant lubrication, improperly wired, giving us a blind spot... hell... if you have to have the nerve comign through the inside, you could put it somewhere else, so it doesn't take the place of much needed rods and cones... the lens is prone to damage or distortion... night vision is poor... we can't see in certain ultraviolet or infrared wavelengths, which would be useful when hunting or gathering...

As amazing as our eyes are, they could've been a whole lot better.

Even the Darwin video I linked pointed out there is no blind spot since your eye slightly move. Also the eyes are an extension of the brain which are designed to continually move so the brain can create a 3D view around you. In another word you don't see what your eye sees you see the 3D view your brain creates. (This is why talking on a cell phone while driving is dangerous. It discovered that your eyes move less while on the phone which means your brain isn't getting the update information that require to recreate the 3d world around the person.)
All designs are prone to damage since the natural laws are trying to destroy them. Put up a stone wall and with time nature will destroy it. All designs have their limits.

The body plan including the eyes are compressed into a single cell. MP3 player (now smart phones) have replaced the CD players not because they have better sound but because you are able to compress so many songs into a small space. MP3 music is compressed while CD are uncompressed. CD players was on the market before MP3 since MP3 required more advance technology. I think MP3 is a superior design than the CD player which I hardly ever touch. I even prefer MP3 over CD in my car.

For the most part laptops replace desktops , smart phones replace laptops but when it comes to raw power (like to play the latest PC games) desktops beats them both. Yet desktop sales are poor compared to smart phones and laptops.

 

[wfooshee]

Yeah, that's just bunk. You went from a completely incorrect desription of human vision to total irrelevance with music players and PCs.

There IS a blind spot, but you are not conscious of it. You're not conscious of it because you've never seen anything through the bllind spot. It doesn't seem as if anything's missing because nothing's ever been there. It's easy to go online and find a pattern you can use to demonstrate the blind spot.

As for "extension of the brain," the success of the eye comes from the extremely short length of the optical nerve. Nerves aren't wires, they don't carry impulses at the speed of light. Rather amazing that the most successful adaptation for all of our major senses involves minimal distance from the brain. Eyes in your shoulders might give you better stereo vision, but having a rock hit you before the brain registers its approach would not be a successful adaptation.....

3D does not come from eye motion, it comes from having two eyes. Cover one eye and move the other all you want; you have a 2D picture of the world, with no depth.

Talking on a cell phone while driving is dangerous because you're not paying attention to driving. Which, incidentally, is also why your eyes move less. Cause and effect, not effect and cause.

And you insist on discussing the "design" of the eye, by comparing to the design of modern electronic devices. A better comparison would be to find a modern device that developed by itself over time, perhaps by adapting successfully to consumer demand for more stuff in less space. But since CD players and MP3 players don't reproduce and have their offspring compete in their habitats, that's not a choice available to you.

 

[Blaze_409]

I dont know if thsi has much to do with the topic but I have always been astounded by how we humans even came to existence one way or another. Think about it. Having taken Bio courses etc and seeing how intricate DNA, bodily processes etc are. wtf of a catastrophe perfectly engineered the creation of life and mankind. Like what are the odds that life forms get created. It almost makes me believe there are other life forms out there. If it happened by what ever means on earth . Why not somewhere else in the Galaxy. Creepy isn't it?

 

[Zoom!Zoom!]

Yeah, that's just bunk. You went from a completely incorrect desription of human vision to total irrelevance with music players and PCs.

There IS a blind spot, but you are not conscious of it. You're not conscious of it because you've never seen anything through the bllind spot. It doesn't seem as if anything's missing because nothing's ever been there. It's easy to go online and find a pattern you can use to demonstrate the blind spot.

Note that every single exercise to detect this blind spot requires you to close one eye and keep the other eye still by looking at one spot (like looking down a rifle). This is like pointing out if you look through a scope of a rifle you can't see nothing around you. A scope has a huge blind spot.

As for "extension of the brain," the success of the eye comes from the extremely short length of the optical nerve. Nerves aren't wires, they don't carry impulses at the speed of light. Rather amazing that the most successful adaptation for all of our major senses involves minimal distance from the brain. Eyes in your shoulders might give you better stereo vision, but having a rock hit you before the brain registers its approach would not be a successful adaptation.....

