The Poor Design of the Human Eye

The human eye is a well-tread example of how evolution can produce a clunky design even when the result is a well-performing anatomical product. The human eye is indeed a marvel, but if it were to be designed from scratch, it’s hard to imagine it would look anything like it does. Inside the human eye is the long legacy of how light-sensing slowly and incrementally developed in the animal lineage.

[Update: This article is now included as a section in my new book, Human Errors, go check it out!]

Not long ago, creationists often pointed to the human eye as an example of so-called irreducible complexity. Their claim was that the eye is so sophisticated, and with so many interconnected parts, that evolution could not have produced it through incrementation. Because the human eye does not function, even slightly, unless all of the parts are in place and working, there is no conceivable prior step of less complexity that the current form of the eye could have evolved from. So goes the complaint.


This bizarre objection misunderstands both how evolution works and how the eye works. It’s true that the eye won’t function if you remove any one part, but evolution doesn’t work by adding individual fully-formed parts to a pre-existing structure. The entire eye evolves as a unit.

There have been incremental advances throughout the entire structure of the eye, one at a time. Fortunately, we have many very good examples of earlier versions of the vertebrate eye, both from extant (living) organisms with more primitive eyes, and from the fossil record. In fact, the eye is now one of the anatomical structures about which we have the most complete understanding of its gradual evolution.

For this reason, creationists have largely abandoned the argument of irreducible complexity of the eye, retreating to more obscure examples such as the bacterial flagellum.

Before I discuss the puzzling physical design of the eye, let’s start off by making one thing clear: the human eye is fraught with functional problems as well.

Many people reading this are doing so only with the aid of modern technology. In the US and Europe, 30-40% of the population have myopia (near-sightedness) and require assistance from glasses or contact lenses. Otherwise, their eyes cannot focus light properly and cannot resolve objects that are more than a few feet away. The rate of myopia increases to more than 70% in Asian countries.

The defect in the myopic eye is not caused by injury or overuse: it is simply too long. Images focus sharply before they reach the back of the eye and then fall out of focus again as they finally land on the retina. It’s bad design, plain and simple.


Of course, the opposite problem, far-sightedness, exists as well and comes in two forms: hyperopia and presbyopia. Hyperopic eyes are built too short and the light fails to focus before hitting the retina, another example of poor construction.

Presbyopia, on the other hand, is age-related far-sightedness caused by the progressive loss of the flexibility of the lens and/or failure of the ciliary muscles to pull on the lens and focus light properly. Presbyopia literally means “old man sight” and begins to set in around age 40. By 60 years of age, virtually everyone suffers from difficulty resolving close objects. At 37 years old, I have already noticed that I hold books and newspapers further and further from my face as time goes on. The time for bifocals is nigh.

Bifocal d section

Add to this: glaucoma, cataracts, and retinal detachment (just to name a few), and a pattern begins to emerge. For the “most highly evolved creatures” on the planet, our eyes are rather lacking.

The vast majority of people will suffer significant loss of visual function in their lifetimes, and for many people, it starts even before puberty. I got glasses after my first eye exam when I was in the second grade. Who knows how long I had actually needed them? My vision isn’t just a little blurry; it’s terrible. My lenses are -4.25 diopters, which means my vision is somewhere around 20/400. Had I been born before, say, 1600, I would probably have gone through life unable to do anything that required me to see further than arm’s length. In pre-history, I would have been worthless as a hunter. Or a gatherer, for that matter.

Compare this to the excellent vision of most birds, especially birds of prey, such as eagles and condors. Their visual acuity at great distances puts even the best human eyes to shame. Many birds can see a broader range of wavelengths than we can also, including ultraviolet light. In fact, migrating birds detect north and south poles with their eyes. It’s not clear if they are consciously aware of this perception, but it seems likely to me that they are, considering this information is conveyed by the same nerves that relay vision. This would mean that some birds can actually see the earth’s magnetic field.

Many birds also have an additional translucent eyelid that allows them to look directly into the sun, at length, without damaging their retinas.

The superiority of the bird eye shows that whatever designed the human eye, be it nature or a deity, is capable of producing eyes that are much better than the human eye. The question of why nature didn’t provide humans with better eyes is easily answered by evolutionary theory: it wasn’t strongly selected for. Alternatively, why an intelligent designer would deny his favorite creatures the excellent vision that he provided lowly birds is quite a mystery.

