Evolution of the human eye.

Asking KellyJay something is like asking god himself.
It's a miracle if you get any answer.

I still think that the obvious patterns in the various life forms deserves a serious look.
Clearly the Intelligent Designer had a lot more on his mind when designing animals than mere utility. For some reason he liked to group certain characteristics together even when the utility of those characteristics is far from obvious. For example all mammals have certain characteristics in common even when they have vastly different life styles, the same applies to birds and reptiles. I mean not once did the designer decide to create say an animal that has feathers but feeds its young with milk.
So clearly the particular features of our bodies such as what type of eyes we have has far more to do with whatever reason the Intelligent Designer had for creating these patterns than it has to do with the utility of those eyes or the suitability to our life style. Every bird whether it lives in the sea, in the trees or on the ice at the South Pole, has certain eye characteristics that no mammal whether it lives in the sea, in the trees or on the ice at the north pole shares.
What is even more curious still is that the patterns of features when looked at on a more fine grained level seems to have a lot to do with geographical location. And let me not even get started on the decidedly odd patterns in the fossil record.
Oddly enough there is another amazing twist to the tale. When we breed animals or crops ourselves, we notice that they change over time and produce patterns of characteristics that mirrors remarkably closely the patterns used by the Intelligent Designer.

Originally posted by sonhouse
The thing he is talking about is the fact that it is an inferior design, on land or in the sea or in the air, to put the blood vessels in front of the retina. Are you so blind you cannot see that as a disadvantage?
When I look through a microscope, which I have to do a lot as a lab rat here in the photonics field, half the time, the blood vessels keep me f ...[text shortened]... arly man find food better but I guess your designer just was pissed off the day it did humans.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
The fact that we currently cannot deign and make living things is irrelevant to
the issue because, the fact remains, if we COULD deign and make living things, we would at
Least do so intelligently and we certainly wouldn’t put in obvious and stupid design flaws in things.

Your claim is that a “god” designed living things and this “god” has a h ...[text shortened]... istent
with the hypotheses that he does everything “intelligently” and makes no mistakes -yes?

Originally posted by KellyJay
It gets the job done rather well, by what standard do you judge what
is or isn't good?

I'm of the opinion that having blind spots is less good than not having them. Do you agree?


You think if our eye sight could be better than 20/20
that God is failure?

That's not a human eye design flaw. That's just normal variation in eyes.
I'm trying to address the issue of the overall design of the human body.
Please stop bringing up this red herring.

I pointed out that the fact the design is different
and one could very have better qualities does not translate into it
would be better if we had them.

Yes. If we had wings, that might affect the way we walk. If we had a
tail, that might affect our manual dexterity. I get it.

What could change if we lacked blind spots? How could it ultimately
result in a liability?

Tweaking design isn't as easy as you
seem to think it is, you improve one area, you could very well break
another or damage it after some fasion.

What reason do you have to believe that having the optic nerve bundle
behind the retina would break or damage it after some fashion?

On the whole we have what
we need and it gets the job done rather nicely. It seems to me that
personal taste not preformance is what the complaint is, because our
eyes preform very well for what we need them for.

Our eyes perform well, yes. We all agree on that. Please stop harping
on that as if we don't believe it.

Why wouldn't it be better to lack blind spots?

I do not think you
can say that if you had octopus's eyes you would be better, it may
than show you some flaw in that structure under our conditions, it is
not like they can tell us what it is they see or miss.

Why do you not think that?

Nemesio

Originally posted by KellyJay
No, I never claim god did anything, God on the other hand yes.
Kelly

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
Firstly,

Your earlier post, you argued against evolution with the quote:

[b]“Can you design all the variety of life you see today that lives
in the entire multitude of environments this planet has to offer?
You can design various living systems to repair themselves,
reproduce, talk to one another?”

And then I pointed out:

“ ...[text shortened]... Bible your only source of information concerning how the living things got the design they did?

Originally posted by sonhouse
The really funny part is christians are so enamored of the creation tale even though it is not even christian much less jewish, but a repaved Zoroastrian myth. That doesn't seem to bother any of them though.
I personally saw the 7 day creation tale that predated Judaism in the Cairo museum but I guess plagiarism is ok in the bible.

Originally posted by Badwater
Well, there is more going on than just what was borrowed from Zoroastrianism. There are other cultural myths as well as the Judaic myths and spiritual perspective, enough so that your statement isn't very accurate. But that conversation is really for a different forum.

Originally posted by Eladar
Not for him. Some people are just haters.

At least you are being honest. You have self proclaimed hate and prejudice. But since it is against Christians, that's OK.

Par for the course.

Originally posted by Eladar
At least you are being honest. You have self proclaimed hate and prejudice. But since it is against Christians, that's OK.

Par for the course.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
Firstly,

Your earlier post, you argued against evolution with the quote:

[b]“Can you design all the variety of life you see today that lives
in the entire multitude of environments this planet has to offer?
You can design various living systems to repair themselves,
reproduce, talk to one another?”

And then I pointed out:

“ ...[text shortened]... Bible your only source of information concerning how the living things got the design they did?

Originally posted by KellyJay
God and god are not the samething.
Kelly

Originally posted by sonhouse
The really funny part is christians are so enamored of the creation tale even though it is not even christian much less jewish, but a repaved Zoroastrian myth. That doesn't seem to bother any of them though.
I personally saw the 7 day creation tale that predated Judaism in the Cairo museum but I guess plagiarism is ok in the bible.