3D does not come from eye motion, it comes from having two eyes. Cover one eye and move the other all you want; you have a 2D picture of the world, with no depth.

I'm referring to the 3D world around you that is created by your brain. The 3D image is also create by the brain.

Talking on a cell phone while driving is dangerous because you're not paying attention to driving. Which, incidentally, is also why your eyes move less. Cause and effect, not effect and cause.

Eye movement is extremely important when it comes to driving and is done without thinking about it. So someone driving and talk on a cell phone is not aware their eyes are moving less.

And you insist on discussing the "design" of the eye, by comparing to the design of modern electronic devices. A better comparison would be to find a modern device that developed by itself over time, perhaps by adapting successfully to consumer demand for more stuff in less space. But since CD players and MP3 players don't reproduce and have their offspring compete in their habitats, that's not a choice available to you.

You missed my point. Just because MP3 music is not at the same quality as CD is not a sign it's a bad design.

 

[Scaff]

ZoomZoom

How about instead of going off on pointless tangents you actually answer the questions you have been avoiding for close to three weeks?

What about snowflakes? And what so complex about Sahara desert? Living cells have machines, runs on a power source (ATP) and uses a code. What machine can you make out of snowflakes? What about using snowflakes as a energy source?

I do not believe our eyes or RLN is poor design. Even some scientist disagree with Dawkins poor design arguments since it an unproven assumption instead of looking for the reasons for RLN. They have already learn our eyes are "design" that way for a reason.

Sorry, but does any remote chance at all exist that you will actually bother to answer the questions I have directly asked of you? Edited - I've even added a new one for you.

Now in addition to my existing question (that you continue to refuse to answer) I ask the following:

1. Why did your designer not use a single effective eye across the board?
2. Why his/her children didn't get the best design?
3. Given that you say "our eyes are "design" that way for a reason" could you explain why we have a blind spot?
4. and once again what is the design function behind the route of the RLN?

Or do you simply intend to keep ignoring them?


Oh and.....

Even some scientist disagree with Dawkins poor design arguments since it an unproven assumption instead of looking for the reasons for RLN

Source please as 'some scientist' is more than a bit vague.

 

[Zoom!Zoom!]

Now in addition to my existing question (that you continue to refuse to answer) I ask the following:

Why did your designer not use a single effective eye across the board?
Why his/her children didn't get the best design?
Given that you say "our eyes are "design" that way for a reason" could you explain why we have a blind spot?
and once again what is the design function behind the route of the RLN?

1) I don't know "WHY" even human designers design things the way they do. I do have some "Why" questions to ask my Creator but that's not one of them.
2) Which is best MP3 or CD player? Xbox360, PS3 or PC? Ford or Chevrolet? Thousands of threads on the internet debating which is the best.
3) if you keep both eyes open there is no blind spot.
4) Scientist are continually learning so as they discover more about the body plans they will find the answer.

 

[wfooshee]

Note that every single exercise to detect this blind spot requires you to close one eye and keep the other eye still by looking at one spot (like looking down a rifle). This is like pointing out if you look through a scope of a rifle you can't see nothing around you. A scope has a huge blind spot.

Just wow. Closing one eye and looking at exactly the right point, so the point on the blind spot disappears, is exactly how to demonstrate the blind spot. You can only do it one eye at a time, because the other eye sees the item on the blind spot, and your brain processes it as visible. This fact shows both that the blind spot exists, but that it's not a factor in actual vision, unless you lose an eye.

I'm referring to the 3D world around you that is created by your brain. The 3D image is also create by the brain.

What you said was that 3D perception is created by eye movement, which is patently incorrect. Depth perception results from the brain's interpretation of the slightly different images from each eye. Yes, the brain performs the interpretation, but your eyes don't have to be moving to get 3D. You do have to have both eyes, though; no 3D if you lose an eye.

Eye movement is extremely important when it comes to driving and is done without thinking about it. So someone driving and talk on a cell phone is not aware their eyes are moving less.

Situational awareness is what's important while driving, which comes from conscious scans of the field of vision, not from random flittering of the eyes.

You missed my point. Just because MP3 music is not at the same quality as CD is not a sign it's a bad design.

Well, obviously I did miss your point, because you said nothing like that at all, not even accounting for the total irrelevance to evolution science.