There is more to be said about the shortcomings of our eyes. Our night-vision is, at best, only so-so, and for some it is very poor. Compare this to cats, whose night-vision is legendary. So sensitive are cats’ eyes that they can detect a single photon of light in an absolutely dark environment. For reference, in a small brightly lit room, there are about one hundred billion photons at any one moment in time.

Even with what light we can see, our acuity and resolution in dim light is far worse than that of cats, dogs, birds, and many other animals. You might be able to see more colors than dogs can, but they can see at night more clearly than you can.

Speaking of color vision, not all humans have that, either. Somewhere around 6% of the men in the world have some form of color blindness. (It’s not nearly as common in females because the screwed up genes that lead to color blindness are almost always on the X chromosome. Because they have two X chromosomes, females have a backup in case they inherit one bum copy). With a world population of around 7 billion, that means at least a quarter of a billion people cannot appreciate the same palette of colors that the rest of us can. That’s a lot of color blindness.


Now on to the physical design of the eye. One of the all-time most famous examples of quirky designs in nature is the vertebrate retina. The photoreceptor cells of the retina appear to be placed backward, with the wiring facing the light and the photoreceptor facing inward. A photoreceptor cells looks something like a microphone: the “hot” end has the sound receiver, and the other end terminates with the cable that carries the signal off to the amplifier. The human retina, located in the back of the eyeball, is designed such that all of the little “microphones” are facing the wrong way. The side with the cable faces forwards!


(I’m pretty sure this is photoshopped, but the point is made.)

This is not an optimal design for obvious reasons. The photons of light must travel around the bulk of the photoreceptor cell in order to hit the receiver tucked in the back. It’s as if you were speaking into the wrong end of a microphone. It can still work, provided that you turn the sensitivity of the microphone way up and you speak loudly.

Furthermore, light must travel through a thin layer of tissue and blood supply before reaching the photoreceptors.


To date, there are no working hypotheses about why the vertebrate retina is wired in backwards. It seems to have been a random development that then “stuck” because a correction of that magnitude would be very difficult to pull off with random mutations.

Interestingly, the retina of cephalopods – octopi and squid – is not inverted. The cephalopod eye and the vertebrate eye, while strikingly similar, evolved completely independently of one another. Nature “invented” the camera-like eye at least twice, once in vertebrates and once in cephalopods. (Insects, arachnids, and crustaceans have an entirely different type of eye.) During the evolution of the cephalopod eye, the retina took shape in a more logical way, with the photoreceptors facing outward toward the light. Vertebrates were not so lucky.


To be sure, evolution has done an impressive job of building an excellent eye despite the backwards contour of the retina. Perhaps capitalizing on the odd design, the vertebrate retina is able to provide oxygen and nutrients directly to the most metabolically active part of the light-sensing cells – the photoreceptors themselves.

However, there is no evidence that the backwards design is necessary or even advantageous for oxygen delivery, especially given that the cephalopod eye does not show any sign of inadequate oxygen delivery. While the blood vessels of the vertebrate retina have clearly made the best of a bad situation, all available evidence supports the notion that the inverted vertebrate retina is inferior to the more logical design of the cephalopods.

In fact, most ophthalmologists agree that the backwards retina is what causes retinal detachment to be more common in vertebrates than it is in cephalopods.

There is one more design quirk in the human eye that merits mention. Right smack in the middle of the retina, there is a structure called the optic disc where the axons of the millions of photoreceptor cells all converge to form the optic nerve. The disc is located on the surface of the retina, occupying a small circular spot in which no photoreceptor cells can fit.


This creates a blind spot in each eye. We don’t notice these blind spots because having two eyes compensates and our brain fills in the picture for us, but they are definitely there. You can find simple demonstrations of this on the internet by searching for “optic disc blind spot.”

The optic disc is a necessary structure insofar as the retinal axons must all converge at some point. An intelligent design would be to place it deeper in the back of the eye, tucked underneath the retina, rather than smack on top of it. The backwards placement of the retina makes the blind spot somewhat unavoidable and all vertebrates have it. Cephalopods do not, however, because their right-side-out retina allows the easy placement of the fovea behind an unbroken retina.


