Opthamologists are medically qualified and have made statements, based on current research. Dawkins hower is not an expert on the eye, and keeps repeating his discredited arguments, which science has proven wrong. Ophthalmologists have said 'anyone who argues the eye was built backwards lacks knowledge'.
I sincerely doubt any Biblical creationist would say such a thing, because our eye is NOT built backwards. The inverted lens along with Mueller cells operating like a fiber optic network has been described as best possible / optimal design. The 'fiber optic ' cables which concentrate the light delivering to the photoreceptors has been described as an "optimal light guidance" system.
Yes...long long ago, in a land far far away.....
Your 'just so' story is not based on science, but a faulty belief system.
Science has proven Dawkins wrong on that. Evolutionists now admit that complex sophisticated vision systems existed from what they consider to be over 500 million years ago. Example: "Very few modern animals, particularly arthropods, have eyes as sophisticated as this,”
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21251-first-top-predator-was-giant-shrimp-with-amazing-eyes/
It would seem you resist evidence that challenges your belief system. "Pretty good" you say? I think you rely on Dawkins faulty arguments, now proven wrong by science.
"The basic building blocks of human eyesight turn out to be practically perfect. Scientists have learned that the fundamental units of vision, the photoreceptor cells that carpet the retinal tissue of the eye and respond to light, are not just good or great or phabulous at their job. They are not merely exceptionally impressive by the standards of biology, with whatever slop and wiggle room the animate category implies. Photoreceptors operate at the outermost boundary allowed by the laws of physics, which means they are as good as they can be, period. Each one is designed to detect and respond to single photons of light -- the smallest possible packages in which light comes wrapped."
Natalie Angier, NY Times Science
Opthamologist Dr. H S Hamilton:*"instead of being a great disadvantage, or a “curse” or being incorrectly constructed, the inverted retina is a tremendous advance in function and design compared with the simple and less complicated verted arrangement. One problem amongst many, for evolutionists, is to explain how this abrupt major retinal transformation from the verted type in invertebrates to the inverted vertebrate model came about as nothing in paleontology offers any support."
There is lots of data Davis. But, it seems you have bought into Dawkins who does not understand the design of the eye. Science has demolished his argument. Newer research on the vertebrate retina shows that the inverted design in vertebrates is superior to the verted design, even compared to the most advanced cephalopods. The research has discovered that our retina has a neurological feedback system improving contrast and sharpening edges without sacrificing shadow detail."
PLoS Biology May 2011 A positive feedback synapse from retinal horizontal cells to cone photoreceptors. (S.L.Jackman). There is lots of other amazing research in last few years which shows evolution to be an illogical conclusion.
Good comments.
Yes...it is in the same way. We both interpret the data according to our beliefs about the past. But examine your own statements and you might realize your faith in evolution is not the best fit for the evidence.
We have observable evidence that a complex, sophisticated, "optimally" designed system can degenerate. (In us and blind fish)The degeneration can fit either model. But what caused this almost perfect optimal system?
In your belief system it's hard to imagine that mutations and selection can create an "almost" perfect system. Our eyes detect one photon... you can't get better than that. It seems illogical to believe that natural selection and mutations can fix perfection in a population when there would seem to be no compete time advantage. IE. If my eyes can detect only 100 photons where yours detect 10...its such an insignificant amount that selection won't eliminate me. Phew
And, that's aside from the argument that mutations can't create even sub optimal systems without using a pre-existing code.*
OK. .. yes, evidence matters.
But you demonstrate that evolutionism is not really about science...it isn't falsifiable. You are arguing that both good and bad design are evidence for common ancestry. Your belief is like a fog that can cover any landscape.
That might shock me as much as you. We don't think bunnies live and die with crayfish, trilobites and cephalopods.
Howrver we certainly do find Cambrian 'rabbits'. I'm sure you have read articles where new finds in the fossil record are "puzzling" or "surprising" to evolutionists. In fact one such 'rabbit' was discussed above where evolutionists seem shocked that sophisticated eyes are found in a creature they think is 515 million years old. In the absence of evidence for eye evolution, they pull a rabbit from the hat saying sophisticated vision evolved in a geological blink of an eye.
Dear Davis,
How in the world do you think they found the remains of a rabbit that is 515 million years old?!! It was probably more like 6,000 years old!! You guys are ridiculous with the numbers you throw around. Your methods of dating are out of this world. Give me a break!!
Michael