Thank you for actually trying to address my points, though. Now maybe you can go back to those mentioned just a couple of posts ago....

 

[Encyclopedia]

Note that every single exercise to detect this blind spot requires you to close one eye and keep the other eye still by looking at one spot (like looking down a rifle).

False. You can keep both eyes open and still detect it. There's a test in my old driving school book where there's a dot on one page (or several I can' quite remember) and you move the book to and from your face (not focusing on the dot obviously) and at a certain point the dot disappears.

 

[Scaff]

1) I don't know "WHY" even human designers design things the way they do. I do have some "Why" questions to ask my Creator but that's not one of them.

I'm not asking about human designers, so stop changing the subject. I'm asking about your infallible designer and the problem here is that you can't answer that question with ID. Unsurprisingly the reason why a range of different eyes exist is explained well with Evolution.

2) Which is best MP3 or CD player? Xbox360, PS3 or PC? Ford or Chevrolet? Thousands of threads on the internet debating which is the best.

Once again you haven't actually answered the question and once again its because you can't with ID; and again Evolution can.

3) if you keep both eyes open there is no blind spot.

Why are you answering a totally different question to the one I asked? I quite clearly asked why we have a blind spot according to ID, I'm still waiting for your answer (oh and again Evolution can answer why we have a blind spot - ID can't).

4) Scientist are continually learning so as they discover more about the body plans they will find the answer.

Science already offers a perfectly valid reason as to why the route exists and its not to serve a purpose but as a result of Evolution (and I'm still wiating on the names of those scientists).

So to sum up of four questions I asked, you have failed to actually answer a simple one of them. Evolution can answer all of them, yet you still dismiss it out of hand.

The simple issue here is that you are not approaching this from a scientific viewpoint at all, but from one who is simply ignoring the evidence around you and retorting with 'God made it that way' or 'science with find the answer (that matches what I want) one day'.

 

[Zoom!Zoom!]

Just wow. Closing one eye and looking at exactly the right point, so the point on the blind spot disappears, is exactly how to demonstrate the blind spot. You can only do it one eye at a time, because the other eye sees the item on the blind spot, and your brain processes it as visible. This fact shows both that the blind spot exists, but that it's not a factor in actual vision, unless you lose an eye.

Eyes are design to work in unison so there are no blind spot with two eyes open.

What you said was that 3D perception is created by eye movement, which is patently incorrect. Depth perception results from the brain's interpretation of the slightly different images from each eye. Yes, the brain performs the interpretation, but your eyes don't have to be moving to get 3D. You do have to have both eyes, though; no 3D if you lose an eye.

I'm referring to the 3D world your brain creates. While you can see movies and games in 3D it's not the same as the 3D environment recreation of the brain. They are trying find ways for computers to do the same thing yet it's requires a lot of processing.

Why are you answering a totally different question to the one I asked? I quite clearly asked why we have a blind spot according to ID, I'm still waiting for your answer (oh and again Evolution can answer why we have a blind spot - ID can't).
.

The Intelligent design answer is to keep both eyes open so there is no blind spot.
Oh the evolution answer is everything is the result of "trial and error" but even super computers are limited of what can be found through trial and error programs.
The problem with evolution story is the eye wired one way had to be totally rewired in one generation or the eye would become useless. Where is the evidence the show it's possible to rewire the eye in one step? Is there an example of an eye half wired one way and half wired another?

 

[Exorcet]

The Intelligent design answer is to keep both eyes open so there is no blind spot.

Until an intelligently designed tree branch pokes one eye out and leaves a blind spot, which wouldn't happen with a properly designed eye that has no blind spot.

Oh the evolution answer is everything is the result of "trial and error" but even super computers are limited of what can be found through trial and error programs.

Actually Evolution doesn't support trial and error, but natural selection.

Speaking of computers:

 

[wfooshee]

Eyes are design to work in unison so there are no blind spot with two eyes open.

No. Eyes were not designed to do anything, as they weren't designed, period. They have developed with binocular vision being the most successful for hunter species, with natural selection bringing binocular vision to the most successful hunters, i.e. those that survived to carry the trait through their descendants. Yet you still ignore the question of why design an eye with the receptor cable in the middle of the sensor field. Why isn't the optic nerve off to the side and out of the way?