Nevertheless, there are many conceivable “fixes” for the blind spot in the human retina, backwards though it is. Thus, the optic disc and accompanying blind spot are an example of poor design in all vertebrates, including humans.

In sum, the human eye, wondrous though it is, has a few rather glaring defects in its design. These flaws are easily understood through the twists and turns of evolutionary progress. However, such rather obvious shortcomings are not easy to explain under the guise of an intelligent design.


Thumbnail-Twitter iconfacebook-thumbnail-259029tumblr

71 thoughts on “The Poor Design of the Human Eye

      1. Many wrong suggestions in this article. We can not compare human eyes with cephalopods. We need the inverted anatomy with blood vessels to filter UV damaging effect. Under water with cephalopods, they don’t suffer UV damage so they do not need any protection, that’s why there retina is inverted.


    1. We can not just compare human eyes with cephalopods. We live on land and they live under water. Humans need the inverted anatomy with blood vessels to filter UV damaging effect on the retina, so it has a purpose, an important one. Under water with cephalopods, they don’t suffer UV damage since they live under water, so they do not need any protection from bloodvessels, that’s why they profit from a inverted retina with better visual acuity without suffering UV damage. If the human retina was inverted, we would be blind in a couple of years from the UV light.


  1. a correction of that magnitude would be very difficult to pull off, but so would a mistake of this magnitude would also be very difficult to pull off.


    1. I don’t think Anonymous of October 2, 2015 actually bothered to read the article, which eloquently pointed out why the human eye is horrible and any deity would have to stupid to design it in such a way. As we design robots, we are already giving them much better ‘eyes’.

      Anon apparently also doesn’t understand evolution at all so to pose such a dumb question. Flys had millions of years to evolve; humans are just now starting to work out this happened.


      1. So you are saying you create robots that have more perfect eyes than humans? If I met this robot should I assume that there was a human that designed it, perfected it, built it, corrected it, and could shut it down at any time or should I just assume it spontaneously happened by chance? Your intelligence that allowed you to create a robot that has better vision than a human has blinded you to the concept that you ARE the creator you are trying to deny.


  2. I think life is truly amazing. I certainly I would not say a computer created itself but I would have to conclude it has an intelligent designer behind it, as a robot would as well. Maybe there is a reason the human eye is designed a certain way – one that we do not understand in all of our “knowledge”. Sometimes we think we know so much and we are proved wrong many times as we find out more information. There are things we will never know – and I’m ok with that – I look around and cannot fathom that there is not an intelligent designer behind life and the universe.


    1. I agree that life is truly amazing, but there is no evidence that it was intelligently designed. The more we explore and learn, what was mysterious becomes mechanistic and we increasingly see that there is no need for supernatural origins.


      1. Like all your atheist buddies, you think that just by saying something is true somehow makes it true. Scientists have not given up on the irreducible complexity of the eye, as you say. For you to say that the eye evolved as a unit makes you stupid or mad. How does something as complex as the eye evolve as a unit? It demands a priori knowledge of the end result to come up with the development of the eye as a unit. Where was this knowledge in your random mutation of the eye as a unit? You maintain that, with no forethought, no intelligence, no thought whatsoever of the end result, evolution just mutated an eye, from scratch, complete in all its staggering complexities. You should read Michael Bebe’s book or Stephen C. Meyer’s book on the subject before you continue to embarrass yourself.
        By the way, why on earth would you want humans to have sight like birds and cats? Do you really need to see a dead squirrel from 2,500 feet in the air? Do you have a fear of being attacked by marauding photons at night? There’s not a lot of need for humans to read small print in order to survive. We don’t have night vision as good as cats? You’re absolutely right. But our night vision is excellent for sleeping at night. If you’re worried about animals with night vision attacking you at night, put a fire in your cave, or lock your door, or buy a gun. Don’t you find it the least bit odd that humans have defeated and out-populated tigers who use their phenomenally keen night sight to hunt at night–where humans live? You sound like so many other Darwinian evolutionists who are great at making up stories to fit their preconceived notion of how life came about on the earth. One of the best laughs I ever had was while reading your buddy Richard Dawkins’ explanation of how bats evolved from flying squirrels. How about the one that says that whales evolved from a polar bear that fell in the ocean?
        You might as well spend your time defending Dr. Ernst Haeckel’s embryos; Charles Dawson’s Piltdown Man; Eugene Dubois’ Java Man; Paleontologist Harald Cook’s Nebraska Man; Anthropology Professor Reiner Protsch’s Neanderthal Man; Archaeoraptor Liaoningenesis Sloan after Christopher Sloan, senior assistant editor of National Geographic; American fossil expert, O. C. Marsh and famous evolutionist Thomas Huxley and their fake drawings showing the evolution of the horse; Oxford’s Bernard Kettlewell and his peppered moths.
        When Charles Darwin found that the evidence did not support his hypothesis, he didn’t reject his hypothesis like all of us were taught to do in school when learning the scientific method; he cried and complained that the evidence had to exist, and that archaeologists were not looking in the right places. He insisted he was right. We still don’t have any evidence to support his claims, but scientists still have faith in the evolution that they can’t prove. Sound familiar?—having faith in something that can’t be proved? And yes, I’ve read that idiot Darwin’s books. A totally displeasing experience. Try to remember that paleontologists and archaeologists were the biggest critics of Darwin’s hypothesis because the fossil record didn’t support his claims. Your mutated eye-as-a-unit is preposterous. Where did you go to school?


