WHERE DID ALL THAT WATER GO?

by MYOHNSEPH 70 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • hooberus
    hooberus

    The following link "Is Our 'Inverted' Retina Really 'Bad Design'?"

    http://www.trueorigin.org/retina.asp

    The squid eye and vertebrate eye are more than superficially similar. While the photoreceptors are wired differently. The photoreceptors themselves seem to be quite similar. An amazing thing to hve evolved twice without a common ancestor.

    Figure 1. The two arrangements of photoreceptors. The arrows indicate the direction of incident light.

    Edited by - hooberus on 30 January 2003 18:4:41

    Edited by - hooberus on 30 January 2003 18:11:21

  • rem
    rem

    From the article Hooberus posted:

    Moreover, the cephalopod retina, besides being verted, is actually much simpler than the inverted retina of vertebrates; as Budelmann states, The structure of the [cephalopod] retina is much simpler than in the vertebrate eye, with only two neural components, the receptor cells and efferent fibres. [49] It is an undulating structure with long cylindrical photoreceptor cells with rhabdomeres consisting of microvilli, [50] so that the cephalopod eye has been described as a compound eye with a single lens. [51] The rhabdomeres act as light guides, and their microvilli are arranged such that the animal can detect the direction of polarized light this foils camouflage based on reflection.

    Geez, don't you even read this stuff before you post?

    rem

  • hooberus
    hooberus

    Here is some more info (from a secular source) on the complexities of photoreceptors and the chemical processes which occurr in then to generate vision. Its hard to imagine these structures evolving once, let alone a similar photoreceptor evolving twice.

    The Retina

    The retina contains the photoreceptor cells and their associated interneurones and sensory neurones. They are arranged as shown in this diagram:

    A surprising feature of the retina is that it is back-to-front (inverted). The photoreceptor cells are at the back of the retina, and the light has to pass through several layers of neurones to reach them. This is due to the evolutionary history of the eye, and in fact doesnt matter very much as the neurones are small and transparent. There are two kinds of photoreceptor cells in human eyes: rods and cones, and we shall look at the difference between these shortly. These rods and cones form synapses with special interneurones called bipolar neurones, which in turn synapse with sensory neurones called ganglion cells. The axons of these ganglion cells cover the inner surface of the retina and eventually form the optic nerve (containing about a million axons) that leads to the brain.

    Visual Transduction

    Visual transduction

    is the process by which light initiates a nerve impulse. The structure of a rod cell is:

    The detection of light is carried out on the membrane disks in the outer segment. These disks contain thousands of molecules of rhodopsin, the photoreceptor molecule. Rhodopsin consists of a membrane-bound protein called opsin and a covalently-bound prosthetic group called retinal. Retinal is made from vitamin A, and a dietary deficiency in this vitamin causes night-blindness (poor vision in dim light). Retinal is the light-sensitive part, and it can exists in 2 forms: a cis form and a trans form:

    In the dark retinal is in the cis form, but when it absorbs a photon of light it quickly switches to the trans form. This changes its shape and therefore the shape of the opsin protein as well. This process is called bleaching. The reverse reaction (trans to cis retinal) requires an enzyme reaction and is very slow, taking a few minutes. This explains why you are initially blind when you walk from sunlight to a dark room: in the light almost all your retinal was in the trans form, and it takes some time to form enough cis retinal to respond to the light indoors.

    The final result of the bleaching of the rhodopsin in a rod cell is a nerve impulse through a sensory neurone in the optic nerve to the brain. However the details of the process are complicated and unexpected. Rod cell membranes contain a special sodium channel that is controlled by rhodopsin. Rhodopsin with cis retinal opens it and rhodopsin with trans retinal closes it. This means in the dark the channel is open, allowing sodium ions to flow in and causing the rod cell to be depolarised. This in turn means that rod cells release neurotransmitter in the dark. However the synapse with the bipolar cell is an inhibitory synapse, so the neurotransmitter stops the bipolar cell making a nerve impulse. In the light everything is reversed, and the bipolar cell is depolarised and forms a nerve impulse, which is passed to the ganglion cell and to the brain. Fortunately you dont have to remember this, but you should be able to understand it.

  • hooberus
    hooberus

    So the cephalopod retina is simpler than the vertebrate retina. This doen't prove that it evolved. Boeing 737s are simpler than 777s yet that doesn't prove that they evolved. The fact that both retinas use similar complex structures and vision processes should cause one to question the imposssibility of "convergent evolution."

    Edited by - hooberus on 30 January 2003 18:38:36

  • rem
    rem
    Its hard to imagine these structures evolving once, let alone a similar photoreceptor evolving twice.

    Hey, it's hard for me to imagine that time slows down the faster you go, or that there are uncaused events at the quantum level, that light can get sucked in to a black hole, or that nothing can go faster than light, etc. I'm sure it was hard for some people to imagine that the earth was round or that the earth orbited the sun in simpler times! Just because we can't seem to imagine it doesn't invalidate scientific observation.

    rem

  • hooberus
    hooberus

    rem said:

    "Just because we can't seem to imagine it doesn't invalidate scientific observation."

    Scientific observation has shown that multi-componet complex structures always are the result of creation. This is valid for jet-engines as well as for photo-cameras and camcorders. For the photoreceptor to have evolved once would have been a miracle, but to believe that it did more than once requires a faith in multiple natural miracles which defies probability.

  • rem
    rem
    Scientific observation has shown that multi-componet complex structures always are the result of creation.

    I think you'd have a difficult time proving this assertion.

    rem

  • hooberus
    hooberus

    When I talk about multi-componet complex structures I am obviously talking about structures with a certain functional complexity. Things such as cameras, electric motors, piston engines, light bulbs, etc.

  • funkyderek
    funkyderek
    Scientific observation has shown that multi-componet complex structures always are the result of creation.

    No, it's shown that all such man-made structures are the result of creation by man. It has not shown the same to be true of life forms. Your belief that everything complex must be created by an intelligent designer makes your belief in a complex supernatural creator hypocritical and absurd.

  • MYOHNSEPH
    MYOHNSEPH

    WOW! I didn't expect this thread to get such a response! Some really great posts, folks! I guess the original question kinda evolved into a broader issue - no pun intended - but that's fine. However, I've noticed that, whenever the issue of evolution vs.creation arises, the dialogue seems to center primarily around patent, no-god/creator, evolution through the nebulous concept of natural selection vs. simplistic mystical creation by a stereotypical, Jehovah-type, god/creator. There doesn't seem to be much middle ground. But honestly, if you throw out the idea of a wrathful, egotistical, snaps-his-fingers-and-things-just-appear, biblical type of god/creator and just entertain the concept of deliberate cause by an entity or entities possessing intelligence and means to initiate and manipulate the processes we call evolution, why is that more absurd than accepting everything we behold or know about as being the the result of a mind-boggling sequence of pure contingencies? While I personally find the latter far less plausible, I sincerely try I have an open mind on the issue. I'm just not aware of any scientifically established fact or facts which would absolutely, categorically, exclude the possibility of intelligent design and cause. Why is one concept more absurd than the other?

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit