Evolutionists Lose Human Eye Debate

How many times have creationists heard this from sources like the USS Clueless...”Occasionally I see creationists point to the human eye as a miracle of design, as if this somehow is evidence of divine origin for the human form. Unfortunately, from an engineering perspective, the human eye is seriously suboptimal. It simply isn’t that good a design.” I would say, quite a number of times, especially from those like Kenneth Miller who is a Professor at Brown University who argues for signs of bad design which they say disproves creationism so they use the human eye as an example. Why? Because our eyes’ have photoreceptor cells which face away from incoming light and the optic nerve extends over them thus supposedly making it “suboptimal” (without showing how it could be improved) because it blocks some light.

What generally always happens with these arguments from evolutionists, they get shot down by advancements in science either by creationist scientists or by their own data or both. Sometimes it takes many years. The human eye debate has been written about and debated about for many years. Creationists as well as the modern intelligent design movement have been arguing for years that the human eye is well designed here are two examples the first one being from the modern intelligent design movement

“The photoreceptors in the human eye are oriented away from incoming light and placed behind nerves through which light must pass before reaching the photoreceptors. Why? A visual system needs three things: speed, sensitivity, and resolution. The inverse wiring does not affect speed. Nor does it affect resolution, except for a tiny blind spot in each eye. You don’t usually notice it because your brain’s visual harmonization system easily compensates for the blind spot. You need to do special exercises to discover it. What about sensitivity? Sensitivity requires an inverted retina. Retinal cells require the most oxygen of any cells in the human body, so they need lots of blood. But blood cells absorb light. In fact, if blood cells invade the retinal cells, irreversible blindness may result. By facing away from the light, retinal cells can be nourished by blood vessels that do not block the light. They can still be so sensitive that they respond to a single photon, the smallest unit of light.” -2008

The second one being strictly from ICR, one of the main websites that advocate creationism…

“Research by ophthalmologists has clearly shown why the human retina must employ what is called the “inverted” design. An inverted retina is where the photoreceptors face away from the light, forcing the incoming light to travel through the front of the retina to reach the photoreceptors. The opposite placement (where the photoreceptors face the front of the eye) is called a “verted” design. One of the many reasons for the inverted design is, behind the photoreceptors lies a multifunctional and indispensable structure, theretinal pigment epithelium (Martínez-Morales 2004, p. 766). This monolayered tissue contains the black pigment melanin that absorbs most of the light not captured by the retina. This design has the very beneficial effect of preventing light from being reflected off the back of the eye onto the retina, which would degrade the visual image.”

“The photoreceptors (rods and cones) must also face away from the front of the eye in order to be in close contact with the pigment epithelium on the choroid, which supplies the photoreceptors with blood. This arrangement allows a “steady stream of the vital molecule retinal” to flow to the rods and cones without which vision would be impossible (Kolb 2003, p. 28). The verted design, claimed by Miller to be superior, would place the photoreceptors away from their source of nutrition, oxygen, and retinal (the choroid). This design would cause major problems because rods and cones require an enormous amount of energy for their very high metabolism required in functioning, maintenance, and repair. In addition, because of phototoxicity damage, the rods and cones must completely replace themselves approximately every seven days or so.”

As you know, evolutionists have been arguing that the human eye was designed poorly until now…Israel Institute of Technology, a think tank for evolution  says they have discovered why the human eye is wired backwards and it’s not because of a poor design…

“Previous experiments with mice had suggested that Müller glia cells, a type of metabolic cell that crosses the retina, play an essential role in guiding and focusing light scattered throughout the retina. To test this, Ribak and his colleagues ran computer simulations and in-vitro experiments in a mouse model to determine whether colors would be concentrated in these metabolic cells. They then used confocal microscopy to produce three-dimensional views of the retinal tissue, and found that the cells were indeed concentrating light into the photoreceptors…”

“The retina is not just the simple detector and neural image processor, as believed until today,” Ribak added. “Its optical structure is optimized for our vision purposes.”

Even before this research came out, their has been attempts to build image sensors that are base on its design of biological retinas. If retinas are really that poor in design, then why would engineers be trying to make image sensors that are based on the retinas design?    Since the research turned out to confirm creationism rather than evolution, researchers at Israel Institute of Technology has to bluff about its significance by claiming that “from a practical standpoint, the wiring of the human eye — a product of our evolutionary baggage — doesn’t make a lot of sense” is really confirmation of evolution…lol

Can you imagine if science came out with evidence of a bad design of the human eye and turned around and said, “Even though a bad design doesn’t make much sense, but this is a great product of creationism.” It wouldn’t be considered science right? Neither is the researchers view on evolution of the eye. These stories about evolution holds no scientific ground! We are blessed with amazingly designed eyes!