    2. You know that a computer was designed because you know from experience that humans create computers. Your notion that complex things have to be designed is not accurate. In fact, what about a snowflake or a grain of sand? If you look at either through a powerful enough microscope, you’d find a truly remarkable core structure. Did your god personally design the snowflake that was created – quite obviously – by crystallization of tiny water molecules? If so, then why is each snowflake different? Surely, he/she’s not designing them and putting them in each cloud – real time – around the planet (If he/she really is, then doesn’t this ‘intelligent designer’ have better things to do than create designer bits of crystalline water?)
      Ultimately, if you were trying to get at a deistic worldview (the designer created the rules of physics and ‘set things in motion’), that would at least make some sense. But a literal interpretation of the Bible or Quran or whichever holy book you cater to is absolutely contrary to the evidence which by default makes it unscientific.


    3. My apologies. I didn’t read your post fully. My reply still mostly holds – except the part with the literal interpretation – in that if you actually do have a designer who individually makes things in the universe, then there is typically some law of physics that you have to break. In fact, if you do a simple physical simulation of more than two particles, you’ll find that even inserting one big change will usually drive the system into chaotic (unpredictable) behavior. So, essentially, its very hard to predictably change a complex system in a massive way (like creating one planet at exactly the right spot in the solar system with 8 other planets in the vicinity and ensure that the moon slams into it at just the right time so that things are perfect for life) without completely messing it up. While I cannot disprove that a divine being didn’t come up with that one in quadrillion procedure, a reasonable person would refuse to believe it until presented with proper evidence.


    4. Indeed! the human eye is designed that way for a reason; researchers recently have pinned that down. The so-called-odd design has been revealed to be a design feature rather than ‘design constrain’, let alone odd design! Because these cells which evolutionists complain about their position in front of the eye retina constitute optic-fibers that channeled the light to the rods and cons in the photosensitive cells; and hence the eye works more efficiently day and night.


  3. It’s the process of nature selecting what survives. If we don’t know about life outside our solar system it may because we cannot see it or it doesn’t exist. But one thing is probable: life will be created elsewhere at some point… Maybe right now; maybe millions of years from now. What we should shift our focus on is to the possibility the the universe might be evvolving to a state that makes the propensity for conditions of life much more feasible.


  4. The eyes are truly amazing, all the things that they can do, see into infinity, focus and the brain which works with the eye to process, analyse, store the information it receives, and much more. For me, a creator God is the only explanation for a complex structure and for many more that the human body has and all working in unison with each other. When I see the most advanced structure that is made by man it fades into the dark compared to the human body.


    1. The eye is definitely a marvel, but it is far from perfect. And there is no need for it to have been intelligently designed and there’s abundant evidence that it wasn’t. The eye is the product of over a billion years of step-wise evolution and we have a pretty good idea of the major steps along the way. The eye, like the universe, has no design. But boy, is it beautiful.


