"Poorly" designed eye can be used to test quantum mechanics

[Anguspure]

According to the observations of evolutionary scientists: “The human eye is a well-tread example of how evolution can produce a clunky design.” Nathan Lents

But in reality what an incredible piece of design: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-human-eye-could-help-test-quantum-mechanics/

 

[PsychoSarah]

According to the observations of evolutionary scientists: “The human eye is a well-tread example of how evolution can produce a clunky design.” Nathan Lents

But in reality what an incredible piece of design: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-human-eye-could-help-test-quantum-mechanics/

Literally just talks about a proposed experiment to try to test the results of a previous one that concluded that human rod cells can detect singular photons.

"Kwiat’s team, somewhat skeptical of the result, wants to improve the statistics by doing a much larger number of trials with many more subjects. Their key concern is the low efficiency of the eye as a photon detector. Any incident photon has to get past the cornea, the clear outer layer of the eye, which reflects some of the light. The photon then enters a lens that, together with the cornea, focuses the light on the retina at the back of the eye. But between the lens and the retina is a clear, gel-like substance that gives the eye its shape—and this too can absorb or scatter the photon. Effectively, less than 10 percent of the photons that hit the cornea make it to the rod cells in the retina, which result in nerve signals that travel into the brain, causing perception. So getting statistically significant results that rise above chance is a daunting challenge."

At least you tried something other than Evolution News, but you clearly didn't bother to read it.

 

[Kenny'sID]

According to the observations of evolutionary scientists: “The human eye is a well-tread example of how evolution can produce a clunky design.” Nathan Lents

Maybe for them, they clearly have trouble opening their clunky design.

 

[SkyWriting]

Literally just talks about a proposed experiment to try to test the results of a previous one that concluded that human rod cells can detect singular photons.

It litterally has nothing to do with said previous experiment.
The goal is to use human perception to determine the
reality collapse of quantum effects. Photons change from
wave characteristics to particle depending on the intent
of the researcher. The experiment is to see where reality changes.

 

[PsychoSarah]

It litterally has nothing to do with said previous experiment.
The goal is to use human perception to determine the
reality collapse of quantum effects. Photons change from
wave characteristics to particle depending on the intent
of the researcher. The experiment is to see where reality changes.

To do that experiment, they have to confirm that human rods can detect individual photons first.

-_- regardless, the paper posted in the OP is not praising human eyes as "an incredible piece of design".

 

[dreadnought]

According to the observations of evolutionary scientists: “The human eye is a well-tread example of how evolution can produce a clunky design.” Nathan Lents

But in reality what an incredible piece of design: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-human-eye-could-help-test-quantum-mechanics/

I had cataract surgery and had the lenses of my eyes replaced with man-made lenses. The man-made lenses are good but not as good as the original.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

It seems to me that some people are trying to claim that because the eye actually works and does some things reasonably well, that it can't be poorly designed.

The eye is actually quite optimised to make the best out of a fundamentally clunky design. That does not mean that the fundamental design is not clunky, just that evolution has refined the clunky design so that it doesn't perform as badly as it could do.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I had cataract surgery and had the lenses of my eyes replaced with man-made lenses. The man-made lenses are good but not as good as the original.

Mind if I ask what were the symptoms of that? I haven't been to the DR with it yet, but one of my eyes won't focus no matter what, and I was hoping it was something fixable.

 

[dreadnought]

Mind if I ask what were the symptoms of that? I haven't been to the DR with it yet, but one of my eyes won't focus no matter what, and I was hoping it was something fixable.

It's a little hard to explain. I first noticed it when I was driving - I was having difficulty reading road signs that weren't up close. Cataracts would blur your vision.

 

[Kenny'sID]

It's a little hard to explain. I first noticed it when I was driving - I was having difficulty reading road signs that weren't up close. Cataracts would blur your vision.

I first noticed a problem with seeing the computer screen, then ordered a pair of those cheap adjustable glasses, but could not adjust the blur from one eye while they worked fine for the other. As I understand it there are other things that can cause that, so guess I need to have it looked at.

Thanks.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I had cataract surgery and had the lenses of my eyes replaced with man-made lenses. The man-made lenses are good but not as good as the original.