Schopf’s Explanation Is Another Puzzle

In the waters of Western Australia a form of bacteria was discovered which is considered by evolutionists to be two billion years old. It’s another falsification normally called a “puzzle” that gets solved by explaining it with another “puzzle”…Sounds complicated? Let me explain…

This so-called two billion organism hasn’t evolved. It’s now considered a puzzle. They compared it to the modern species and found no difference between the ancient species and the modern one. Fearing this could be interpreted as a falsification (especially by creation scientists), they did what any card player would do in this situation if his or her hand wasn’t that strong. And that is, hope that others would fold based on the cost to stay in the game and that is “bluff”.

Bill Schopf has discovered many organisms that have not supposedly evolved. So what is his explanation of his findings?

“The rule of biology is not to evolve unless the physical or biological environment changes, which is consistent with Darwin,” said Schopf

One would think, this made up rule has been broken many times. Because for one, such animals as Crocodiles are considered virtually unchanged for 250 million assumed years by evolutionists. Crocodiles most certainly experienced changes in its environment, yet hardly any change ever happened within the 23 different variants. Crocodiles are considered a “living fossil” by evolutionists because of its lack of change.

Another example of that rule being broken would be, Fig Wasps which are considered “living fossils” as well because of little change over what they considered to be many tens of millions of years old. Now Fig Wasps also have encountered changes in its environment but yet no evolution to show for it and certainly doesn’t confirm what is to be believed as the rule of biology.

So here you have an explanation that is supposed to solve the first puzzle on why animals don’t evolve such as bacteria discovered in Western Australia and that explanation is a puzzle too because the rule of physical or biological environment changes has been broken with other animals. This isn’t a theory based on facts, it’s filling in the falsifications with more falsifications. It’s based on “bluffing” using words like this discovery is “further scientific proof for Darwin’s work. “It fits perfectly with his ideas…”

But when in fact, it’s not! They want the public to believe they have a royal flush when in fact, you don’t even have two of a kind :)

Entering A New Year With Future Discoveries

Left 2014, with a trail of science discoveries which were mind-blowing as factual evidence not only was able to be obtained by newer technology, but once again destroying interpretations based on its core, namely various fields of evolution. Nature has a purpose they say, survival of the fittest, but that theory is destroyed by the fact that bacteria is the most fittest animal on the planet. Likewise, in such sciences as secular cosmology look for a pattern of random acts which require no purpose.

But yet, the more we learn about the universe, the more organized it is with very extremely tight parameters. Moreover, if the universe was created out of nothing, and random acts with no purpose created the universe, then we should be observing cosmic defects. Right? This doesn’t mean secular scientists wouldn’t have an answer, perhaps at first they might now, it depends on the type of discovery, but usually they work on some sort of story and many times there is variants of that story which might say things like energy being eternal and more than one universe exists besides ours which would be a leap of faith, and not verifiable. It’s more fitted for a science fiction production in Hollywood, than science itself.

Experimental science on the other hand, has been filled with amazing discoveries in 2014. For example last October in 2014, the Messenger spacecraft flying by Mercury have discovered compelling evidence of recent eruptions. Due to it’s supposed old age, this shouldn’t have happened recently. Why? Because Mercury is smaller than Earth, and being positioned in cold space, Mercury should have cooled to a level where eruptions should have stopped long ago but not 10,000 years ago, nor a million years ago, nor 100 million but two billion years ago according to Astrobiology Magazine!

Also water was discovered on Mercury but unlike Mars, there is no talk about alien life forms being present at one time in the past. As expected with direct observations, we are learning that our solar system is a lot younger than what secular scientists believe, and there are are younger processes working which old age would have ceased long ago. What more can Messenger can discover the better! Stay tuned :)

Coming back to Earth, last July in 2014, soft tissue was discovered in fossils! As you might know organic material tends to degrade much quicker so for many years secular scientists never looked for soft tissue but ever since 2005, secular scientists have been looking for soft tissue in fossils. But soft tissue has become more of a challenge to come up with explanations that defy logic for preservation than following where the evidence leads.  Ichthosaurs supposedly millions of years old contained soft tissue.

Since this is evidence for a young earth, media like phy.org came up with an explanation but omitted facts surrounding the preservation. Such as plants, how did Ichthosaurs get fossilized with plants? Secondly, how was it possible for Ichthosaurs to be lifted hundreds of feet above sea level without being disturbed after 50 million years of mud flows over and over again in the same area? Do you see what I mean?

In the medical realm, there have been great advances in adult stem cell research, in fact, I met someone who was being treated with stem cells of his own body. He was very excited, he told me it’s like a woman carrying a baby over a course of nine months, in other words, it takes time for stem cells to grow. He also said it was so successful he had function in his right shoulder and was so happy he wasn’t subjective to surgery.