  5. Congratulations Nathan, you garnered a citation for this piece. You were cited as having either no apparent knowledge or no appreciation of biophysicists who showed 5 years prior to this article that virtually every photon striking the retina propagates to the sensors. Here:

    Also kudos for referring to the “design” of the eye (“In sum, the human eye, wondrous though it is, has a few rather glaring defects in its design.”)

    Of course the citation is contained in “Zombie Science” by Jonathon Wells, copyright 2017


    1. You seem nice.

      Anyway, Thank you very much letting me know! The timing of this is perfect because a negative citation from Jonathon Wells, always a compliment, could boost my profile a little bit, right when my agent is meeting with publishers about my new book! It’s a whole compendium of poor design in the human body, genome, and brain – sure to give Mr. Wells lots to write about, and I hope he does. Thanks again, seriously, and I’ll let my agent know. Have a good day.


  6. we know design is real because we found evidence for design like the flagellum motor. a motor is evidence for design even if its made from organic components and has a self replicating system.


      1. Hi Nathan,

        Depends on a persons viewpoint, whether the view is that the bacterial flagellum is so complex that it couldn’t evolve but involves a creator, or created by natural processes – both need viewpoints need explanation I guess. I am not a biologist and that my knowledge on evolution would be lacking. Though I am a computer professional with a certain amount of logical intelligence and also I believe in God. You might say which God as Richard Dawkins or I think the well known atheist Bertram Russell coined the phrase ‘the flying spaghetti monster’. It’s just when I was 14 had a personal experience and know that God exists.


      2. Whether a flagellum is too complex to have evolved is not up to “a person’s viewpoint.” It’s a scientific question that has a true answer. The science of biology has provided a plethora of evidence in support of evolution by way of natural selection (and other forces). The claim of irreducible complexity has, so far, no empirical evidence in support of it. You can still hold the position if you want, but your belief in it doesn’t make it right. The truth is discovered through the collection of evidence. Intelligent design is a nice idea, but there is no evidence in support of it.


      3. Hi Nathan, Yes you are right, I cannot prove an intelligent designer – its a matter of faith. I have no problem with natural selection, but as I understand evolution correct me if I am wrong requires natural section + mutation to explain the process from simple to complex organisms. What I understand is that natural selection only works on genes that already exist and can choose from e.g. the moth changing colour, but any new stuff the evolutionist would say requires mutation for complete new structures e.g. the wing of a bird, or a heart, leg, etc., Well I think you know what I mean. Apparently, there is no evidence that mutations create new genes. Even if there was a natural process that could be proven, then a first cause is still needed which started it all off.


      4. Absolutely there is evidence that mutations can lead to new structures and there are several cases where we understand the mutations and the evolutionary process fairly well. For example, limb development is controlled by the HOX genes and as they get duplicated and mutated (natural processes that, again, we understand reasonably well), the number and placement of limbs can be altered. You can google images of fruit flies growing perfectly formed legs where their antennae should be – these are the results of laboratory tinkering with the same genes that evolution has tinkered with. Even something like our color vision – we have a pretty good understanding of how we developed our three kinds of cones through gene duplication and mutation. Read up on trichromacy if you want to learn more. So much of these natural processes were once mysterious to us, so we assumed they were supernatural. But now that we can observe the mechanisms, we find that they are natural and that not only CAN evolution produce the wondrous variety of life that we see, it is perfectly expected that it would do so. As Darwin said, through natural selection, endless forms most beautiful have evolved and are continue to evolve. Religious belief is perfectly fine, but you don’t need to invoke religion to explain life on earth. The reality is so much more exciting!


      5. Thanks for the information and the areas of research, you seem to know your subject well. Still I don’t understand how this excludes the need for a creator, the HOX genes which create body parts is truly amazing as you say, but for me that makes me more convinced of a God who has put these structures in place to create complex body parts. For the HOX genes to create a leg of a fruit fly with all its complexity, how would it know what its creating unless it had a design to work with and also a sense of purpose. Evolution has no intelligence. Even with the fruit fly tinkering, that still requires intelligence of a scientist in a laboratory to play with those already existing genes. Could I create a computer program unless I had the knowledge, the intelligence and the tools to work with.


