Does science actually admit "design"?

[OldWiseGuy]

See my former post.

I'm running out of spit, sorry.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Don't you find it the least bit ridiculous that your own eyes can't even process an image as being upright, so our brains have to flip it? Even the most basic of cameras can manage that, but this "sophisticated" eye can't?

All single aperature cameras obey the laws of physics (upside down images). Better to have a small part of our brains control and configure the image than an unnecessarily complex eyeball.

Further, if our eyes focused the entire image 'upright' the spot on the retina on which it would be focused would be smaller than a pinhead. By allowing the image to be 'transposed' the image uses more of the retina for a clearer image, much like the old large plate cameras. Great design by the Creator.

 

[PsychoSarah]

All single aperature cameras obey the laws of physics (upside down images). Better to have a small part of our brains control and configure the image than an unnecessarily complex eyeball.

-_- do you honestly think that your occipital lobe DOESN'T end up being more complex as a result of all the image processing it has to do? It'd be simpler to just make the eye slightly more complex.

Further, if our eyes focused the entire image 'upright' the spot on the retina on which it would be focused would be smaller than a pinhead.

Source?

By allowing the image to be 'transposed' the image uses more of the retina for a clearer image, much like the old large plate cameras. Great design by the Creator.

-_- as if an omnipotent creator is restricted such that it couldn't utilize large portions of the retina AND have the image be upright. Based on the specific creator you believe in, there are no excuses for anything short of perfection.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

-_- do you honestly think that your occipital lobe DOESN'T end up being more complex as a result of all the image processing it has to do? It'd be simpler to just make the eye slightly more complex.

We would have severe 'tunnel vision' if this could be done, or our eyes would have to be as large as dinner plates.

Source?

Just draw a little picture and you'll see. To have an upright image it cannot be larger than the diameter of the pupil (on a bright day this would almost be pinhead size). The upside down image allows the entire retina to receive and transmit the image to the brain. The upside down image is a matter of physics, not poor design. Happily our brains turn it right side up for us.

-_- as if an omnipotent creator is restricted such that it couldn't utilize large portions of the retina AND have the image be upright. Based on the specific creator you believe in, there are no excuses for anything short of perfection.

Eyes are mechanical with several moving parts as it is. Having the image processing center located safely within the skull makes perfect sense. It's great design that has never been equaled by man.

 

[PsychoSarah]

"Evolution" should have done that.

Evolution works with what it gets. It has no goals, but a creator does. It cannot choose what traits to work with, but a creator can. This is the difference between an unintelligent natural process and intelligent design. Flaws are inevitable in the natural process.

Common sense. Just draw a little picture and you'll see. The upside down image is a matter of physics, not poor design. Happily our brains turn it right side up for us.

I asked for a source and I will not accept your word for it. I know the physics of WHY the image ends up upside down in the eye. Your claim was essentially that no possible eye designs could result in an upright image without severely cutting into image quality. However, I have actually played with lenses before, so I know that refracting can easily be used to manipulate image size while keeping it upright and fairly clear. Your "common sense", for all intents and purposes, seems like an incorrect assumption on your part, so I demand evidence to demonstrate otherwise.

Eyes are mechanical with several moving parts as it is. Having the neural processing center located safely within the skull makes perfect sense. It's great design that has never been equaled by man.

-_- I never said anything about the placement of the brain, or the fact that it processes images. But we have made cameras that in at least some aspects are objectively better than human eyes, such as in terms of resolution.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Sure.
Imagine looking at two squirrels through a knothole in a fence. One is on the ground, the other in a tree. Because light travels in straight lines you have to crouch down to look up and stretch up to look down through the knothole (aperature). Imagine holding a piece of paper a foot or so behind the knot hole. The image of the squirrel in the tree falls on the lower part of the paper, while the image of the one on the ground falls on the upper part, thus the image is upside down (it is also backwards left-to-right), it must be so in all such vision systems, as well as all round aperature cameras (sorry Sarah). The visual part of the brain turns the image right side up, as it was designed to do. It cannot be otherwise. I don't know how this could be explained by evolution.

Further, the lens needed to provide an upright image on the retina would be impossibly complex if even possible.

-_- impossibly complex for an omnipotent, omniscient creator? The same one which made the rules that the physics of light follow, based on your beliefs? When you believe in a creator without limits, the concept of "impossible" gets thrown out the window.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Evolution works with what it gets. It has no goals, but a creator does. It cannot choose what traits to work with, but a creator can. This is the difference between an unintelligent natural process and intelligent design. Flaws are inevitable in the natural process.



I asked for a source and I will not accept your word for it. I know the physics of WHY the image ends up upside down in the eye. Your claim was essentially that no possible eye designs could result in an upright image without severely cutting into image quality. However, I have actually played with lenses before, so I know that refracting can easily be used to manipulate image size while keeping it upright and fairly clear. Your "common sense", for all intents and purposes, seems like an incorrect assumption on your part, so I demand evidence to demonstrate otherwise.