And there are so many other discoveries I could go through, some of which were not posted on the blog due to personal reasons that had nothing to do with writing. So here we are now in 2015, and it looks more promising than ever!

Looking forward to this year’s scientific discoveries!

Creation Conference At University Brings Tension

Do you believe in free speech? One gets the feeling that if it were up to some of the professors at Michigan State University, “free ideas” wouldn’t be considered “scientific” therefore not allowed to be heard. Some pressure was also formulated to ban or censor a creation summit. In fact the University felt the need to put out this statement with an explanation because of the pressure…

“University officials say they have no plans to interfere with the event. “Free speech is at the heart of academic freedom and is something we take very seriously,” said Kent Cassella, MSU’s associate vice president for communications, in a statement. “Any group, regardless of viewpoint, has the right to assemble in public areas of campus or petition for space to host an event so long as it does not engage in disorderly conduct or violate rules. While MSU is not a sponsor of the creation summit, MSU is a marketplace of free ideas.” 

Evolutionists have debate various theories, and explanations, this they say is part of science. What they mean is, this is part of Darwinian evolution only. Even if it’s non-Darwinian evolution, which is evolution but looking at what they consider to be different naturalistic mechanisms, they also have a problem with that too and thus wouldn’t be considered “scientific” rather they see as strengthening creationism. Much of that has to two with two things belief and money. If their research is considered irrelevant by whatever means they would lose grants. And if they loose grants, they may loose that extra income or eventually their jobs for that matter.

So what is this creationist conference? The conference contains four speakers, all whom have the highest degrees, Ph.Ds. They are…John Sanford, Jerry Bergman, Donald DeYoung and Charles Jackson.

Now some had suggested to use the “intelligent design” movement along with its methods because it supposedly offers the only evidence that would be acceptable for science without invoking religion (this of course is not true). And they cite some creationists agree with their arguments against Darwinian evolution (which is true). There are scientific arguments that confirm creationism and disprove evolution. But this doesn’t make intelligent design more scientific than creationism.

Here is the thing about the modern intelligent design movement vs. just using the term intelligent design. Creationism says that God is where information came from for life, but the intelligent design movement claims it was “intelligent agents” and then restricts further explanation by saying it goes beyond the realm of science. How could that be more scientific, when you can’t explain further on the origin of information? Evolution is the same way, there are things believed that could never be confirmed by science yet its still considered science.

Next, the modern intelligent design movement accepts the way evolutionists date the earth and universe. Not all intelligent design proponents believe in an old earth, but evidence shows quite clearly the universe is young.

The intelligent design movement believes in common decent, just like evolution. In fact, the intelligent design movement is so much like evolution, the only difference is they disagree what mechanism is doing it. In evolution, its natural selection, in the intelligent design movement, it’s…”agents.” Neither is confirmed by science. Using the term “intelligent design” is different, such as your computer, your car, your house or condo or man-made machines, these were all “intelligently designed” no common decent only variation.

The creation conference is a good thing, they went right into the heart of the lion’s den with sound evidence, which is why it brings tension to evolutionists who think otherwise.

Mercury and Moon Display Their Youth

Evolutionary scientists some of which hate the use being described as “evolutionary” believe our solar system is 4.5 billion years old, and thus interpret the data within this framework, such as predicting eruptions occurring on Mercury 3.5 billion years ago. However, new discoveries from the Messenger spacecraft flying by Mercury have found compelling evidence of recent eruptions.

“The presence of explosive volcanism on Mercury is a little bit surprising,” says Laura Kerber from JPL

Even more surprising is the fact that Mercury’s activities are similar to those on the Moon as stated here from an email to Astrobiology Magazine.

“Both Mercury and the Moon are a lot smaller than the Earth, and so will have cooled more than Earth since their formation. For that reason, a lot of models would not predict volcanism within the last two billion years..” 

But what is even more surprising, that defies billions of years old, water was discovered on Mercury! No suggestion of life forms on Mercury in its supposed distance past, but a shocker for those who believe that the solar system is very old!

In the BBC

“This result was a little surprising, because sharp boundaries indicate that the volatile deposits at Mercury’s poles are geologically young,” said Dr Chabot.

She added: “One of the big questions we’ve been grappling with is ‘When did Mercury’s water ice deposits show up?’ Are they billions of years old, or were they emplaced only recently?

Understanding the age of these deposits has implications for understanding the delivery of water to all the terrestrial planets, including Earth.”

Overall, the images indicate that Mercury’s polar deposits either were delivered to the planet recently or are regularly restored at the surface through an ongoing process.

Since creation scientists as well as creationists like myself in general believe the solar system is young and not billion of years old, it’s is reasonable to conclude, there is a youthful process going on in Mercury. But one could suspect, a creation of stories about some sort of space delivery like some sort of unique asteroid which could never be observed nor confirmed that would explain such a youthful appearance to maintain its supposed old age.

