Is the Eye a Flawed Design?

One bit of data evolutionists have used to challenge the idea that the universe is designed is the way human eyes are constructed.  The backwards structure of the retina seems on appearance to be a mistake, a work around to adapt to a bad evolutionary development.  Why, the evolutionists have ask, would designer plan a flawed structure?

A new study reveals that this structure actually is advantageous, providing better sight and protection for the eye.  It might be said to be ingeniously designed.  Now that the data has changed, though, evolutionists aren't reexamining their conclusion; they're just reasserting their conclusion.

New Scientist reports on this new study:

It looks wrong, but the strange, "backwards" structure of the vertebrate retina actually improves vision.

Certain cells act as optical fibres, and rather than being just a workaround to make up for the eye's peculiarities, they help filter and focus light, making images clearer and keeping colours sharp.

Although rods and cones are responsible for capturing light, they are in a curious position. Hidden at the base of the retina, they are covered by several layers of cells as well as the bed of nerves that carries visual information to the brain. One result is a blind spot in our visual field, leading the vertebrate retina to be listed among evolution’s biggest “mistakes….

Now Amichai Labin and Erez Ribak of the Technion-Israel Institute of Technology in Haifa have used data from human eye cells to model the workings of the retina. Their findings suggest that sending light via the Müller cells offers several advantages.

Comments

[eric]

I was waiting for the other shoe to fall, but ti didn't. So I clicked through to read to article in the New Scientist. Still, no other shoe. Then I clicked through from there to the editorial about this in the New Scientist, which contains the following:

Sure, sending light through Müller cells enhances vision, but that is not an argument for choosing to put the wiring in front of the sensors. It still creates a blind spot, where the nerves dive through the light-sensitive cells on their way to the brain.

It would make much more sense to put Müller-like cells in front of the sensors, with the wiring behind. Rather than provide evidence in support of intelligent design, the new work is actually yet another example of evolution's extraordinary ability to create workaround solutions to problems arising from earlier iterations.

I don't see anything here that either argues for intelligent design or argues against evolution. Can you expand a bit on what you see as the significance of this research?

[Daron]

"Now that the data has change, though, evolutionists aren't reexamining their conclusion; they're just reasserting their conclusion."

[eric]

Daron,

The other shoe I was waiting for was the evidence of this. It wasn't presented in the post, and I didn't see it in the linked article.

There's a significant difference between evaluating new evidence and finding that your conclusions are still valid (what actually happened here), and ignoring new evidence and "just reasserting" your conclusion (which is Melinda's accusation).

When I read the accusation, I was expecting it to be followed with evidence supporting it.

[Daron]

Hi Eric,
It looks like it was presented in the post.

the strange, "backwards" structure of the vertebrate retina actually improves vision.
...
rather than being just a workaround to make up for the eye's peculiarities, they help filter and focus light, making images clearer and keeping colours sharp.

The backwards wiring itself causes the improvement. The glial cells are not a work-around but a vital component of the system. As Denton said years ago, the wiring and the layer of glial cells go hand in hand.
As the investigators themselves said:

We construct a light-guiding model of the retina outside the fovea, in which an array of glial (Muller) cells permeates the depth of retina down to the photoreceptors. The retina is revealed as an optimal structure designed for improving the sharpness of images.

So how is it that the backward wiring which is necessary for the improved vision is also a mistake? A priori commitment, that's all.

And why is it even the case that this supposed science article didn't stick to reporting the scientific news but had to smuggle in the unsupported anti-design apologetics of Ken Miller channeling Dawkins before him?
Where's the science in that?

[James]

Yes, my thought exactly. I have often wondered how it is that a metaphysical argument is used against design. IE, I would re-phrase it something like this: "If I were God, I would design an eye like..........." Methinks that there isn't much "science" in that.

[ToNy]

I dunno why it really matters.

I mean if someone found one flawed human design, would you stop believing in Intelligent Design?

Nope.

I don't even know what a "design flaw" would even look like.

just the mere fact that 70% percent of all the humans that have ever existed died via miscarriage, should be proof enough that the birthing process is riddled with flaws.

I dunno.

Someone put together this list a while back. I think some of them are interesting.

