How do Creationists explain vestigal organs?

[Skaloop]

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.

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?

 

[sandwiches]

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?

 

[The Engineer]

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.

 

[SkyWriting]

How does the blind spot help cooling?

Good question. The blind spot is a result of the inverted design compared to other eyes. The inverted design results in greater blood flow to the areas that have high energy dispersal requirements. Heat plus greater waste product removal. The blood flow is closer to the problem areas with the inverted design that results in the nerves passing through the receptor area. The receptors closest to the nerve are also abnormal. They create a "fuzzy" edge to the "blind spot" which aides the brain so it doesn't have to deal with an abrupt edge when processing images together. Merging images, or stitching them together is not a bad idea.
Here are 8 stitched pictures from Mars that compensate for a "blind spot".

 

[SkyWriting]

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.

This is where you are the clear winner.
I really have no curiosity on that.


Though I am curious about how the human eye system slowly switched over to an inverted system.
Most of the structures of the eye seem to be an all or nothing system with very difficult to parse intermediary steps.
As stumped by Darwin.

 

[SkyWriting]

How does the blind spot help cooling?

It is a result of the better blood flow system.
It doesn't help with cooling.

 

[SkyWriting]

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. I don't care, so you win on the grounds of curiosity, interest,
and passion for the natural world. That is not my passion.

 

[Skaloop]

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.

 

[SkyWriting]

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 about such things.
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.

 

[Skaloop]

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.

 

[selfinflikted]

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.

 

[Skaloop]

Oddly enough, when expanding the scope of such an argument, evolution explains it perfectly.

Funny, that.

God, sitting there during the creation week, thinking "Well, being omniscient, I know that in a few thousand years one of the folks created in my image is going to come up with this crazy idea of evolution. So what I'm gonna do is make everything look exactly like it would if evolution were true. Oh, I know it's going to lead to many people losing faith in Me, but OMM, what a troll it will be! U mad, bro?"

 

[Jro]

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.

Do you have a source for this? The only thing I've been able to find is creationist literature.

 

[The Engineer]

Do you have a source for this? The only thing I've been able to find is creationist literature.

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.

 

[SkyWriting]

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.

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.

 

[SkyWriting]

However, they don't support the creationist view that the difference is evidence of ID.

I don't support any ID arguments. I don't know how they work.
I'm a practical Boy Scout with a "mad scientist" dad. Along the
lines of Mad Max. That was my dad. So I know hard practical facts
and I know when I'm being hosed. And anybody who claims that
intelligent design can happen by accident is a lying troll.

My parents house had both a garden full of life and a garage,
a four car garage that one car rarely could fit in. In the garden,
raising pets, in the garage.....nothing ever got done or put in
order without intelligent effort. Nothing, ever. That's the argument
against non intelligent creation. It's not possible.

 

[selfinflikted]

...
and I know when I'm being hosed

And yet, you are a Christian.

 

[Skaloop]

Then point better. I have no idea how you been hurt in the past by others.

Who said anything about being hurt?

Which fish,

All of them.

what eye structures,

The retina and optic nerve, basically.

show your sources, make a real point.
I can't argue with vague claims. Or is that part of your strategy.
Go fish.

What's vague about the statement that all vertebrates have blind spots in their eyes caused by the routing of the optic nerve?

 

[SkyWriting]

And yet, you are a Christian.

That's completely my choice. A voluntary decision made as an adult.
At least from my human perspective.

 

[SkyWriting]

What's vague about the statement that all vertebrates have blind spots in their eyes caused by the routing of the optic nerve?

I thought the topic was flaws in my argument?
I can only work on one topic at a time.