FAO: Bane - You Mentioned the Eye

by cantleave 56 Replies latest jw friends

  • cantleave

    Why is the retina inside the eye? The following provides a good explanation of eye evolution.


    Click on the link for full article.

    I'm still waiting for answer raised in my original question and in the funny little video which I will now specify as it has only been eluded to.

    If eyes were created by such an intelligent designer why do the nerve fibers from the retinal rods and cones extend not inward toward the brain but outward toward the chamber of the eye and source of light?

    This configuration means they have to gather into a bundle called the the optic nerve, inside the eye, and exit via a hole in the retina. Even though the obstructing layer is microscopically thin, some light is lost from having to pass through the layer of nerve fibers and ganglia and especially the blood vessels that serve them. The eye is blind where the optic nerve exits through its hole. The loose application of the retina to the underlying sclera makes the eye vulnerable to the serious medical problem of detached retina. It would not be if the nerve fibers passed through the sclera and formed the optic nerve behind the eye. This functionally sensible arrangement is in fact what is found in the eye of a squid and other mollusks (as shown in the figure below), but our eyes, and those of all other vertebrates, have the functionally stupid upside-down orientation of the retina.

    Why did God get it right with molluscs but not with his greatest creation man?

    Another question raised in the video is that of the mole rat, a creature with useless vestigal eyes.

    Which theory, evolution or creation holds water when the eye of the mole rat is considered?

    The ancestor of the mole rat presumably used its eyes as it lived above ground and needed them for survival. However, the mole rat has adapted to living underground in complete darkness. Its eyes have become useless--indeed, they have been buried beneath skin and fur and couldn't be used even if the mole rat came into the light. The neurons that were used for sight have been put to better use in the mole rat's brain for other sensory functions. Evolution by natural selection perfectly explains the eyes of a mole rat. A creationist must resort to faith and/or a poor designer.

  • bohm

    Mad Dawg: "Hmmm.... and evolutionists argue by use of YouTube vidoes. Puh-leeze. If only evolutionists actually understood what creationists put forward."

    The article you copy-pasted contained an obvious false statement. Care to discuss that, or is it of no consequence to you?

  • Mad Dawg
    Mad Dawg

    Which statement are you referring to?

    I know why the retina is in the eye, the question was "how did it get there from the back"?

    So a light sensitive spot simply appears on a bacteria. Has this ever been observed? Has it ever been induced? What good is this spot without the ability to process and respond to the stimuli? In the late 19th century, many bacteria were cataloged and described. Since then they have undergone between 50,000 and 1,000,000 gernations. This is the equivelent of 20,000,000 years of human evolution. Can you show a bacteria that has a light spot that didn't previously?

    How does the degeneration of an organ prove that one is evolving (mole rat eyes)? Again, your ignorance of the creationist view of this apparent.

    Dawkins is off bass with his assesment of the inverted wiring of the eye. The inversion is necessary for our eyes to function properly. Further, I find it strange that Dawkins would a theological argument, what a designer would or would not do, to argue for evolution.

  • BANE


    The video works for me. Don´t know why it doesn´t work for you. I just checked it.

  • cantleave

    The video to which you refer Bane, "has been removed by the user".

    If you can find it again I would love to watch it.

  • cantleave

    The great think about science is that it is a voyage of discovery and we have so much learn. I admit I do not know how the retina developed at the back of the eye. But I am certain there are theories.

    That's the thing with scientific logic we know that there are unanaswered quetions and those question will keep universities busy for generations.

    Can i ask you a question, how did god get here?

  • Mad Dawg
    Mad Dawg

    Do I understand correctly that you accept that the retina migrated to the interior of the eye as a matter of blind faith? Are you willing to grant creationists leeway in the fact that there are things that creationists don't know?

    I will answer your question when you anwer some of mine from above. Or, are you saying there are no asnwers for my questions?

Share this