Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
God would never design an overheating eye. Duh. That's strictly
a non-designer idea. I said the design humans have works
better for removing high heat loads caused by photons and the
chemical process needed to sense them for land based people.
At least that what I meant to say. I work 12 hour days. I don't
know about you guys.
Some of you seem to have PhD's, but no work schedule at all.
They......don't walk in sunlight much either. An they get built in polarized sunglasses cause they stare at water reflected light 24/7.
The inverted design moves the blood flow closer to the problem areas. And the sensitivity is good for one photon.
It don't git better.
"the retina must have a very effective cooling system, again provided by the rapid choroidal blood flow that serves to conduct away the heat produced by absorption of light in the retina and adjacent ocular tissues. "
How does the blind spot help cooling?
I just checked it up. SkyWriting has a point. The weird retina configuration in humans actually increases the blood flow to the photoreceptors and helps maintain metabolic activity for them. So yeah, you could say it serves a purpose, as counter-intuitive as it may be. What this means is that the cephalopod-eye-argument is less effective than we thought it was. The different design is still an argument for evolution, though. My next question would be why colorblind fishes don't have the same retinal configuration as squids do.
How does the blind spot help cooling?
What about water-based fish without stereoscopic vision? What's the reason for them to have blind spots due to the routing of the optic nerve?
I wasn't aware that they did.
All vertebrates (and only vertebrates) do. It's one part of the whole nested hierarchy thing. And it doesn't matter where or how they live; vertebrates have blind spots. Whether they live in the depths of the ocean or fly through the sky or live underground, they have 'em. Whether they search for prey from thousands of feet in the air or live an essentially sightless life, they've got 'em. Non-vertebrates who live in the exact same environments do not. Evolution explains this pattern, Creationism and/or ID do not.
I've never cared.
Is that some kind of challenge?
I'm always up for a challenge.
Make me your researched argument for stupidity and waste.
I'll see if I can tank your argument.
It's not a challenge. I'm just pointing out the flaws in your argument.
It seems to be a common trait among Creationists; they'll present a plausible argument that applies to one specific situation (in your case, that the routing of nerves in the human eye is necessary for cooling but is not required for an octopus) but when the scope of application of that argument is expanded (fish who live in the same environment as an octopus have the same nerve routing as humans) it falls apart.
Oddly enough, when expanding the scope of such an argument, evolution explains it perfectly.
I just checked it up. SkyWriting has a point. The weird retina configuration in humans actually increases the blood flow to the photoreceptors and helps maintain metabolic activity for them. So yeah, you could say it serves a purpose, as counter-intuitive as it may be.
What this means is that the cephalopod-eye-argument is less effective than we thought it was. The different design is still an argument for evolution, though.
My next question would be why colorblind fishes don't have the same retinal configuration as squids do.
No solid source, not right now. The creationist websites are the ones that shout the loudest about it, but I found no refutation of their argument. In fact, Wikipedia makes similarly claims in their articles about "retina" and "cephalopod eyes", and they are backed up, too. However, they don't support the creationist view that the difference is evidence of ID. As I said, the difference between human and cephalopod eyes is still strong evidence for evolution, just not particularly strong counter-evidence against ID.Do you have a source for this? The only thing I've been able to find is creationist literature.
It's not a challenge. I'm just pointing out the flaws in your argument.
It seems to be a common trait among Creationists; they'll present a plausible argument that applies to one specific situation (in your case, that the routing of nerves in the human eye is necessary for cooling but is not required for an octopus) but when the scope of application of that argument is expanded (fish who live in the same environment as an octopus have the same nerve routing as humans) it falls apart.
However, they don't support the creationist view that the difference is evidence of ID.
...
and I know when I'm being hosed
Then point better. I have no idea how you been hurt in the past by others.
Which fish,
what eye structures,
show your sources, make a real point.
I can't argue with vague claims. Or is that part of your strategy.
Go fish.
And yet, you are a Christian.
What's vague about the statement that all vertebrates have blind spots in their eyes caused by the routing of the optic nerve?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?