      6. You are missing the point of that example. The tinkering that the scientists did was to alter the gene so that it would the same thing in a different place. This emphasizes how small genetic changes can have profound phenotypic consequences. But how the HOX genes (and many others) came to encode the information to build a leg came about through a long process of evolutionary tweaking, random mutations followed by natural selection. You are correct that evolution has no intelligence. It also has no intention, will, planning for the future. The tinkering is random, but the differential survival is nonrandom – it’s based on who survives and reproduces. It’s true that you couldn’t make a computer program without prior knowledge but that’s because the process of making a computer program involves a will, a desire to make something specific. That’s not how evolution works, so comparing the two makes no sense. The point is that there is abundant evidence for evolution via natural selection and no evidence for intelligent design. You are free to continue believing it, but since science is based on empirical evidence, you can’t expect that idea to be taken seriously by scientists.


  7. Hi Nathan

    You wrote this in 2015 saying there is no hypothesis to explain the inverted retina? Were you aware of the article by Ronald Kröger, entitled “Space-saving advantage of an inverted retina”, (Vision Research 2009) ? Can you please check it out and update your article, hopefully with some explanation?


    1. I just read it and I am sorry to say that it is altogether impressive. First, it is a theoretical model with no original data. Second, no work subsequent to this theoretical work has bolstered the argument with experimental data and there’s been plenty of time. Third, it models the zebra fish eye, among the smallest vertebrate eyes known, meaning they chose a model that was mostly likely to be biased in favor of the explanation they were hoping for. Fourth, the zebra fish is a ray-finned fish, meaning it has undergone substantial evolutionary change since the initial emergence of the vertebrate eye and it is also not in the lineage that gave rise to tetrapods and humans. It is NOT a good model of the early eye, if that’s what you are hoping. Fifth, in the discussion, the authors presume that the earliest eyes were in tiny organisms, but they weren’t. The reviewers should have slammed them for that. Sixth, by the authors own admission, the space saved in one compartment (the posterior ocular cavity) would have to be made up for somewhere else (e.g., the optic lobe of cephalopods). Seventh, in the nearly nine years since publication, this paper has only garnered 7 citations, 3 of which Kroger is co-author, 2 are books unrelated to this topic and that do not provide data for or against this conclusion, and 1 of which is not in English. This tells me that scientists in this field (which I am not, admittedly) were similarly unimpressed. I would say this idea has been rejected by the vision research community.


  8. “The human eye is indeed a marvel, but if it were to be designed from scratch, it’s hard to imagine it would look anything like it does.”…instead of theory, design one from scratch and show yourself how it looks. Remember to integrate with the whole entity. you can choose you to be the object!


    1. I wonder what you mean “but if it were to be designed from scratch, it’s hard to imagine it would look anything like it does”. I’m curious!


  9. Have you read the article entitled “Vision of Octopi and the Persistence of Error” (qv) about the inverted retina? It seems to counter some of the things that you’ve written.


  10. Hello Nathan,

    Human eyes can see single photons.

    1. What you did not tell us in your article is what sort of advantage we would have gained had our eyes been “designed”?

    2. Is there anything we -with our latest and greatest technologies -can do to make a newborn’s eyes better (some sort of modification or upgrade)? Asking about a newborn because an adult who did not take good care of his eyes or one who did not eat well doesn’t concern me at all. In my personal experience, eyes are very forgiving optical devices. Whenever I’ve got blurry vision I was able to get my eyes back to their original capabilities within a week.

    3. Don’t you think if we had the sort of night vision that cats have – we wouldn’t enjoy the night as much? I mean do you really want the night to look just a bit darker with all the colors and detail as if it was daytime? I would certainly like the night to look different because I appreciate the differences. And If a creator has made nights why would it make them to be a similar experience?

    Also, if we had night vision of a cat – couldn’t you just say that : “in ancient times man did not have the modern technology like a torchlight to use and using fire could harm their shelters made of trees and to detect predators thet had to evolve better night vision to SURVIVE.”

    You would’ve created new stories to fit in the bigger picture. Really.. quoting what you wrote above-

    “So sensitive are cats’ eyes that they can detect a single photon of light in an absolutely dark environment.”

    4. Now that we know that Human eye too can detect a single photon of light do you question your position or make new stories – ones that require human beings to be able to see single photons so as to SURVIVE?


