Another Icon of “Bad Design” Bites the Dust
| May 2, 2007 | Posted by William Dembski under Intelligent Design |
Darwinists often cite the inverted retina (backward wiring) of the vertebrate eye as a prime example of bad design and therefore as evidence that no right-thinking designer would have done things that way. On the ID side, it’s been clear that the Darwinists’ received wisdom here is not nearly so clear cut and that there can be good functional reasons for an inverted retina (see Michael Denton on this subject here).
A recent article in PNAS now indicates that living optical fibers create a clear passage for light to the light-sensitive cells at the back of the eye. Concerning his research in this area, Andreas Reichenbach remarks, “Nature is so clever. This means there is enough room in the eye for all the neurons and synapses and so on, but still the Müller cells can capture and transmit as much light as possible.” Go here for a summary of the research as well as for a reference to the relevant PNAS article.
Question: Is this result more consistent with Darwinian or ID assumptions? Darwinists have been constantly saying that a competent designer wouldn’t have wired our retinas the “wrong” way. Well, now we find inside the eye optic fibers that transmit 100% through the layers of “bad” stuff in front of the cones and rods. Perhaps we need is some congressional research funds earmarked to tackle all these instance of “bad design” and show that they actually constitute great design — things to inspire engineers to build better devices!
41 Responses to Another Icon of “Bad Design” Bites the Dust
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
So….erm….is this another place where Darwinian assumptions delayed science AGAIN?
How many mistakes can a theory make before it is considered false?
“How many mistakes can a theory make before it is considered false?”
How many epicycles can you withstand?
It’s very important to notice that everytime Darwinists use the bad design arguement are unwillingly showing that there are only two sides on the origins issue: design or darwin. Therefore, evidence against darwinism IS evidence in favor of design, since darwinists believe that evidence against design is evidence in favor of Darwinism.
Forgot to put a “they” between “arguement” and “are”
Just a few thoughts. It seems that the “optical fibers” are flared open at the unattached end. Is this so that the optical fiber can accept longer wavelengths of light? In the case of the octupus, I imagine that the kind of light it “sees” is confined to a much more limited range of wavelengths than in the case of mammals. Is this then the reason for mammals having—as someone nicely put it—”living optical fibers”? From a “design theorist” POV, these seem like questions that deserve some research. Or, should we (as the Darwinists do) just call this “bad design” and move on to other things?
If so, then perhaps the “inversion” of the retina is for the very precise reason that these “living optical fibers” need to be properly localized; i.e., you don’t want the flared end pointing in any old direction. Do the various neural and circulatory structures that are present in front of the retina, then, serve as a kind of matrix within which these “fibers” are fixed?
Sorry: something got added in to the last post in the wrong place. This is how it should read:
Just a few thoughts. It seems that the “optical fibers†are flared open at the unattached end. Is this so that the optical fiber can accept longer wavelengths of light? In the case of the octupus, I imagine that the kind of light it “sees†is confined to a much more limited range of wavelengths than in the case of mammals. Is this then the reason for mammals havingâ€â€as someone nicely put itâ€â€Ã¢â‚¬Âliving optical fibersâ€Â?
If so, then perhaps the “inversion†of the retina is for the very precise reason that these “living optical fibers†need to be properly localized; i.e., you don’t want the flared end pointing in any old direction. Do the various neural and circulatory structures that are present in front of the retina, then, serve as a kind of matrix within which these “fibers†are fixed?
From a “design theorist†POV, these seem like questions that deserve some research. Or, should we (as the Darwinists do) just call this “bad design†and move on to other things?
“Great Ape, I’m curious. Do you have any religious beliefs or are you an atheist?
There are many people who believe in Darwinian Evolution and God too.” –DMcG
I am a theist, though not an evangelical, and one of those people who believes evolution and God are not mutually exclusive. I do not rule out the possibility that God (or some other such powerful entity) has intervened one or more times in the history of life on earth. However, I have found no compelling reason to think such intervention has happened or was necessary.
“Also, what would convince you Great Ape that there may be something to the argument for Intelligent Design?”
1. A direct and unambiguous (contemporary) message from the designer would go a long way towards winning me over.
2. As our knowledge of what is and is not possible via biological evolution (without intervention) grows, it may well become possible to examine the phylogenetic record and ask, could this have been accomplished via mutation and selection in such and such amount of time given such and such population constraints, etc? Once we know enough to be able to say no with exceptional confidence, I would find that a compelling argument. I do not think we are anywhere near such a state of knowledge, nor have I come across any obstacle thus far I’d consider insurmountable to evolution by unguided means.
Right now, the evidence as I see it is consistent with a natural unguided process. And my first and foremost allegiance is towards developing the most truthful account of reality/nature possible. If my theology should ever come into conflict with what is discerned as truth given due diligence, then so much the worse for my theology.
LeeBowman,
Like I said above, I wasn’t trying to state that those mollusks are in the same lineages. I was pointing out what an intermediate eye would look like.
I had Lasik the other day, and my cornea was removed, yet I could still see big light blurs where light sources were and I could see movement of large shapes. Half an eye is much better than no eye, or 1/3rd an eye. BTW, the surgery went well and I now have 20/15 vision! The intelligent design of the procedure worked wonders.
fross
You’re using something as a given that I don’t accept as given. The given is that mammalian camera eyes began from an ancestor with no eye at all and once a gross anatomical configuration was well established there was no starting over from scratch. An alternative to that given is that the mammalian camera eye’s gross anatomical configuration was the way it was originally designed and evolution is incapable of starting over from scratch.