I'm referring to the 3D world your brain creates. While you can see movies and games in 3D it's not the same as the 3D environment recreation of the brain. They are trying find ways for computers to do the same thing yet it's requires a lot of processing.

My brain doesn't "create" a 3D world. The world is 3D. I just happen to be a member of a species which has developed binocular vision, allowing me to have depth perception. My brain interprets my vision with depth perception as a 3D environment. The EXACT SAME THING happens when you use glasses to view a 3D movie or TV. The brain receives slightly different perspectives from each eye and interprets the 3D field of view being represented, giving depth perception.

The difference from real-world to film or TV is the fact that the source is a flat screen, so you can't move to one side and look around something.

Which still has nothing to do with blind spots, or your incorrect notion that eye motion produces the 3D interpretation.

The Intelligent design answer is to keep both eyes open so there is no blind spot.

There is still a blind spot. Why? Our lack of perception of it means nothing, it's still there and can be demonstrated. Not being aware of it is like a deaf person not being aware of sound. We've never missed what we might see without the blind spot, the same as a born-deaf person doesn't miss sound. So, why should there be an intentional hole in our megapixels??? If our eyes were designed, it wouldn't be there.

 

[corporatesteve]

and also the fact that it takes our eyes 30 mins to adjust to darkness where we can only use our rods for visual detection. We also get hypoxia faster at higher altitudes at night because our eyes use more oxygen on top of the density altitude problems we face.

 

[Zoom!Zoom!]

No. Eyes were not designed to do anything, as they weren't designed, period. They have developed with binocular vision being the most successful for hunter species, with natural selection bringing binocular vision to the most successful hunters, i.e. those that survived to carry the trait through their descendants. Yet you still ignore the question of why design an eye with the receptor cable in the middle of the sensor field. Why isn't the optic nerve off to the side and out of the way?

This is a statement of faith which I disagree. I do believe that future science will provide these "why" the eye is designed the way it is.

My brain doesn't "create" a 3D world. The world is 3D. I just happen to be a member of a species which has developed binocular vision, allowing me to have depth perception. My brain interprets my vision with depth perception as a 3D environment. The EXACT SAME THING happens when you use glasses to view a 3D movie or TV. The brain receives slightly different perspectives from each eye and interprets the 3D field of view being represented, giving depth perception.

The brain create it's own 3D world is something scientist on TV have talk about and trying to reproduce on computers. Just like the brain fills in the missing information when you do one of those blind spot test your brain is doing the exact same thing 360 degrees around you.

There is still a blind spot. Why? Our lack of perception of it means nothing, it's still there and can be demonstrated. Not being aware of it is like a deaf person not being aware of sound. We've never missed what we might see without the blind spot, the same as a born-deaf person doesn't miss sound. So, why should there be an intentional hole in our megapixels???

If you can see in that spot then it's not a blind spot. It's only a blind spot to those with only one eye.

 

[Scaff]

The Intelligent design answer is to keep both eyes open so there is no blind spot.

So you acknowledge that the infallible creator is nothing of the sort, otherwise the blind spot would not exist (as it serves no purpose).

Oh and you still haven't answered my question.

Oh the evolution answer is everything is the result of "trial and error" but even super computers are limited of what can be found through trial and error programs.

Do you ever stop with the nonsense analogies?

The problem with evolution story is the eye wired one way had to be totally rewired in one generation or the eye would become useless. Where is the evidence the show it's possible to rewire the eye in one step? Is there an example of an eye half wired one way and half wired another?

What on earth are you blathering on about now? At what point has any part of evolution stated that such an event has either needed to occur or has occurred. The various evolutionary paths that have lead to eyes are well documented, what you are pulling out (in place of actual answers to questions) is Creationist nonsense.

 

[Exorcet]

This is a statement of faith which I disagree. I do believe that future science will provide these "why" the eye is designed the way it is.

Faith is people blindly following things, so it's not faith.

 

[wfooshee]

This is a statement of faith which I disagree.

No, it's a statement backed up by all the science you care to examine. Do not ever again tell me I'm giving you a statement of "faith."

The evolution of the eye, and some species having binocular vision (two eyes facing forward) and others having nearly 360-degree vision (one eye on each side of the head) is well-documented in the fossil record, and easily observable in living species. Hunters have depth perception. Prey animals have better all-around coverage. These priorities were not designed in, they've resulted from the success of these traits surviving by selection.