  11. Hi,

    Sorry to chine in years later, but for the sake of accuracy, the fovea is not the same as the optic disc. Not only is it not a blind area, but it is the area of the sharpest central vision. (But it’s not very sensitive to dim light, because it’s made up of cones).


  12. You wrote a great article. I enjoy reading it. Thank you!
    I just want to add one more detail about cephalopod eye: cephalopod eye focus image by moving the lense (like a camera or telescope), not by changing the lense’s curvature, as in vertebrate eye. Hence, I speculate that cephalopod would not experience either myopia or hyperopia. Cephalopod may still have problem with presbyopia at old age, affecting both near and far vision, however.


  13. I have no dog in this fight but it appears to me that natural selection (acting on variation) is a non-sequitur, i.e., the creature selected WITH adaptive traits selected FOR adaptive traits. How did the creature GET TO the minimum function stage to survive in order to be selected? Every creature requires some minimum function stage (e.g., the right amount of chemical reaction needed to ward off an enemy, porcupines needles, skunk spray, venom toxicity, etc) in order to survive so it can get selected. If a creature is selected at the FOR stage how did it get to the WITH stage? This appears to be circular reasoning.


  14. Again the eye!
    Is it a marvelous creation or an oddity of evolution?
    I guess it is the former. Recent research (and it is not so recent, certainly before the date of this blog) from a team of physicists and biologists showed the ‘backward’ wiring of vertebrate eye to be a clever design feature and not design constrain, let alone bad design. The light in fact doesn’t pass through layers of cells to get to the retina. Instead, some cells act as living fiber-optic cables to directly channel light from the surface of the structure straight to the rods and cones of the retina. Therefore, improved efficiency of daytime vision without sacrificing the quality of nighttime vision.
    But even if that research was not correct, and that there were lots of real flaws in vertebrate eye, who said that ‘design’ is synonymous with ‘perfection’. This is simply not true and hence it is not a good argument against design or not at all an argument for evolution. However, one might rightly argue that God’s must be perfect. Indeed that is true! But how come the myriad flaws and imperfection we see in creation? Because of the fall; because humanity missed the mark of good conduct; because of sin and idolatry. God made human to be stewardship of the whole creation, but because of their sin the whole creation ‘was subjected to frustration.’… But we have hope that ‘the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into freedom and glory of the children of God.’
    Lastly, the writer of the blog criticism seems to fall into 3 categories:
    1- Design must be perfect. That is simply not true; Design in general is not perfect; but God is perfect and his work must be perfect; because of human idolatry imperfection enter into earth- BTW by idolatry I don’t mean worshiping of classic idols; but any type of believe that idolize creation rather than Creator.
    1- Negative argument: He gave no positive argument for evolution. Indeed no one can demonstrate that the eye has evolved from some primitive lens, photosensitive cells or whatever. In the ever-continuing absence of positive evidence that mutation and selection can make ‘organs of extreme complication’ like the eye, a kind of negative argument has been offered by Darwin’s defenders.
    2- Argument from ignorance: The blogger has committed a classic logical fallacy. New-Darwinism contenders believe that since they cannot see a reason for such a design; therefore there is no good reason for it. Ignorance is no argument for Darwinism.