=============================

Human design flaws:

1. Female pelvis too small for the human baby's head making birth difficult and prone to perinatal injuries to the baby.

2. Retinal arteries/veins lying on and in front of the retina of the eyes. Many causes of blindness come from this defective design.

3. Wisdom teeth (already noted) with secondary abscesses, occasionally dissecting up into the cranium -> brain abscess, meningitis, epidural empyema.

4. Larynx too highly placed, leading to common choking deaths.

5. A bony projection, called the Odontoid Process, an extension of the C2 vertebral body lie a long finger, up to the end of the brainstem. It can easily fracture, especially in rheumatoid arthritis. That leads to death or paralysis of all extremities and inability to breathe without a mechanical ventilator. A simpler rotatory ball-socket joint would be better and safer.

6. Semi-soft disc material between vertebrae and just anterior to the spinal cord, were suited well to quadrupeds. But in humans the upper body weight compresses these and can cause herniations with mild to moderate trauma. There are 6 of these (none at C1-2) in the neck, 12 in the thoracic spine, 5 (rarely 6) in the Lumbar spine. That is 23 flaws or accidents waiting to happen.

7. Hip joints perfectly suited to support human weight if there were four of them or 4 supporting limbs. In a biped, the stress causes extremely common hip degeneration, femoral neck fractures in women and older people. How often do you hear of that in a dog or horse?

8. Knees similarly are not strong enough with the tibial cartilage in two legs for human weight, jumping down, and running. If we had 4 legs it would not be so bad. How often do you see cats with knee problems?

9. Foot and ankle bones are badly designed. Most quadrupeds walk on their toes or the balls of the feet. This puts more weight on flexible tendons, ligaments and several bending joints spreading the stress. In the human food, we are walking on essentially our leg "wrists" and balls of the foot with an arch that is traumatised by walking and standing. When it falls it has an additional problem of severe foot pain. (see 10).

10. In those fallen arches, the plantar nerves are badly placed. Instead of weaving between or over top of bones to their skin sensory receptors, these course "under" the ankle bones, under the arch to the metatarsal joints. When the arch slowly gives way it stretches those nerves and eventually compresses them. This never happens in dogs or cats.

11. Human wrist must extend to provide maximum finger flexion; a major human task is to hold things in our hands. So the wrist flexes a thousand times a day. Problem is that the median nerve runs through a bony trough covered by tough ligaments, the Carpal Tunnel. With every wrist flexion the median nerve is pulled in and out of that canal. The canal is easily narrowed by minor injuries or repetitive use. The nerve is injured causing pain, finger numbness, and weakness in thumb opposition.

12. The Elbow flexes and extends, but an important nerve, the Ulnar Nerve mostly motor to the muscles of the forearm and hand. It unfortunately does not go in front of the elbow in the safer soft tissue. It courses behind the elbow which is fine in horses, but human flex the arm at the elbow that pulls and stretches the ulnar nerve in a long course behind the elbow in an "ulnar groove" and additionally a human sitting often rest elbows on a table, and that compresses the ulnar nerve. Dogs and cats don't do that.

13. The Brachial Plexus is a cluster of the nerves to the arm that travels through a triangle with the first rib being the bottom, the collar bone in front, and the scalene muscles behind. Also in the triangle is the brachial artery to supply blood to the arm. Poor posture, hanging by exercise bars from the hands, or throwing balls, cause the triangle to compress either or both structures. This is Thoracic Outlet Syndrome, the Neuronal form when the plexus is injured and vascular form when the brachial circulation is impaired.

14. Female urinary opening (urethra), vagina, and rectum all located in a close row so that rectal infection of the urethra/bladder/kidneys, or the vagina is risky. The old joke is why is the recreational park located at the sewage outflow pipes?

15. Appendix is a seemingly useless relic of evolution that often gets infected and ruptures in a life threatening peritonitis unless removed quickly. A few postulate that it might have bacterial that make certain vitamins. That is unproven.

16. Large veins in the legs, progressively dilating from standing, walking, run the risk of blood clotting when the human sits for a period of time. These veins send those clots north to the heart's right ventricle and directly into the lungs causing pulmonary emboli (clots and lung infarction) that is often fatal.) Quadruped animals rarely die of this. Many humans do.