This is NOT A BELIEF SYSTEM, it's knowledge, gleaned by observation, backed by evidence, reviewed by peers, and documented through the entire process.

Faith is people blindly following things, so it's not faith.

He said "blind." Heh. Heh-heh. Ha.

 

[homeforsummer]

I do believe that future science will provide these "why" the eye is designed the way it is.

Then you'll be waiting a while, as that isn't how science works. We already know why the eye is the way it is (and it's not "designed", for the umpteenth time), but it's as a result of the "how".

At this point, I'll reintroduce an old post of mine on the eye. I'd be intrigued to hear what you think of it:

Has an eye always been an eye? No, of course not. In very early creatures it was likely just a simple light/dark receptor. The creatures who could more accurately make out light and dark survived over those that couldn't. Then the ones that could discern shapes outwit those that could only tell light from dark. Those that could see depth outwit those that could only sense shapes. Those that could focus outwit those that could only see depth.

Every single thing in our bodies will have had an evolutionary past. An organ doesn't necessarily have to be a whole organ in order to work.

No design. Just a formation of cells that has developed in line with our ancestors' ability to survive, as mutations make some lines more effective at dealing with their surroundings than others.

The only possible answer to "why" the eye is the way it is, is that it's the one we've been left with as a result of evolution. There is no designed-in purpose.

Unless of course you'd like to explain why God has given me eyes that are unable to clearly discern objects more than about seven inches from my cornea without the use of corrective glasses? If the eye is "designed" a certain way, why do mine not work properly? And indeed, why do some people's eyes not work at all?

 

[tlowr4]

^ Your eye issue is the result of mankind being imperfect, from my pov. Being one for creation, and the whole deal of Adam and Even sinning in the Garden of Eden, from then on man has been imperfect. As a result of that, we are all imperfect. We all age, die, and sickness surrounds us.

However, I'd like to make a point which is a little off what's being discussed at the moment, and more on a broad spectrum of the convosation. Personally, and this is something I've been thinking about for a while, I have thoughts that although God made mankind and the world, universe, etc, I think to some degree he has designed life to evolve to adapt to the way things will change. This isn't fully pledged evolution, we known from the Bible that God created everything, but I believe that he has used evolution to a small extent, to allow animals and creatures of the past, present, and in the future, to adapt to their changing lifestyle and habitat. I mean, he'd have to have made it that way. The way that mankind is driving the earth into ruins, it's not like he can put the world on hold and redesign an animal because... say for example a small animal that only lives in a certain area of the world, in a certain type of tree. These tree's might have become extinct, so what are they going to do? Naturally, they'll adapt and evolve over years to work better with the new environment they have to work in. God can't just, stop time and recode/remake the entire species. So, therefore, it must have been designed in the first place to combat what it will have to face in the course of it's lifetime, and the lifetime of the species.

Just something I've been pondering.

 

[Scaff]

^ Your eye issue is the result of mankind being imperfect, from my pov. Being one for creation, and the whole deal of Adam and Even sinning in the Garden of Eden, from then on man has been imperfect. As a result of that, we are all imperfect. We all age, die, and sickness surrounds us.

So man (and woman) had perfect eyes, ate a bit of fruit and then had imperfect eyes?

All the while the octopus got eyes that don't have one of the weakness' that human eyes have?

However, I'd like to make a point which is a little off what's being discussed at the moment, and more on a broad spectrum of the convosation. Personally, and this is something I've been thinking about for a while, I have thoughts that although God made mankind and the world, universe, etc, I think to some degree he has designed life to evolve to adapt to the way things will change. This isn't fully pledged evolution, we known from the Bible that God created everything, but I believe that he has used evolution to a small extent, to allow animals and creatures of the past, present, and in the future, to adapt to their changing lifestyle and habitat. I mean, he'd have to have made it that way. The way that mankind is driving the earth into ruins, it's not like he can put the world on hold and redesign an animal because... say for example a small animal that only lives in a certain area of the world, in a certain type of tree. These tree's might have become extinct, so what are they going to do? Naturally, they'll adapt and evolve over years to work better with the new environment they have to work in. God can't just, stop time and recode/remake the entire species. So, therefore, it must have been designed in the first place to combat what it will have to face in the course of it's lifetime, and the lifetime of the species.

