Did you ever think about the complexity of the human eye?

Question

I know Kent Hovind gets wood every time he thinks about it. I found this on youtube today - discussing how the human eye evolved and I just had to share http://youtube.com/watch?v=furcepFlfZ4

Sorry if it's old hat, but it was new to me and I was so happy it was simple enough for anyone to understand. To make sure this is a question - do you think Dawkins puts more people off by his english accent or his poly syllabic words?

Answer 1

When we studied the physiology of the eye in my bio 101, I thought to myself (and this is literally what went through my head) "There's no f****** way there's not a god." But six months later, when I had finished 101 and 102 I was completely satisfied that the evolution of the eye could be explained through material mechanisms.

BTW, that video is good.

Answer 2

You definitely have a long and thought out question, I have to admit that I don't think I'll be able to answer it with the certainty you're looking for, but I'll try. It's really information you're looking for, not a single statement. So I'll add what I think/know. CPU and Cameras are good comparisons in some ways, but not others, to the human body. Mainly because Cameras NEED resolution. Each spot is a block, or pixel. However the human eye, due to physics does not and cannot work this way. If you were to use a computer to receive external visual input from the human eye you would theoretically be able to receive infinite resolution, only hindered by the cables, computer, and monitor you're recording on. This is because there are no pixels in the real world. Accuracy would be potentially unmeasurable to a point. HOWEVER, one would reach a point where increased accuracy via resolution from the eye would yield no greater information. That's basically saying that at a point, you can still get better resolution from one's eyes but it wouldn't give you any more relevant data. As for the CPU vs brain aspect, this is much much easier to see. The brain absolutely has a computation speed. It is, in relation to computers, slow but much more efficient. More of the possible data and computation space is used. Then again, some say that only a small percentage of the brain is used. Assuming that any brain matter can be used for nearly any use, I would say that we still have many more possible upgrades to RAM, Hard-drive, Processor, and such in our own minds. --- Oh and I forgot to address you're "blind eye" scenario. I would think it would be something like hearing aides. In the way that we would be limited in many ways. A prosthetic eye, using modern technology, could never reach full functioning eye status because it's working with pixels and digital data, not the same as electronic messages as the human eye. I'm assuming you're speaking hypothetically, in which case I cannot answer it, because I don't know what scientific changes would allow a computer to NOT see in pixels. If there are pixels, then we are measuring in resolution. If there are not, then there is truly a massive change in the science of computing as we know. I hope I helped.

Answer 3

Chemistry and Calculus, feared and despised by many, revered by few. The secrets of the universe are contained within these hallowed fields. With calculus, everything, all objects can be described. With the proper computation, nearly any object in existence can be replicated visually with a mathmatical equation. And what are we? Bound molecules. The only thing separating us from one another are molecules, refusing to bond with one another. Microscopic boundaries, and incompatible chemistry. Is your Eye so complex that it even experiences these optical phenomena? No. The world is so much more than what we are privied too. Our eyes show us the world in means we can comprehend. A truly complex being would see the world, the universe, for what it is. Atoms, Molecules, Elements, would all be visible and calcuable in your minds. So I ask, How complex is the human eye, truly?

Answer 4

God's Ancestors; by Wayne & Carolyn Thornton The Eye Transmitter; Chapter 21


Chapter 21 - The Eye Transmitter
Fingerprints have been found to be rather unique. There is no record of two persons having the same fingerprint configuration. It is, of course, theoretically possible.
However, the irises of our eyes are configured so uniquely different that iris "fingerprints" are variable to the count of 600 trillion to one against two persons having the same iris signature, so to speak. Added to this is the ability for iris scanners to determine the age of the person being identified. Conclusion: It is statistically impossible, both in reality and theoretically, for two persons in this Universe to have identical iris configurations."
Early research revealed that birds, even the lowly sparrows, were even more variegated in their iris configurations.
That said, Planet H would be able to identify each new human, and, track their whereabouts simply by the binary code transmitted by their eyes.
Provided, of course, that an Eye Transmitter mutation could be developed by the Bio-Engineering Lab; a mutation that would enable the eye of each human to send identification, location, and visual signals back to Planet Big H computer monitors.
Well, not an easy task, considering that we humans mutate only every 33 generations; (Some mutations are not even discernable until they accumulate enough to make a

Page 149
God's Ancestors; by Wayne & Carolyn Thornton The Eye Transmitter; Chapter 21

structurally perceivable change.) And, considering that it would take approximately a thousand such mutations for any particular mutation to (naturally) be concerned with our eyes. Then the odds would be at least 100 to one that that particular eye related mutation would be related to the ganglia of the eye that normally transmits visual signals to the brain.

Even with the QFE (Quick Fix Evolutioner), it would be a monumental task. However, we are putting the task in the hands of a Planet 9 billion years more advanced than Earth's "computer age". Reminder: Planet Big H is mathematically 300 thousand times more advanced than we mere mortals on Planet Earth.
After a few thousand years of trial and error, God and Natalie were presented with a prototype of the Bio Engineering Lab's Eye Transmitter.
God, Natalie, and Gabriel began testing the new eye transmitter. Even, Satan joined in on the efforts to check out this new jewel of a mutation.

sorry for this copy and paste job. It was just too tempting for your Headlined Question. ----- signed Uncle Wayne and Aunt Carolyn

Answer 5

I'm still wondering what grade school class usually watches this old video. I would have preferred if it was narrated by CP3O or even Yoda.The written part was annoying as I'm a little bit lazy when it comes to watching a video anyway.I don't much care either way for the argument about natural selection. I'm sure it was helpful if the person you were mating with could see well enough to survive.

Answer 6

nature is not known for its simplicity. if you think about it, not only our eyes are complex. think about our bodies as a whole.

would you be able to design a 'a fluid, capable of transporting 2 basesubstances needed for combustion, without combusting them, within the same tube. which is also capable to react with air, to make it harden, as to protect from any leackage. aswell as support in healing the containing tubes it is in, to operatable state, within a matter of days?' doesnt the eye look simple now?

the human eye is VERY complex, but given the fact that even animals like snail. which are so profoundly different from humans, have eyes or atlease react to light in a manner, its fair to say that the eye actually evolved very early on in the evolutionary chain.

the fact that dawkins used intermediate example of animals indicates that these 'bridges' actually existed. and further gives evolution foot.

and no, i rather fancy the accent ^^

Answer 7

hmm nice video simple enough for a fundie to understand i hope
to answer you're question i think it's the combination of his English accent when he pronounces poly syllabic words

Answer 8

Just occasionally, as an optometrist!

"It's a wonderful mess" is probably the best short summary I could come up with.

An engineer wouldn't build it that way, but it works brilliantly despite several structural quirks that limit it and put it at risk.


Dawkins makes ground on his arguments, and loses ground on his tone and attitude.

Answer 9

I like the Pong-style graphics.

I find it fascinating why moths fly toward light. Their compound eyes are used to calculate trajectory assuming there are parallel rays of light, such as they would be from the sun. But a light bulb does not emit parallel rays of light, of course. So, the moth flies in a circle, trying to keep the same "pixels" in its compound eye illuminated, doing so in the belief that it is flying in a straight line, as it would be if those light rays were parallel.

Nutty, huh?

Answer 10

The only thing I'm sure of is that if the human eye was "intelligently designed" I wouldn't be more prone to cataracts because my eyes are blue, and I wouldn't need reading glasses because I am middle-aged... so much for the "intelligent" part of that!