-_- you mean the originals that clouded up so that you couldn't see right? Those artificial ones, as long as they were made and inserted properly, would last longer than anyone's lifetime, but this is never the case for the lenses we are born with. They all inevitably wear out and lose their ability to focus properly with time, so much so that anyone above the age of 70 claiming not to need glasses is almost certainly delusional or a liar.

Plus, should these artificial ones become cloudy, they don't need to be replaced, they can just be cleared up.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... Photons change from
wave characteristics to particle depending on the intent
of the researcher.

This looks like a misunderstanding of QM - how an experiment is set up can affect what is observed in a non-classical way, but the intent of the researcher isn't directly relevant.

It's also worth noting that the human eye is not a special case - the article says the ability of photoreceptors to detect single photons was first discovered in frog's eyes. The human eye is useful in this case because its owner can report what is actually seen.

 

[Sanoy]

That is incredible if we can notice a single photon.

 

[Chinchilla]

According to the observations of evolutionary scientists: “The human eye is a well-tread example of how evolution can produce a clunky design.” Nathan Lents

But in reality what an incredible piece of design: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-human-eye-could-help-test-quantum-mechanics/

How can eye evolve , untill it was fully developed it could not see so did these cells in that eye have some long-term investing plan for thier children or how did they manage to know that in future they will be used for seeing .

 

[SkyWriting]

This looks like a misunderstanding of QM - how an experiment is set up can affect what is observed in a non-classical way, but the intent of the researcher isn't directly relevant.

It's also worth noting that the human eye is not a special case - the article says the ability of photoreceptors to detect single photons was first discovered in frog's eyes. The human eye is useful in this case because its owner can report what is actually seen.

It looks like you don't know about the double slit experiment.
You can check for wave properties and find them.
But if you check for wave properties again, you can spot them twice.
But if you check for wave properties, then for particle properties
the wave information vanishes.

Checking for particle properties erases any wave properties
even after they have already happened.
The researchers intentions change the outcome retroactively.
Strange but true.

 

[Ophiolite]

How can eye evolve , untill it was fully developed it could not see so did these cells in that eye have some long-term investing plan for thier children or how did they manage to know that in future they will be used for seeing .

This is incorrect. It has always been incorrect. Each time a creationist makes this claim it is incorrect. Each time a creationist doesn't make this claim it is incorrect. It has the outstanding feature of always being incorrect.

If you wish to educate yourself in the matter read more here, then dig into the associated references. If you do not wish to educate yourself, wait two months then make the same claim again. It will still be incorrect.

 

[Chinchilla]

This is incorrect. It has always been incorrect. Each time a creationist makes this claim it is incorrect. Each time a creationist doesn't make this claim it is incorrect. It has the outstanding feature of always being incorrect.

If you wish to educate yourself in the matter read more here, then dig into the associated references. If you do not wish to educate yourself, wait two months then make the same claim again. It will still be incorrect.

Why are animals sleeping ? The one which could evolve the first to not need sleep would rule over rest of them because it could hunt these who sleep and eat them o__O

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Why are animals sleeping ? The one which could evolve the first to not need sleep would rule over rest of them because it could hunt these who sleep and eat them o__O

??
Even if a sheep could go without sleep,
it could not be a predator of coyotes, could it ?
Nowhere in God's Word does it ever go along with "the one which could evolve the first" ......

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

That is incredible if we can notice a single photon.

sidenote for fun research: the microscope (world's best optical one) is making a come-back (so to speak) and a few have been made (apparently).
It was forbidden for what, almost a century or longer ? (I don't remember),
because it was too good. The amazing detail in cells, etc, that could be seen exposed a lot of the deceptive medicine motives and goals at the time it was forbidden , and if it becomes available again to doctors and to scientists, it will undo most of the last 100 years profit progress (money mongering). Personally, I think and believe it much more likely that Jesus will return first to set things straight, because the world has an overall direction of not being able to do that (not being able to do what is good and right and true).

 

[OldWiseGuy]

This is incorrect. It has always been incorrect. Each time a creationist makes this claim it is incorrect. Each time a creationist doesn't make this claim it is incorrect. It has the outstanding feature of always being incorrect.

If you wish to educate yourself in the matter read more here, then dig into the associated references. If you do not wish to educate yourself, wait two months then make the same claim again. It will still be incorrect.

Lot's of "if's" here.

"...if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory."