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.
His point is that the simplest sensors-at-the-back arrangement would be inferior to the equivalent sensors-at-the-front arrangement, but that evolution has honed the 'plumbing' at the front so that it turns a disadvantage into an advantage.im not sure i understand miller (because of the english i guess). if this "backward structure" improve vision then its a good design.
Probably not, by human standards - it has been selected according a different set of priorities. Likewise, a human eye wouldn't be as effective for an octopus.so an octopus see better than human?
who said its a problem for evolution? funny.
His point is that the simplest sensors-at-the-back arrangement would be inferior to the equivalent sensors-at-the-front arrangement, but that evolution has honed the 'plumbing' at the front so that it turns a disadvantage into an advantage.
What he suggests is very simple - evolution has made the best of what would otherwise be a poor arrangement - by modifying the intervening layers so that the arrangement now outperforms an unmodified sensors-at-top layout (although we can't know what improvements evolution might have made to such a layout had it occurred in mammalian eyes).im still not sure what he wnat to say. bottom line- is this kind of design improve vision or not? according to scientists the retina is actually an optimal structure:
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
so miller is wrong about that.
im still not sure. anyway- since miller cant prove that if it was in the opposite direction it will improve vision- then its just his belief. unless he can create a better eye. but he cant.What he suggests is very simple - evolution has made the best of what would otherwise be a poor arrangement - by modifying the intervening layers so that the arrangement now outperforms an unmodified sensors-at-top layout (although we can't know what improvements evolution might have made to such a layout had it occurred in mammalian eyes).
His point is that the simplest sensors-at-the-back arrangement would be inferior to the equivalent sensors-at-the-front arrangement, but that evolution has honed the 'plumbing' at the front so that it turns a disadvantage into an advantage.
Probably not, by human standards - it has been selected according a different set of priorities. Likewise, a human eye wouldn't be as effective for an octopus.
im still not sure. anyway- since miller cant prove that if it was in the opposite direction it will improve vision- then its just his belief. unless he can create a better eye. but he cant.
Please try to grasp that what is sub-optimal is the initial layout, not the evolutionary implementation.It was never a disadvantage. It keeps man from going blind in direct sunlight, which is exactly what would occur if the sensors were at the front and not turned around according to you all - i.e., sub-optimal. The octopus on the other hand needs eyes designed for low light sensitivity and refraction.
Not exactly. Each eye has evolved according to how effective it was in a given environment.Each eye has been perfectly designed for the function it was needed for.....
Are you claiming that because of the few-nanometers-thick axons and such that are in front of the photoreceptors in the retina - axons that are, for all intents and purposes transparent at this level, we can look directly at the sun with no problems?It was never a disadvantage. It keeps man from going blind in direct sunlight, which is exactly what would occur if the sensors were at the front and not turned around according to you all - i.e., sub-optimal.
are you sure? It takes a while to load...and try long pressing on the player bar to unfurl a popup context menu...then choose play from those menu optionsWhat is the thrust of his argument? (I can't listen to it).
Thanks.
are you sure? It takes a while to load...and try long pressing on the player bar to unfurl a popup context menu...then choose play from those menu options
basic argument is that even a single cell is too complex to have gradually evolved, instead suggesting designPretty sure, I've got no speakers!
No problem though, I'll give it a listen when I get home tonight.
Well, there's the question of whether a biblical account of reality is consistent with evolution. My concerns are specifically related to how Abrahamic religions approach the question of suffering. If suffering is and has always been built into the natural order of things and was not a result of the Fall, then the whole notion of divine providence seems to collapse, unless propped up by a novel conception of how evolution fits in with Christian theology and divine goodness.
This is probably the wrong part of the forum for these particular questions, though. I just don't like to see theistic evolutionists focus exclusively on the scientific issues, both because theistic evolution tends to just get wrapped into atheistic evolution
and because there are genuine theological issues involved. There's certainly an argument to be made that evolution is too cruel to be reconciled with Christian theism, which may be an underlying issue for some Creationists.
(Though I don't see how ID would help them here.)
basic argument is that even a single cell is too complex to have gradually evolved, instead suggesting design
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?