The Fossil Record- As God Would Have Made It Through Time

[OldWiseGuy]

The fact that our brains have some clever workarounds to make up for the flaw in our vision doesn't make it not a stupid design. Unfortunately the forces of selection and mutation are incredibly stupid. An actual intelligence could have cut past the incremental changes and done something better.

You could probably design a car with one wheel missing and some clever gyroscopes to make it not grind one of its corners on the road... but a better design would be wither to have four wheels or to centre one of the three.

My eyes work just fine (for my age that is). I don't think I ever missed seeing something because of my blind spot. God didn't make us to physically last forever or to have the physical attributes he gave animals. He gave us bodies with limited abilities for a reason; so we would depend on others for survival, and on Him. Great plan.

 

[dad]

To me what's funny is that life is like a laboratory there have been trillions of experiments done in this Laboratory and the results all point to a creator and yet atheists want to ask all the time where is the proof but where is the proof that life came without a creator?

Science, as they say, is not about proof. It is about concocting foolish baseless anti God anti creation fables.

 

[Jimmy D]

I'm sure most have never heard of it.

See it? ..... Blind spot?

Nevermind.

 

[xianghua]

Let me ask you: how do you know that a robot (say a Roomba that you may have in your home) was "designed"? How, exactly, do you know this? (Hint: because humans make robots. We design them.)

humans also designed genomes. so by this criteria we need to conclude that a genome is the result of design?

Let's take a step back and look at bacteria. They reproduce quickly and in vast numbers. We see them adapt to poisons which have killed almost all of their predecessors. And they do it a few years.

so what? bacteria has many built-in molecular weapons such as efflux pump or a set of enzymes that are able to break down many kinds of molecules (beta lactamase). so its not something new in the bacteria. even some new traits can be the result of a simple mutation. so no, i will not call it evolution.

 

[Speedwell]

humans also designed genomes. so by this criteria we need to conclude that a genome is the result of design?

Human-designed genomes are the result of design. With naturally occurring genomes you can't tell.

 

[tas8831]

My eyes work just fine (for my age that is). I don't think I ever missed seeing something because of my blind spot. God didn't make us to physically last forever or to have the physical attributes he gave animals.

So you must have imperfect peripheral vision... LOL!!!

 

[tas8831]

How about having the first books of the bible written by chimps?

How could one tell the difference?

 

[tas8831]

I guess I should not have used science words...


Peripheral vision is the field of vision that is produced by light striking photoreceptors on the PERIPHERY (i.e., not in the center)of the retina.

The optic disc - the blind spot - it literally irrelevant to peripheral vision as generally understood by lay folk. It lies right next to the macula lutea.


Please define "near perfect peripheral vision". Because I can't find it anywhere.


You think that the blind spot can only be seen if one has "near perfect peripheral vision." This is, frankly, plain stupid. Peripheral vision is irrelevant - the blind spot is typically 3-4 mm from the fovea - the site of sharpest color vision. True, it affects visual reception that is not 'straight ahead', but seeing as how people generally have about a 170 degree visual field (plus or minus), 'near perfect' peripheral vision (what does that even mean?) is irrelevant, since the 'peripheral' vision we are talking about is only a few degrees off center, the area generally considered to be 'peri-central'.

I actually googled "near perfect peripheral vision" and - not surprisingly, not a single return.

 

[majj27]

How could one tell the difference?

You need to check Oook 1:1:

"Oook oook ook oook ook!!! Oook ook OOK OOOOOOOK. Oook."

 

[majj27]

Science, as they say, is not about proof. It is about concocting foolish baseless anti God anti creation fables.

"They" are more than welcome to stop using any fruits of science in order to avoid the appearance of evil.

I doubt "they" will do anything of the sort.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

See it? ..... Blind spot?

Nevermind.

Ok, got it.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

So you must have imperfect peripheral vision... LOL!!!

It's pretty good but I don't think I can detect my blind spot anymore (did that 50 years ago).

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Science, as they say, is not about proof. It is about concocting foolish baseless anti God anti creation fables.

And unwittingly, the study of .......creation.

 

[theQuincunx5]

humans also designed genomes. so by this criteria we need to conclude that a genome is the result of design?

That is an example of bad logic.

Just because humans have created biological compounds does not necessarily mean that all biological compounds are made by humans.

I hope you can see that point.

so what? bacteria has many built-in molecular weapons such as efflux pump or a set of enzymes that are able to break down many kinds of molecules (beta lactamase). so its not something new in the bacteria. even some new traits can be the result of a simple mutation. so no, i will not call it evolution.

So you think that bacteria simply "choose" to be killed by various antibiotics until they get tired of it and decide to use systems they have there all along?

So now you need to explain to me why any bacteria would "choose" to die due to poisoning if they can easily just NOT die.

 

[PsychoSarah]

http://apps.usd.edu/coglab/schieber/pdf/Ramachandran1992.pdf

Gotcha!

Interesting, none of the other sources I found mentioned dissecting any eyes as being how the blind spot was discovered, and suggested that finding the blind spot with the coin method is what made people realize the function of the optic disk. This source is from 1992, so perhaps some more about the history was discovered between then and now? I can't find any drawings of the eye made by him or made for his published works from his time period, which is highly unusual for the time, so the order of which came first, his dissection of the eye or the discovery of the blindspot, seems a bit obscure. And yeah, his published works do have illustrations. Seems that the discovery of the blindspot was a footnote in his career that he ended up being remembered for.

I can't find a complete copy of the letters he wrote about his discovery of the blindspot, so he may or may not have mentioned dissection. So, I'll concede that chances are, I was wrong on this one.

 

[dad]

How could one tell the difference?

I guess a chimp couldn't. We can.

 

[dad]

And unwittingly, the study of .......creation.

Not really, because creation was a long time ago. They imagine some desolate primordial world, where there was no animals or man. They just can't and don't actually cover the time.

 

[dad]

"They" are more than welcome to stop using any fruits of science in order to avoid the appearance of evil.

I doubt "they" will do anything of the sort.

You are welcome to point out ANY fruit of science that has anything to do with origins? No such thing.

 

[xianghua]

Human-designed genomes are the result of design. With naturally occurring genomes you can't tell.

but you have no evidence that a genome can evolve naturally.

 

[majj27]

You are welcome to point out ANY fruit of science that has anything to do with origins? No such thing.

Then "they" aren't having an issue with science. They have an issue with a specific area of study. That is not what you said "they" say.