-_- I never said anything about the placement of the brain, or the fact that it processes images. But we have made cameras that in at least some aspects are objectively better than human eyes, such as in terms of resolution.

You haven't proven that our eyes are actually 'flawed' in their design. While not encompassing all the traits of animal eyes they are perfect for human purposes.

Regarding correcting for the upside down image, can you propose an eye design that would actually accomplish that? Using camera lenses as a model what would such an eye look like?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

-_- impossibly complex for an omnipotent, omniscient creator? The same one which made the rules that the physics of light follow, based on your beliefs? When you believe in a creator without limits, the concept of "impossible" gets thrown out the window.

If you aren't happy with your eyes blame evolution, not God (since God doesn't exist).

 

[PsychoSarah]

If you aren't happy with your eyes blame evolution, not God (since God doesn't exist).

Hahahahahahahahahahaha, no. The whole point is that you believe structures such as the eye were designed by an omnipotent, omniscient creator. So why are there unnecessary flaws which are pervasive in eyes, and why do some eyes have flaws other eyes don't when you assert the same designer made both?

If you were designing a car, and you noticed that a specific wheel shape was ideal with an equal cost to other shapes, you wouldn't just make a bunch of cars without a bunch of different shaped wheels. You'd use the best shape for the job.

 

[PsychoSarah]

You haven't proven that our eyes are actually 'flawed' in their design.

-_- bird eyes work the same way, but work better overall due to slight differences. Obviously, human eyes are flawed even by the standard of vertebrate eyes.

While not all encompassing all the traits of animal eyes they are perfect for human purposes.

Oh, there are plenty of examples of worse eyes than those humans have. Remember, I have previously described human vision as "meh". It's not particularly bad or particularly good.

Regarding correcting for the upside down image, can you propose an eye design that would actually accomplish that? Using camera lenses as a model what would such an eye look like?

-_- seeing as the creator you believe in is omnipotent, why would there be any limits? This being could make the normal eyes we are familiar with work perfectly DESPITE how physics works.

But, if you must know:

Yes, I know this is for binoculars and not cameras, but the diagram was too good to pass up.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

-_- bird eyes work the same way, but work better overall due to slight differences. Obviously, human eyes are flawed even by the standard of vertebrate eyes.


Oh, there are plenty of examples of worse eyes than those humans have. Remember, I have previously described human vision as "meh". It's not particularly bad or particularly good.


-_- seeing as the creator you believe in is omnipotent, why would there be any limits? This being could make the normal eyes we are familiar with work perfectly DESPITE how physics works.

But, if you must know:

Yes, I know this is for binoculars and not cameras, but the diagram was too good to pass up.

You're making my point. Visualize those lenses as living tissue. How exactly would that work? The brain is a more expedient way of consolidating images using a simple lens. Great system design.

Which 'optical' system would you prefer to view sights such as the Grand Canyon with? Is there any manmade system that can capture that view? I take lots of photos (digital images) and turn down many 'vista' shots as my expensive camera simply cannot capture what my mind sees through my 'flawed' eyes.

Also the eyes are part of a larger combined sensory system of smell, sound, motion, etc. No camera can duplicate this.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Hahahahahahahahahahaha, no. The whole point is that you believe structures such as the eye were designed by an omnipotent, omniscient creator. So why are there unnecessary flaws which are pervasive in eyes, and why do some eyes have flaws other eyes don't when you assert the same designer made both?

If you were designing a car, and you noticed that a specific wheel shape was ideal with an equal cost to other shapes, you wouldn't just make a bunch of cars without a bunch of different shaped wheels. You'd use the best shape for the job.

Good design doesn't help if you drive your car into a tree.

 

[PsychoSarah]

You're making my point. Visualize those lenses as living tissue. How exactly would that work?

-_- multiple lenses in the eye.

The brain is a more expedient way of consolidating images using a simple lens. Great system design.

Assumption that makes no sense in the context of a creator that is omnipotent and omniscient. Said being could make a rock serve well as an eye, so it doesn't matter. Plus, have you seen the size of the occipital lobes in humans? Do you not think that if the brain didn't have to process the images so much that at the very least the system wouldn't use up so much energy?

Which 'optical' system would you prefer to view sights such as the Grand Canyon with?

-_- a bird's.

Is there any manmade system that can capture that view?

There are ones that can do better, but the image files are huge as a result and our eyes can't take it all in at once.

I take lots of photos (digital images) and turn down many 'vista' shots as my expensive camera simply cannot capture what my mind sees through my 'flawed' eyes.