  15. I posted an accurate functional explanation 10 march, 2018 why the structure of the inverted retina of the
    vertebrate eye is optimal. And the post appeared on the blog. And after one day he is gone!
    HA! HA! HA! Evolutionism in all its glory.
    Of course, such a construction was seen by evolutionists as a designer’s mistake and ridiculed by this liar and
    ignorance Dawkins [1]. But neither he nor all the evolutionists put together can change facts.
    In 2007, an international group of scientists demonstrated that eye-catching photons are captured, focused
    and transmitted to photosensitive cells by very elongated cells called Müller cells. As the researchers state:
    “These cells work almost exactly the same way as an optical fiber: ‘window of zero depth’, which opticians
    can use for image transmission without the use of lenses.” [3]“Müller cells” – continues Andreas Reichenbach, a member of the research team – “behave like lenses,
    basically collecting light, exactly like an optical fiber board”. It’s just that normally such discs have a beam
    of optical fibers that collect and transmit light. However, the researchers found that the vertebrate eye design
    is more advanced: it creates a funnel cell system, which means that much more light can be caught on the
    surface of the eye and then transmitted to the photosensitive layer. Instead of a “stupid project”, this retinal
    structure can be the foundation for “dramatic” improvements in sensory technology.
    For Darwinism, it was of course a knockout. Newer research, on the other hand, means that pasting
    Darwinists’ argumentation is already digging the lying one.
    Recently, two physicists from the Israel Institute of Technology published an article in the Physical Review
    Letters, which presents further research on Müller’s cells. [4] Applications? Let’s quote: Retina is “the
    optimal structure designed to improve the sharpness of the image”.
    The specialized Müller cells perform two functions: they filter diffused light and improve color vision. The
    scattered light generates noise through which objects are seen less sharply. It turns out that when the light
    passes through a fiber-optic cell, the useful signal to noise ratio, i.e. the disturbance, is improved. As the
    researchers state:
    “Specialized Müller cells perform two functions: they filter scattered light and reduce color scattering,
    scattered light generates noise through which objects are seen less sharply.” It turns out that when the light
    passes through fiber-optic cells the useful signal to noise ratio, i.e., the disturbance is improved. ” These
    studies have shown that Müller cells transmit to a suppository and rods a higher proportion of a useful signal,
    while noise tends to fade. This suggests that these cells act like light filters, keeping a clean image.
    Researchers also reported that photons that “slip” out of Müller fiber optic cells have little chance of getting
    into the neighboring (disrupting their proper transmission) because they are absorbed and dispersed through
    the thicket of nerve cells.
    Bingo! It turns out that the connection to the retina in a bizarre way nerve cells act as an internal filter of
    light catching and scattering noise, which would otherwise interfere with visual acuity. Moreover, the
    intrinsic properties of Müller cells seem to be adapted to effectively transmit only the range of visible light.
    Radiation outside this range tends to “leak out” of these cells (to be then absorbed by neighboring nerve
    cells) so that the vision quality is further improved.
    The above is just a functional description of the operation and explanation of the plan’s genius. And there
    remain problems of biochemical complications and even quantum effects in the eye.
    So how can you discuss with evolutionists at all?
    For me it’s fanatics and no one will convince me that the so-called the theory of evolution is nothing other
    than faith.
    [1] Dawkins, R. (1994) A blind watchmaker, or evolution, proves that the world has not been planned.
    Biblioteka Myśliczesnej, PIW: Warsaw, p. 155.
    [2] The eye of a cephalopod is in fact “a single-lens eye”, and its structure “is much simpler than the
    vertebrate eye” (Budelmann, BU, “Cephalopod sense organs, nerves and brain”. [In:] Pörtner, HO, O’Dor, RJ
    and Macmillan, DL, (eds.), (1994) Physiology of cephalopod molluscs: lifestyle and performance
    adaptations. Gordon and Breach: Bazyle, p. 15.
    Cephalopods ‘eyes reach only a fraction of the efficiency of the vertebrate eye’ (Mollusks, Encyclopædia
    Britannica (1992) vol. 24, 15th ed., P. 321.
    [3] Kristian, F., Grosche, J., Skatchkov, SN, Schinkinger, S., Foja, C., Schild, D., Uckermann, O., Travis, K.,
    Reichenbach, A., and Guck, J. (2007) “Müller cells are living optical fibers in the vertebrate retina”. PNAS,
    vol. 104, no. 20, 15 May 2007, pp. 8287-8292.[4] Labin, A.M. and Ribak, E.N. “Retinal Glial Cells Enhance Human Vision Acuity”. Physical Review
    Letters, 16 April 2010, vol. 104.
    [5] The eye was evolution’s great invention. New Scientist, 6 May 2010.


  16. I think believing or unbelieving ( a statement) will just led to wars , but what it is the real truth… To find it one must have no ( belief or unbelief) he just wants to know the actual truth…and whatever it is its totally fine….


  17. And whatever people think or believe , all are correct according to them. If I ask a religious person he would say that I am correct and if I were to ask an athiest or a non-religious person , he would also persue that he is correct. Its not anyones fault. Its that how our mind are conditioned, how are we taught from the beginning. According to this, Everyones statement is quietly correct. Just Be Happy…..


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s