Just something I've been pondering.

Why can't God put the world on hold? He's God.

Why can't God just change a species? After all he just 'made' them in the first place.

Why didn't he/she foresee what would happen with the Earth and design all creatures correctly to begin with? He/She is after all God.

No 'design' exists within this, no hand of an outside 'creator' simply the result of evolution at work.

 

[niky]

Unfortunately, Genesis is mum about any physical changes beyond the removal of immortality and immunity to sickness that resulted from the fall of man. And the imperfection of the eye is morphological. Which can't be caused by disease.

Name a scientist who can create a better eye using such low wattage. Man-made devices are very wasteful. Man-made devices fills up the landfills while your eye and other body parts are totally recycled back to the earth.

That devices made by intelligence are not as efficient as devices made by nature proves nature is made by intelligence? Watchu' sayin', Willis?

Even the Darwin video I linked pointed out there is no blind spot since your eye slightly move. Also the eyes are an extension of the brain which are designed to continually move so the brain can create a 3D view around you. In another word you don't see what your eye sees you see the 3D view your brain creates. (This is why talking on a cell phone while driving is dangerous. It discovered that your eyes move less while on the phone which means your brain isn't getting the update information that require to recreate the 3d world around the person.)

So the fact that our brains have to make up for the shortcomings of our eyes is a good thing? Our eyes are so bad that merely avoiding cellphone use is not enough. We have to consciously scan the road every five seconds, or our internal picture of the outside world starts to become incomplete.

That's why so many otherwise observant drivers collide with motorcycles. They are practically invisible unless you're looking straight at them.

All designs are prone to damage since the natural laws are trying to destroy them. Put up a stone wall and with time nature will destroy it. All designs have their limits.

The body plan including the eyes are compressed into a single cell. MP3 player (now smart phones) have replaced the CD players not because they have better sound but because you are able to compress so many songs into a small space. MP3 music is compressed while CD are uncompressed. CD players was on the market before MP3 since MP3 required more advance technology. I think MP3 is a superior design than the CD player which I hardly ever touch. I even prefer MP3 over CD in my car.

For the most part laptops replace desktops , smart phones replace laptops but when it comes to raw power (like to play the latest PC games) desktops beats them both. Yet desktop sales are poor compared to smart phones and laptops.

As fascinating as storage density is, doesn't really have anything to do with anything.

 

[Zoom!Zoom!]

So man (and woman) had perfect eyes, ate a bit of fruit and then had imperfect eyes?

All the while the octopus got eyes that don't have one of the weakness' that human eyes have?

Octopus eyes are terrible if you want to see sharp images. Octopus eyes are design to see patterns of movement but not design to read a book or watch TV.
Laptop and smart phones are perfect mobile devices while desktop are not. Desktop uses a lot more power (just like the human eye compared to octopus eye) which is ideal when it comes to serious PC gaming. Laptops are perfect for my wife while I prefer desktops.

So the fact that our brains have to make up for the shortcomings of our eyes is a good thing? Our eyes are so bad that merely avoiding cellphone use is not enough. We have to consciously scan the road every five seconds, or our internal picture of the outside world starts to become incomplete.

That's why so many otherwise observant drivers collide with motorcycles. They are practically invisible unless you're looking straight at them.

There is nothing wrong with our eyes but our brain are designed to filter out a lot of information so you can focus on what you want and ignore what you don't. People with autism often have trouble filtering things out. There are advantages of seeing with your brain instead of your eyes.

Then you'll be waiting a while, as that isn't how science works. We already know why the eye is the way it is (and it's not "designed", for the umpteenth time), but it's as a result of the "how".

You came to conclusion it's not designed without first learning how it could evolve. Is this how your science works? We are learning more of why the eye are designed the way they are. For example in the human eye the RPE cells requires a large blood supply which they have in the back of the retina.
I do agree with Dawkins that man would never designed the inverted retina because of the limit of our knowledge.

 

[wfooshee]

We are learning more of why the eye are designed the way they are.

No, no, no, no, no, no, no!

We are learning more about how the eye evolved to the what it is today.

