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!

Can A Mindless Process Become An Engineer?

In the promising field of biomimetics where intelligently designed human-made processes, substances, devices, or systems come about by imitating nature. In most research papers, very little is said about evolution, although many of the papers will give evolution credit. In a quest to integrate everything originating from a mindless process including engineering, evolution has now become an engineer too!

Sounds contrary doesn’t it? Because engineering is an application of scientific and mathematical principles to practical ends such as the design, manufacturing, along with producing efficient and economical structures or machines, various processes and more.

Science Daily applies engineering to evolution with its headline...”Evolution Inspires More Efficient Solar Cell Design,” the article goes on to say…

Using a mathematical search algorithm based on natural evolution, the researchers pinpointed a specific geometrical pattern that is optimal for capturing and holding light in thin-cell organic solar cells.…

The researchers employed a genetic algorithm, a search process that mimics the process of natural evolution, explained Wei Chen, Wilson-Cook Professor in Engineering Design and professor of mechanical engineering at McCormick and co-investigator of the research.”

“Due to the highly nonlinear and irregular behavior of the system, you must use an intelligent approach to find the optimal solution,” Chen said. “Our approach is based on the biologically evolutionary process of survival of the fittest.”

How can intelligent engineering be connected to survival of the fittest? It even says in the research paper, you must use an “intelligent approach” to achieve optimization! That isn’t evolution, that is intelligent design! This is an experiment that uses artificial selection with of a purpose of a design by using an algorithm created by intelligence, and pinpointing a desired result. How can an unguided and mindless process who’s only goal is to improve competition for survival?

And on another subject, why would evolution break its own rule by creating more complex creatures which are not as fit as bacteria is? Bacteria as you might know is the most adaptable creature on earth, which can survive in the most extreme elements known to man. Why would evolution tinker with that (if it could) to make creature less fit for survival? Just like linking evolution to engineering, it doesn’t make logical sense!

Biomimetics Holds Intriguing Progress

Living specified engineering is becoming one of science’s fastest and most exciting growing areas for solutions to man’s problems!  Scientists have been discovering that plants, animals and cells through study, imitation or harness them can benefit mankind. Many articles have recently be published on the subject, here are few of them…

1) Whale Power! “We designed a novel blade modification for potential turbine performance improvement, which was inspired by humpback whale flippers, with the addition of tubercles, or bumps, to the leading edge of each blade,” explains Mark Murray, a Naval Academy engineering professor. Previous research demonstrated the addition of biomimetically derived protuberances (technology that mimics nature) improved stall characteristics and aerodynamic performance.”

2) Plants are being intelligently engineered to produce drugs. “Researchers, led by Associate Professor Sarah O’Connor, have added bacterial genes to the periwinkle plant, enabling it to attach halogens such as chlorine or bromine to a class of compounds called alkaloids that the plant normally produces. Many alkaloids have pharmaceutical properties, and halogens, which are often added to antibiotics and other drugs, can make medicines more effective or last longer in the body.”

3) Bioengineering. A contest is being held at the University of Texas at Dallas where students compete to harness bacteria for useful purposes. “The team, which consisted of high school, undergraduate and graduate students, used standard molecular biology tools to reprogram a harmless strain of E. coli to glow when exposed to certain pollutants. Those pollutants are associated with a host of health risks, including cancer, heart damage, liver damage and kidney failure, according to the United Nations World Water Assessment Program.” A Professor of engineering said, “Synthetic biology borrows a lot of ideas from engineering and puts them in the context of biology.”

4) Elephant Trunks. Building  robotic arms which can act gracefully and gently has been a major challenge. So why not learn from an elephant whose designed trunk can gently pick up a peanut out of a child’s hand? A German company called, Festo, decided to do just that and it’s not the only design they are learning from. “Despite its futuristic appearance, Festo’s isn’t the only odd robot arm in development.  A European-wide team has developed something similarly flexible – but here the inspiration came from an octopus’s limb. Instead of pneumatics, the EU team wants to drive their arm with “electroactive polymers” – smart plastics that bend when a voltage is applied. Festo’s decision to seek inspiration from a lumbering mammal marks a departure: it has previously created the most graceful of robotic penguins, jellyfish and manta rays. And another German team has created the AirFish: an airship that wags its tail like a rainbow trout.

As scientists and students alike are using engineering concepts in biology, there is a Darwinian special interest group (to manage damage control) which has been picked up by such websites as Live Science that would like to indoctrinate evolution into everything including engineering by suggesting a non-thinking process is responsible. “Biomimicry,’ as this design and engineering aesthetic is called, draws inspiration from the biomechanical systems that the process of evolution has honed for millions of years, often resulting in startling insights over manmade artificial solutions.”

Darwinian evolution has always explained nature in terms of mere survival. The world is full of bad designs which are useless. However, look at patterning on mammal fur, and the shapes and colors of flowers.  Survival does not require these things, or every bird, mammal, and flower would be highly decorated! Biomimetics makes Darwinian evolution irrelevant, while having the potential to use this amazing science for a goal of improving human life through understanding and imitation of designs in nature!