but they cnat design eyes. right?
They can easily design eyes, and critique the eye. Modern optical systems are more complicated than human eyes in terms of their lenses (often multiple lenses) and
as far as i aware those are scientific sources base on scientific papers:
https://phys.org/news/2014-07-fiber-optic-pipes-retina-simple.html
"Having the photoreceptors at the back of the retina is not a design constraint, it is a design feature. The idea that the vertebrate eye, like a traditional front-illuminated camera, might have been improved somehow if it had only been able to orient its wiring behind the photoreceptor layer, like a cephalopod, is folly"
or:
Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 158102 (2010) - Retinal Glial Cells Enhance Human Vision Acuity
"The retina is revealed as an optimal structure designed for improving the sharpness of images"
where do you see that they are claiming otherwise?
As I pointed out, which you have ignored, the paper only examined one aspect of the eye, and does not counteract the fact that the eye in total is not optimally designed and could be made better. You've repeated your quotes, even though I pointed out they are not supported by the paper the article is describing.
The gial cells improve eyesight compared to those cells (or the functions they perform) not being there. But, that does not mean that the eye overall is optimal.
What has happened to the human eye is that there are basic faults in the eye, but a number of evolutionary 'fixes' that fix the problem. (But don't make an eye that is as good as an eye properly designed in the first place.) In other words, there is bad design in the vertebrate eye, but that does not mean that everything in the vertebrate eye.
And, you also lose every way. Because even if you did manage to prove that the vertebrate eye is an optimal design, that would mean that the cephalopod eye is therefore a suboptimal design. So, you'd then need to explain why
And, it wouldn't stop there. There are plenty of living organisms with extremely simple eyes, massively less capable than either the cephalopod or vertebrate eyes. So, why is a competent designer designing so many poor eyes?
BTW: I think you are arguing this much better than any other argument of yours that I have seen. Why are you wasting your time proposing imaginary self-replicating watches when you can clearly do much, much, better?
Upvote
0