17. Venous Cavernous Sinuses at the skull base on left and right are large draining veins from the brain. But inside of the vein there is the carotid artery taking blood into the brain, and several important nerves: III, IV, VI that control all eye movements, pupillary diameter, and lens focusing, and V-1, V-2, and V-3 that supply sensation to the eye and face. This venous structure packed with these important structures is infected by sinus infection or pustules in or on the nose. Infection causes the blood to clot (thrombosis) that injures the nerves, makes the eye bulge and swell, and can cause spreading thrombosis into the brain which can be rapidly fatal.

18. Other cranial sinuses such as the transverse are located next to the middle ear that frequently gets infected in kids. The infection spread to the venous sinus and causes thrombophlebitis, the major effect is increased fluid pressure in the brain, venous strokes, and seizures. If all of those venous drainage pipes were internally situated, there would not be such a risk. (17 and 18).

19. Congenital birth defects caused by structures found only in primitive animals (but still in our genes): gills in our embryonic stage may have some left over at birth and a baby may have a partial gill (technically called a branchial cleft cyst.) These can cause pain as the person grows, or develop abscesses. Another is a chordoma, tumour composed of notochord tissue only otherwise found in ancient animals like Pikaea and Amphioxus. It preceded the evolution of the bony spine. We have one in our early embryo stages but absorb it. Sometime absorption is incomplete and notochord tissue grows (tumour) unfortunately in the clivus at the base of the brain.

20. Our abdomen. It houses our stomach, our liver, our spleen, great vessels (aorta) small bowel, and colon. In quadripeds it is underneath. An attacker cannot easily get to it. The predator has to attack the tougher back and spine. But in the human the belly is sticking out there for some clawed or toothed predator or knife wielding human criminal to take a swipe and eviscerate us.

[Glenn]

Why didn't you copy the entire article instead of just a section. It's only short. It continues;

"However, Kenneth Miller, a biologist at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island cautions that this doesn't mean that the backwards retina itself helps us to see. Rather, it emphasises the extent to which evolution has coped with the flawed layout. "The shape, orientation and structure of the Müller cells help the retina to overcome one of the principal shortcomings of its inside-out wiring," says Miller."

[RonH]

Some of the same presentations that describe our eye design as 'backwards' also say that hawks see better than anybody AND that hawks (like all vertebrates) have the same 'backwards' design we have.

Nothing prevents people from making bad arguments. That's something people do.

RonH

[Patrick]

The statement I am about to make only fits in Christian theism, so I am assuming that much. I am not arguing for it, rather assuming it for discussion among those that accept that assumption.

Perhaps the many things ToNy mentions (without reviewing specific merits) are as such due to sin and the effects of the fall. Just as our joy is only real joy in the Lord, and as all things are what they maximally can be unto the Lord, perhaps through sin, our physical attributes do not function in keeping with the designers optimal design. We cannot know their best possible functionality and use in the present fallen system, until the renewal of all things, when those less than optimal and perhaps seemingly only minimally functional attributes will be replaced with the perfection that will also change our souls.

It is going to be remarkable.

[Daron]

When science is theology
http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2010/05/pnas-publishes-theology-paper.html

[ToNy]

Patrick,

Absolutely.

If I was still a Christian, I would never make the mistake of claiming that the beauty of the human design somehow evidences the Christian God.

If anything, the bible PREDICTS that, given the fall, the design of the human body should be utterly riddled with flaws.

[James]

I don't believe it is a mistake to claim that the design is marvelous; but just as an old rusted-out jalopy is evidence of both design and corruption, so too are we.

It seems to me the onus of burden, with respect to the scientific enterprise, is on the macro-evolutionist. Regardless of the issue of flaws or "flaws", the jalopy is there in the first place, and there must be some means of explaining the mechanisms as to how it got there. In other words, how can the evidence be produced without resorting to the afore-mentioned meta-physical leap?

[eric]

"It seems to me the onus of burden, with respect to the scientific enterprise, is on the macro-evolutionist."

I would say that is quite well under control.