You rather ignored homeforsummer's question, along with so many others. Deflection of the discussion when you have no idea what to say is not a contribution to the discussion.

I do agree with Dawkins that man would never designed the inverted retina because of the limit of our knowledge.

Rather difficult to avoid simple physics. A lens inverts the image. Period.

Laptop and smart phones are perfect mobile devices while desktop are not. Desktop uses a lot more power (just like the human eye compared to octopus eye) which is ideal when it comes to serious PC gaming. Laptops are perfect for my wife while I prefer desktops.

And again, you're just making stuff up hoping we'll buy into it because it sounds cool. Um, you have a reference for how much "power" a human eye and an octopus eye consume??? Huh? Do ya? And maybe some way to tie it in to the actual discussion at hand?

 

[Scaff]

Octopus eyes are terrible if you want to see sharp images. Octopus eyes are design to see patterns of movement but not design to read a book or watch TV.

The inability of an Octopus to read or watch TV has nothing to do with design and everything to do with Evolution.

None of which changes the very, very simple fact that an Octopus eye does not have one of the basic failings that the human eye has, namely the blind spot.

What you have still avoided answering is exactly what the design reason behind the blind spot is. All you have done is evade the question.....

Laptop and smart phones are perfect mobile devices while desktop are not. Desktop uses a lot more power (just like the human eye compared to octopus eye) which is ideal when it comes to serious PC gaming. Laptops are perfect for my wife while I prefer desktops.

....mainly with pointless nonsense such as this.

There is nothing wrong with our eyes but our brain are designed to filter out a lot of information so you can focus on what you want and ignore what you don't. People with autism often have trouble filtering things out. There are advantages of seeing with your brain instead of your eyes.

Utter nonsense, our eyes leave a lot to be desired in terms of overall performance, and not just in comparison to an ideal but also to other animals.

Goats have vision as sharp as ours but with a 330 degree field of vision (humans make do with 185), Chameleons can focus each eye on a separate thing (ideal for hunting) and Gekos once again have eyesight as sharp as ours but are able to operate equally well in daylight and the dark (they also retain colour vision at night unlike human eyes).

So given that all these things are possible with eyes why did the Creators own chosen ones get such a crappy deal when it comes to seeing?

Evolution answers this, I'm willing to bet that ID can't and that you will once again not actually answer the question in any real way.

 

[XoravaX]

Utter nonsense, our eyes leave a lot to be desired in terms of overall performance, and not just in comparison to an ideal but also to other animals.

Goats have vision as sharp as ours but with a 330 degree field of vision (humans make do with 185), Chameleons can focus each eye on a separate thing (ideal for hunting) and Gekos once again have eyesight as sharp as ours but are able to operate equally well in daylight and the dark (they also retain colour vision at night unlike human eyes).

You miss the main point why evolution occurs: to better fit a given environment and situation with the minimum energy consumption, not to be the ultimate arsenal that needs more energy than it could possibly eat. For large omnivores our eyes are the best given the time they've had to evolve for our needs (blind spot isn't a real problem, really how many people haven't survived or weren't born because of it - that's what matters in evolution, how much offspring are you able to produce that is able to continue it further; the more, the more common your features become species-wide, as supposedly those who can produce more offspring are more suited to the environment). Do we really need night vision, which would make our eyes super-sensitive at day making it hard to operate in heavy sunlight (ie. savannah environment humans supposedly habited in Africa compared to the shadowy forest environment of geckos).

330 degree field of vision sacrifices stereo view which is necessary for depth perception. Stereo view requires at least two eyes focused on the same object, of which they produce a slightly different image, which brain then conjoins as three-dimensional. Without depth perception we couldn't tell how far or close anything is. For any larger carnivores or omnivores stereo view is a necessity to be able to see the distance to the target. Goats and such harmless herbivores need their large field of vision to notice possible threats early. Our two-feet stance already allows us to see further and we're far faster to turn our heads than goats, so that's not a problem either.

Gecko eyes aren't ideal, as they don't offer any extra hunting aid to us due to stereo view being far more functional as described above.

There is no advantage in wasting resources in things that aren't necessary or hugely advantageous like our brains.

Human is as perfect as it had time to adjust to the given environment with given resources, no more, no less.

EDIT: replace the evolution to evolution through natural selection.