Either way what we really see are the bounds of what evolution is capable of doing. To propose that evolution can create an eye where none existed before but is incapable of deleting an eye that already exists borders on the preposterous. Destruction is far far easier than creation. Destruction is aided by the law of increasing entropy while creation is hindered by it. There’s also no arguing that eyes are indispensible to survival. More living things on this planet don’t have eyes than do have eyes. Evolution’s commonly accepted one-way trajectory of simple to complex really makes no sense as the most successful organisms on the planet by any metric are prokaryotes. They’re numero uno in terms of biomass, number of individuals, diversity of environments where they can survive, and immunity to extinction. If evolution was really about survival of the fittest everything would be evolving into bacteria not further away from them. Evolution’s trajectory is bass ackwards from the standpoint of survival of the fittest. The fittest were, by the all the evidence, the first to appear on the planet and 4 billion years later they’re still here, unchanged, and still the fittest.
The only way I can make sense of evolution’s one way trajectory from simple to complex is the consideration that life on this planet is ultimately doomed to total annihilation absent the evolution of an organism with the cabability of moving to another planet before being burned to a crisp by its parent star. The common imperative in all living things is survival and reproduction. The only hope for long term survival of life currently residing on the earth is moving off this planet before its inevitable destruction. That raises some interesting questions. Is it more likely that life on this planet is a repeating link in a long chain or the first link in a new chain? One more link in a long chain seems more likely than the first link in a new chain. If we consider evolution writ very large, life that evolved the capability to get off a planet before it becomes inhospitable has a huge advantage. Any life that doesn’t evolve that capacity inevitably becomes extinct after some billions of years. Given this it then becomes quite reasonable to presume that life doesn’t abandon its hard earned complexity but retains it in some form when starting over on a new planet to ensure that it eventually regains the capacity to relocate again before it’s too late. Note this view is entirely materialistic and based on survival of the fittest. It elegantly fits the known facts, follows the overriding imperative of all living things to reproduce, and doesn’t clutch at straws to somehow make the ultimate origin of life an accidental happenstance on this lonely little planet.
Eric Pianka asks “What makes humans more important than lizards?” My answer is “Lizards can’t save life on this planet from extinction when our sun swells into a red giant. Humans can and they can do it without lizards. That, if nothing else, is what makes humans far more important than lizards.”
On the other hand maybe all we are and all we experience is nothing but false memories in a Boltzmann Brain produced by a random quantum fluctuation. Follow the links starting here for more on that score. Before Dembski posted that article I’d never heard of a Boltzmann Brain. Following it through produced a new record high reading on my Weird Shitometer.
Hey Fross,
Glad your surgery went well. Yes, it’s definitely an intelligent procedure! Regarding molusks, I’ve heard the arguments that since they have retinas with distal rather than proximal nerve bundle attachment, evolution got it right in their lineage. When I’ve posited that that worked better for them in low light, the usual response is ,”Oh, then why are fish retinas inverted then? Ask the designer, I guess. It can’t be both, so one was selected as best for the species perhaps.
Regarding your experience with your cornea removed, I agree with your observation that an eye with a similar configuration would be more useful than no eye. Evolutionists say that that rationale bolsters Darwinian theory, since each little improvement would be a selective advantage. No argument there, but I view the eye, taken as a system (many simultaneous functions going on), to be too complex to evolve stepwise to its happy culmination.
Why, one might ask? There are many simultaneous functions going on in the vertebrate eye, all working together as a system. While it could be argued that sub-structures would form ‘as needed’, what would determine that they were in fact needed, since the eye would be partially functional? Also, to properly integrate into the compact final design, I feel that most of the sub-structures would need to evolve simultaneously for proper integration.
The above points are debatable. To bolster the evolution premise, and I might even consider this as proof, I feel that intermediate models of interim eyes need to be developed, i.e. a 10% eye, 12% eye …
In Dawkins’ essay that I cited above (“Wher’d you get those peepers”), he states that same premise that you mentioned, that successive percentages of an eye would serve some purpose, and be more beneficial than a lesser eye (or no eye). He’s right that they would, as you also mentioned, but I see it as highly unlikely that incremental eyes would evolve, due to the requisite design considerations I mentioned above.
The ridiculous evo scenario of the supposed evolution of the eye comes from Ma’ayan Semo (Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, Charing Cross Hospital, Fulham Palace Road, London) in his “Uncovering The Ancestry of A Complex Organ, The Eye” article (1998) – formerly available at his web site – which appears to be off line.(http://www.maayan.uk.com/evoeyes1.html)
He actually states, “The eye came first. In a fairly real sense, the brain is an outgrowth of the eye”. The article is full of the word “design” and implications that different species actually chose to use different “designs” etc.
I cracked up laughing at that one the 1st time I read it.
So there were eyes before brains huh?
These guys must never take 2 seconds to actually think over the idiocies they spew forth in Darwin’s name.
How could an eye function w/o a brain?
A non-seeing eye, just sitting there on or in some flesh would be like a tumor more than anything else and would be eliminated by NS.
Even light sensitivity in the infamous “spot” is vastly more complicated than Darwinists seem to understand.
Semo got a Phd. anyway so go figure, one is justified in wondering if they aren’t selling them to the highest bidder these days.