[Todd]

Hi Tony

You don't have to look to human design to see that life is not perfect. Christianity doesn't claim it is.

The question, why aren't we designed to give birth easier, is the same question as why do I die, and why does life have pain and suffering.

Life is good, not perfect, our bodies are good, not perfect.
(BTW, we seem to reproduce pretty good!)

Todd

[ToNy]

Todd,

Well the title of this post was:

"Is the Eye a Flawed Design?"

I assume Melinda is arguing for Intelligent Design by citing life's non-flawedness.

>> BTW, we seem to reproduce pretty good

Well I would call a machine that only successfully created a mold 3 out of 10 times a BAD design. NOT a divine design.

[RonH]

Can you argue for or against the appearance of design without knowing the intent?

Can you go still further and judge something a good or bad design without knowing intent?

What's the connection between design intent?

I think it makes more sense to talk about issues that are better defined. For example, Michael Behe makes a pretty specific claim with his 'irreducible complexity' concept. It's something you can get a handle on.

RonH

[Todd]

Hi Tony

I don't think Melinda is arguing for flawlessness. Just that something that was thought a flaw, actually is not. But that doesn't change any thinking on the subject. If it is a "bad design", then of course it is not designed, if it is a good designed, well that is not designed either.

On to your machine analogy, if we made a machine, that was successful making another machine, three out of ten times, we would be beating our chests like King Kong.

But the original problem is the same, if God is perfect, why didn't he make everything perfect?

Todd

[Todd]

Hi Tony

I should have been more careful with my machine analogy.

I meant a self replicating machine.

You know, like a drone predator plane, that could reproduce itself.

[RonH]

Self-replicating machine?

[Todd]

Awesome RonH

Where do they get stuff like that?

Did that happen by design or chance?

[ToNy]

Ron,

the "intent" of women is to make babies and sandwiches.

7 out of 10 of her babies die.

Though the sandwiches are pretty good usually.

==========================

Todd,

I think desktop replicators will be as commonplace as copy machines in a few decades.

You can get them now, kinda, but they don't build much that is very useful.

http://reprap.org/wiki/Main_Page

[ToNy]

P.S. Greg told me on the air in 2004 that he, quote:

"Doesn't think that self-replicating machines will ever be possible."

I wonder if he still believes this...?

[Todd]

RepRap is a free desktop 3D printer capable of printing plastic objects. Since many parts of RepRap are made from plastic and RepRap can print those parts, RepRap can be considered a self-replicating machine - one that anyone can build given time and materials.

O.K....not exactly what I had in mind. Doesn't really replicate itself. But pretty cool.

Did someone design this thing?

[Todd]

I guess the question is, does non-optimal design mean the item was not designed, and does optimal design mean the item was designed?

BTW I have no problem with us making a self replicating machine. I just think it will be very difficult and take a lot of design.

In fact, in regard to biogenesis, I think it would be cool to try and build a cell from scratch. But we would use design to do it.

And if that cell could replicate and adapt to it's environment, the would be awesome too.

[RonH]

Todd,

Here's the paper.

You ask if it happened by design or chance.

I'd say a combination of both. Natural selection did the heavy lifting. The starting point was an RNA enzyme designed by the researchers. There's your design.

The starting point system was able to double twice - taking 17 hours each time. Then it quit. It was not a true self-replicating system.

The researchers allowed this enzyme to evolve. They gave it food and provoked mutations in it. They did not control the evolutionary path. There's your chance - with the critical thing added: natural selection.

The evolved system doubles in 1 hour and reproduces indefinitely. It is a true self-replicator.

You may object that the researchers chose the starting system. I would answer that they had a small lab and very little time. Nature had the whole earth for, let's say, hundreds of millions of years to come up with a suitable starting point from which to evolve a true RNA replicator.

You may object also that the researchers designed an environment for the enzyme to evolve in. Again, the researchers resources (space and time) were limited compared to nature's.

The transition from non-lifelike to lifelike in this experiment was directed by evolution: chance and natural selection. Descent with modification. That's it.

If you still hold your objections, that's fine. You can still enjoy the system as a self-replicator.

RepRap only makes its plastic parts.