They really have their work cut out for them this time in trying to create such a story in order to explain away Mercury’s youthful details so it can fit into their old age framework…

“It’s really hard to understand how an ocean could survive for billions of years inside something as small as Mimas.”  -New Scientist

It would make a lot more sense and more scientific without the need to try and fit the data into a particular framework where it doesn’t belong if they cease with the billions of years explanation!

Fitting Contradictions Is Bad For Science

We are blessed to be living in a day in age where technology is able to see many parts of the universe which previous generations were unable to see. The better the technology, the worse off evolutionary theories become often times adding more complexity than answering questions or meeting model expectations, lets use Galaxy Evolution as an example…

“Dwarf galaxies that orbit the Milky Way and the Andromeda galaxies defy the accepted model of galaxy formation, and recent attempts to wedge them into the model are flawed, reports an international team of astrophysicists.”

“David Merritt, professor of astrophysics at Rochester Institute of Technology, co-authored “Co-orbiting satellite galaxy structures are still in conflict with the distribution of primordial dwarf galaxies,” to be published in an upcoming issue of Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society.” 

This observation poses a contradiction for evolutionary scientists in the fundamental formation of galaxies according to their supposed evolution. The model predicts structures to be in clumps situated in random positions but in reality, the structures are positioned orderly around their parent galaxies. The reason for this is…it’s part of intelligent process rather than a mindless one.

So what happens when contradictions like this are discovered? Usually, they go into rescue mode by attempting to discount the observation in order to preserve the prevailing model. Three papers were published to do that very task. But it was rebuked by 14 other astronomers from six different countries.

“The standard cosmological model is the frame of reference for many generations of scientists, some of whom are beginning to question its ability to accurately reproduce what is observed in the nearby universe. Merritt counts himself among the small and growing group that is questioning the accepted paradigm. Scientific progress embraces challenges to upheld theories and models for a reason, Merritt notes.

“When you have a clear contradiction like this, you ought to focus on it,” Merritt said. “This is how progress in science is made.”

Is it really scientific progress devoting one’s work to the fundamental flaws with theories which are not agreeing with real-time observations? When you are driving your car and you make a wrong turn that leads you to the wrong street, will you still find your desired destination using the wrong road? Some roads are tweaked (road construction) and you are required to take a different route or drive on the other side of the road. This is different than having a fundamental flaw in the direction which you are going.

Perhaps these scientists should discontinue driving on the wrong road and try a different one!

Incredibly Preserved Fossils Discovered

These types of fossils have been a rare item in Chile, in fact it’s also one of the most difficult sites to explore. Scientists had to travel five hours by vehicle, then hike for 12 hours, sometimes in very bad weather. Set-up camp and sleep, and continue the journey for another two hours before they reach their destination. Quite a remarkable feat.

Now why would scientists go to all that trouble, practically risking their lives to get there? The answer: Air-breathing marine reptiles known as “ichthyosaurs” mixed in with plants were discovered! Among the fossils were juveniles and adults but that is not all, soft tissue was discovered as well which is considered to be 150 million years old in the evolutionary framework.

Soft tissue over the span of the evolutionary time frame has been a challenge to explain, but there is never a loss for an imaginative story on how it happened. This is no exception!

Phys.org created this story…

“The Tyndall ichthyosaurs were gregarious and likely hunted in packs in a submarine canyon near the east coast of this sea. Their potential prey, belemnites and small fishes, were abundant due to plankton blooms caused by cold water upwelling. Occasionally, high energy turbiditic mudflows sucked down everything in their reach, including ichthyosaurs. Inside the suspension flows, the air-breathing reptiles lost orientation and finally drowned. They were instantly buried in the abyss at the bottom of the canyon.”

Like always, it lacks logical sense and omits some key things! What about the plants, how did the ichthyosaurs get fossilized with plants? And that is not all, since we are dealing with an enormous time period with these burials (over a span of 50 million years in the evolutionary time frame) how was it possible for the ichthosaurs to be uplifted hundreds of feet above sea level without being disturbed?

It takes an enormous amount of faith to believe these fossils containing soft tissue supposedly 150 million years old which were subject to 50 million years of mud flows over and over again in the same area, then millions of years later be uplifted hundreds of feet above sea level could be so exceptionally preserved. Unlike this story about fossilization, reworking of soils and sediments by animals such as worms along with other animals is a factual occurrence. And no doubt, these fossils would have been subject to them.

What really happened to these fossils has nothing to do with the crazy story by phys.org rather it was a global flood known as Noah’s flood that buried the animals and mixed them up with the plants. And since the earth is not that old, it is not far-fetched finding soft tissue in fossils in fact, it’s hard-evidence the earth is not that old! No improbable story required :)  This is truly a great discovery!