You mean the tiny section in your field of vision that you actually focus on? The average picture is larger than that, and differences in color aren't usually any more significant than the differences humans can have in the cones of their eyes. Thus, it is kinda like having your view go through a person twice, and the aspects focused on don't perfectly match. Heck, your eyes move around a lot in order for them to properly interpret the environment, even when you aren't aware of it and think you are staring at a fixed area, but if you are a photographer worth your salt, you keep that camera still.

Also the eyes are part of a larger combined sensory system of smell, sound, motion, etc. No camera can duplicate this.

Uh, how our eyes interfere with our other sensory systems makes the entire system more flawed, not better. For example, if I changed the mouth movements of a video you were watching to no longer match up with the words said, you'd actually have more trouble understanding what was being said than if you weren't looking at all. Perfectly tasty food can be ruined by the fact that it doesn't look visually appealing. No camera SHOULD duplicate this.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Good design doesn't help if you drive your car into a tree.

-_- which is why I don't bother to mention eye injuries. I don't view something being breakable as indisputably a flaw. That's why a lot of my arguments are founded on comparing human eyes with the eyes of other organisms; I know humans could have better eyes because other animals have objectively better eyes.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

-_- which is why I don't bother to mention eye injuries. I don't view something being breakable as indisputably a flaw. That's why a lot of my arguments are founded on comparing human eyes with the eyes of other organisms; I know humans could have better eyes because other animals have objectively better eyes.

But we don't know what animals 'see'.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

-_- multiple lenses in the eye.


Assumption that makes no sense in the context of a creator that is omnipotent and omniscient. Said being could make a rock serve well as an eye, so it doesn't matter. Plus, have you seen the size of the occipital lobes in humans? Do you not think that if the brain didn't have to process the images so much that at the very least the system wouldn't use up so much energy?


-_- a bird's.


There are ones that can do better, but the image files are huge as a result and our eyes can't take it all in at once.


You mean the tiny section in your field of vision that you actually focus on? The average picture is larger than that, and differences in color aren't usually any more significant than the differences humans can have in the cones of their eyes. Thus, it is kinda like having your view go through a person twice, and the aspects focused on don't perfectly match. Heck, your eyes move around a lot in order for them to properly interpret the environment, even when you aren't aware of it and think you are staring at a fixed area, but if you are a photographer worth your salt, you keep that camera still.


Uh, how our eyes interfere with our other sensory systems makes the entire system more flawed, not better. For example, if I changed the mouth movements of a video you were watching to no longer match up with the words said, you'd actually have more trouble understanding what was being said than if you weren't looking at all. Perfectly tasty food can be ruined by the fact that it doesn't look visually appealing. No camera SHOULD duplicate this.

How would it be possible for a real person to change their actual mouth movements to be out of sync with their vocalizations? The only way this could be observed in real life is if the person were shouting from a great distance away and you observed their mouth movements through a telescope (light travels faster than sound). But, who does this?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Here's what I said. Note the qualifier.

"Our eyes are the victims of generations of physical degeneration. We really don't know how good our eyes were at the beginning of creation, but in any case they were perfect for the vision that God intended them to provide. Heck, they're still pretty good."

But you still claim, in the bolded part, that the human eyesight was better in the past. So provide evidence for that claim.

 

[Ophiolite]

How would it be possible for a real person to change their actual mouth movements to be out of sync with their vocalizations? The only way this could be observed in real life is if the person were shouting from a great distance away and you observed their mouth movements through a telescope (light travels faster than sound). But, who does this?

Based on your post, I shall be trying this at the weekend with my son.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

But you still claim, in the bolded part, that the human eyesight was better in the past. So provide evidence for that claim.

I said they were perfect for their intended use.

Also, something new usually works better than something that is old. When we were created our eyes hadn't suffered from damage or disease as is found in them today, particularly cataracts. And while eyesight improves with rest and good nutrition (as is found in the West) much of the world suffers from less than perfect eyesight.

Blindness in Developing Countries is 500% More Prevalent Than in the US

Battling global blindness, eye disease through research - Fogarty International Center @ NIH

50% of Avoidable Blindness Is Caused by Cataracts

Could an App be the Answer for Glaucoma in Third World Countries?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I said they were perfect for their intended use.

Also, something new usually works better than something that is old. When we were created our eyes hadn't suffered from damage or disease as is found in them today, particularly cataracts. And while eyesight improves with rest and good nutrition (as is found in the West) much of the world suffers from less than perfect eyesight.

Blindness in Developing Countries is 500% More Prevalent Than in the US

Battling global blindness, eye disease through research - Fogarty International Center @ NIH

50% of Avoidable Blindness Is Caused by Cataracts

Could an App be the Answer for Glaucoma in Third World Countries?

Good god, you can't even stick to your own story! You said, in your own words: We really don't know how good our eyes were at the beginning of creation, but in any case they were perfect for the vision that God intended them to provide.
You are claiming that human eyesight was better in the past than it is now. So provide evidence for that claim.