This RNA system only needs raw materials and room to grow and it will self-replicate indefinitely.

RonH

[ToNy]

>> I guess the question is, does non-optimal design mean the item was not designed

no

it means it wasn't designed by God.

>> I think it would be cool to try and build a cell from scratch. But we would use design to do it.

Venter is trying to build cells from scratch.

Now, they can only build genomes from scratch.

Then they remove the DNA from already existing cells, and put the new DNA in.

So i guess you can say that, right now, man can only build HALF of life from scratch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4MnelFIJr8

[ToNy]

OOOOOOPSSSSS

Wrong link

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKZ-GjSaqgo

[Todd]

Couldn't get the paper, but great, design and chance. There it is.

[RonH]

Todd,
Couldn't get it?
That link works for me.
Did you get a page at all?
If so try scrolling down below the boilerplate.
RonH

[RonH]

Todd,

great, design and chance. There it is.

But chance (random mutation and natural selection, actually) was responsible for producing a perpetual self-replicator from a thing that merely had self-replicating tendencies.

THAT is a pretty big deal because once you have a perpetual self-replicator you are crossing the fuzzy boundary between life and non-life.

RonH

[Patrick]

Gee, I wonder if anyone designed the self replicating machine, or if the machines just evolved on their own.

Poor fellows, you have my pity. Farewell

[RonH]

Patrick,
What are you talking about? Are you being sarcastic? Who are the poor fellows that have your pity?
RonH

[Patrick]

Tongue in cheek, I suppose. I was semi quoting Buzz Lightyear from Toy Story. Woody has just reminded him for the millionth time that he was not a real astronaut, but a child's plaything. Buzz pitied him. I just turned the tables a little. Anyone that thinks that a machine should receive accolades for "self replication" or "producing new" info still fails to see that the computer was designed.

Tony seems to have fallen here as well, and can't get up. To continue to be impressed and convinced about the earth and evolution and time producing potential over and above the design that got it going, is Buzz Lightyear-ish.

[eric]

Patrick,

So, in your joke you have placed yourself in the role of the delusional toy-who-thinks-he's-a-real-spacehero, pitying those who are aware of reality?

Bravo.

Do you think it is possible to experimentally study thinks such as this, or will all such experiments be tainted by the mere fact of human involvement?

[Patrick]

Eric,
No Silly! In the post I made stated (perhaps not clearly) that Buzz represents a thing that in reality is different than what he thinks he is. If Buzz was a theory, he would be "Darwinian Evolutionary theory", and the theist would be Woody!

I will rephrase what I think your question is: " Can we ever detect design in random processes?" No, especially when those tests cannot start on their own. One cannot teleologically speculate non-teleology. Its like saying "I think that can't think".

[SteveCherry]

Even if the conclusion of the article is that flaws remain in the eye, this is not an argument against ID. ID argues simply for "design", and not "perfect" design. Likewise, when we go to Sedona, AZ and view cliff dwellings there, we might wonder why in the world they were "designed" as they are straight up toward the top of a cliff face, and not somewhere at the top of the cliff, or down at the base where water is readily available. But we don't do that. We infer design first, then we look at the context. Cliff dwellers likely had a reason for their strange location, but we don't know that for sure unless we interview one or find their writings.

[eric]

No, especially when those tests cannot start on their own.

So you think the idea that apparent design can develop by natural processes, without the need for intelligence, is not accessible to scientific study? Rather than being convinced by evidence that design requires intelligence, you think that the question is unanswerable, because the very act of asking infuses intelligence into the situation? Am I getting your position here?

If evidence is not applicable to these questions, then is there some logical argument by which you can demonstrate that your position is true and alternative positions are necessarily false?

[Patrick]

Rather than being convinced by evidence that design requires intelligence, you think that the question is unanswerable, because the very act of asking infuses intelligence into the situation?

No, my point is that evidence is the only thing we can look at. There is no example of order being generated by the process of chaos (another word for randomness in this discussion). All you know about order you know as result of and through the filter of intelligent agency. My other point is that any test that has to have intelligent agency to get it started is a very poor choice for making the case in support of design by chance.

[eric]

Patrick,

Do you think it's possible to scientifically examine whether some particular design observed in nature may have come about through non-intelligent means? Do you think it is possible for us to classify things as either "intelligently designed" or "not intelligently designed"? Do you think it is possible to intelligently design an experiment that will investigate something that occurs naturally?

[RonH]

There is no example of order being generated by the process of chaos (another word for randomness in this discussion).

What about a crystal?

Y'all like to speak of randomness, chance, and chaos. Y'all like to leave out natural selection. Why is that?

Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!'

- Douglas Adams

RonH

[ToNy]

Patrick,

i dont believe in 'molecules-to-man' evolution.

the existence of self-replicating machines adds nothing to the ID debate.

The existence of perfect or imperfect eyeballs doesn't either.

[Patrick]

<>Do you think it's possible to scientifically examine whether some particular design observed in nature may have come about through non-intelligent means?<>

Yes, its is done all the time - CSI comes to mind. They can tell right away whether or not something was caused or deliberate, etc

<>Do you think it is possible for us to classify things as either "intelligently designed" or "not intelligently designed"?<>

Yes, that is after all at the heart of the ID movement.

<>Do you think it is possible to intelligently design an experiment that will investigate something that occurs naturally?<>

These are great clarifying questions by the way. Thank you for them. Yes, I think we do that studying ocean waves, and even tornado activity.

[Patrick]

RonH
will you please teach me how to center the quotes--that is really helpful.

I tried to just refresh the page a number of times to see if it would just happen but it doesn't! :) That is tongue in cheek. I really do want you to teach me if you would be so kind.

[eric]

Patrick,

To center quotes, use the "blockquote" tag.

<blockquote>Quote text goes here</blockquote>

produces:

Quote text goes here

[eric]

Patrick,

"Yes, its is done all the time - CSI comes to mind."

and

"Yes, that is after all at the heart of the ID movement."

This is the fatal flaw with the ID concept. CSI-type inference works because we have examples of things designed by humans and of things not designed by humans. We can construct a classifier to distinguish between these two things. In order to construct such a classification system, one must have examples of both classes of items. If we want to distinguish between items of Class A (say, designed items) and items of Class B (say, non-designed items) we must have many examples of both classes.

In the case of ID, the argument becomes incoherent (not meaning "difficult to understand", but meaning that it does not logically hold together). This is because ID proponents infer an intelligence outside the universe that created the entirety of the universe. If this is the case, then we have no access to items of Class B (the non-designed items). The conclusion of the argument is that everything is designed. So it turns out that our classifier is faulty. The conclusion of the argument is directly in opposition to one of the premises of the argument.

The most you can possibly get to with an ID argument is a natural entity of superior intelligence that created some of the things we see. You cannot get to an intelligent entity that created everything that we see. You cannot get to a theistic God.

[Patrick]

Eric

"If we want to distinguish between items of Class A (say, designed items) and items of Class B (say, non-designed items) we must have many examples of both classes."

I don't think that is the case. All we have to know is the kind of "specified complexity" Dembski argues for (see especially his explanatory filter). It seems to me that you need at least one example of the kind of specified complexity referred to, found by natural selection (which by the way, is still entirely random. I didmiss any notion that supposes natural selection is non random. It is entirely random)

[Patrick]

Oops! forgot the closed blockquote, but thanks, Eric. It does work!

[eric]

Patrick,

The only way Dembski can determine that "specified complexity" is a characteristic of intelligently designed things is by comparing known designed things to known non-designed things, and finding that specified complexity is only found in the former. If he then uses this concept to infer that everything was designed by an intelligent entity, he has invalidated his own classification system. We would not have any known non-designed items to examine to determine if they may have this property we are calling "specified complexity".

[Patrick]

Guess we are at a stalemate Eric. I would have to think it through a little more but it seems that what we know about ID makes ID by naturalism impossible. Maybe I am thinking of the personal involvement of mind in discoverable teleological activity that makes the same most unlikely (perhaps not statistically impossible--I may need to concede that)in a non personal paradigm. I will think some more on it. I do not know where to take the argument from here!

[RonH]

Why not get a definition for "specified complexity" agreed upon?

RonH