main archives forum waII sims Iinks about

Search... GO
CONTACT US FEED
Denton vs Squid; the eye as suboptimaI design.
By an Musgrave on November 14, 2006 6:24 AM | 112 Comments | 4 TrackBacks
n a recent article in Touchstone Magazine, Jonathan Witt, fellow for the Discovery nstitute's
Center for the renewal of science and culture, has written a review of Francis Collins' book " The
Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief. Amongst other things in this review
he claims that Michael Denton has demonstrated that the "backwards wiring of the mammalian
retina improves oxygen flow and is good design.
Denton of course, has done no such thing. Since am on a role with things visual, am reposting
an updated version of an earlier article on this topic.
Just to recap, vertebrates (like ourselves), and the invertebrates Squid and Octopi have "camera
eyes. They differ in how the photoreceptors in the retina, the part of the eye that receives the
image, is wired up to the brain. The vertebrate wiring system is often cited as an example of
"bad, or at least quirky, design that is explainable by evolution.
The vertebrate retina is wired "backwards. That is the photoreceptors point to back of the retina,
away from incoming light, and the nerves and blood vessels are on the side of the incoming light,
this means that any image formed on the vertebrate retina has to pass though layers of blood
vessels and ganglion cells, absorbing and distorting the image.
To get decent visual acuity, vertebrates must focus light on a small patch of retina where the
blood vessels and nerves have been pushed aside, the fovea. This patch must be small because
of the nutrient requirements of the retina. Also, the construction of the vertebrate retina means
that blood vessels and nerves must pass through the retina, creating a "blind spot, where no
image is formed. Finally, the "backwards retina means that vertebrates have a high risk of
retinal detachment. Altogether this shows that having the nerves and blood vessels in front of
the photoreceptors is less than optimal design.
magine taking a pane of glass, then smearing it thickly with vaseline, then wiping a tiny hole in
the vaseline. That is what the vertebrate retina is like.
Now consider the eye of squids, cuttlefish and octopi. Their retinas are "rightway round, that is
the photoreceptors face the light, and the wiring and the blood vessels facing the back (1). Squid
and octopi have no blind spot; they can also have high visual acuity. The octopus also has a
fovea-equivalent structure, which it makes by packing more (or longer) photoreceptors into a
given area (1). Because it doesn't have to create a hole in the supporting tissue it can have
arbitrarily large "fovea, and greater visual acuity. Cuttlefish have better visual acuity than cats
(2) and because of their "rightway round retinas; this level of acuity covers nearly the entire
retina (1,2) unlike vertebrates where it is confined to the small spot of the fovea.
The vertebrate retina is a prime example of historically quirky "design. The vertebrate retina is
backwards because the development of the retina was first elaborated in rather small chordates,
where issues of acuity and blind spots were non-existent; all subsequent vertebrates got stuck
with this "design. Vertebrates do very well with the limitations of the design of the eye, but it is
clear that this is no system a competent designer would make. Naturally, this annoys the
proponents of an ntelligent Designer, and they have been looking for ways to put a better spin
on the kludged design of the vertebrate eye.
D advocates have a hard time dealing with the quirky design of the eye, both Witt and Behe
have used the "better blood flow argument in order to show the backwards retina really is good
design.
This invokes an argument that has been doing the rounds of creationists for a while. The
True.Origins site (which is a rip-off of Talk.Origins) has a page that claims that the "backwards
retina improves the blood supply. t is probably the canonical page where these claims come
from. Denton's argument is slightly different, but follows on from the canonical creationist
argument, so will deal with the creationist argument first.
n vertebrates, underneath the photoreceptors is a layer of pigment and pigment cells called the
choroid (the squid, cuttlefish and octopus have similar arrangements - more on this later), this
layer of pigment absorbs stray light that is not caught by the photoreceptors, which might reflect
back and fuzz up the image.
n terrestrial vertebrates, the amount of light landing on the retina produces a significant amount
of heat, enough to damage the retina itself (3,4). The True.Origins page gives the impression
that it is light focused on the retina that produces the heat. The article implies that by having the
most thermally sensitive bit of the photoreceptor bang up against a heat sink (the blood vessels
of the choroid, whose rapid blood flow removes the heat, see below), vertebrates can tolerate
light intensities that "right way round retinas could not.
However, when one reads the paper they reference (3), a completely different picture emerges.
t is the choroid itseIf that generates the heat that threatens the retina! As noted above, the
pigments in the choroid absorb light that is missed by the photoreceptors. This light is re-
radiated as heat. 25-30% of the light falling on the retina ends up being absorbed by the choroid
and re-radiated as heat (3,4). So we have the most thermally sensitive part of the
photoreceptors bang up against the bit that generates the most heat. Good design? think not.
To cool down the choroid, very fast blood flow through the tissues below and in the pigment
layer is needed (3,4). But let's be clear about this, the Creationists have it back to front. The
"backwards arrangement of the vertebrate retina does not make possibIe fast blood flow, it
requires fast blood flow to cool the tissue down. This is yet another area where vertebrate
design is flawed, with the fragile photoreceptors hard up against the source of the damaging
heat.
Of course, the question of why fish, which have more species than all terrestrial vertebrates
combined, must suffer with a backwards retina so that terrestrial vertebrates can have high
blood flows to an area that wouldn't need them if the system was designed correctly in the first
place, is never addressed. The other question is why terrestrial gastropods which have camera
eyes have a "right way round retina if invert retinas are important for terrestrial vision? Their
camera eyes are relatively small compared to terrestrial vertebrates, and so should loose heat
readily. However, arthropod eyes of this size are subject to light-induced retinal damage. See
the references in this paper.
n squid, octopi, cuttlefish and terrestrial gastropods, the pigment layer is below the
photoreceptors, in an area of dense blood vessels (1). This arrangement blocks stray light and
provides sufficient blood flow to cool the tissue and provide nutrients without the added layers
of ganglion cells over the top of the photoreceptors that distort and absorb the image. Even
better, squid, octopi and cuttlefish do not have the most thermally sensitive part of the retina
next to the source of waste heat, as it is in vertebrate eyes, needing an outrageous amount of
blood flow to cool the system.
The vertebrate eye does very well indeed, but it is a kludge. The fovea is a cute trick to squeeze
greater acuity out of a flawed design, but octopi and squid do it better. The cooling blood flow to
the choroid is needed as the pigments of the choroid generate waste heat, but this is irrelevant
to whether the photoreceptors are forward or reverse facing. The arrangement of the vertebrate
eye does not improve the blood supply, and it looks like the vertebrate eye has to kludge up a
high blood flow to the choroid because the vertebrate inverted retina is poorly designed to get
blood to where it is needed.
This brings us to Denton's argument. This is that the blood flow through the choroid needs to be
high for the metabolic requirements of the retina. This is a variant of the "cooling bath concept,
and has exactly the same problems. The retina is an energy hungry system, but it doesn't need
to be inverted to get a high blood flow. n fact, the way the vertebrates do it is just plain silly.
Molecules used for providing the energy to run light detection are formed in the mitochondria in
the cell body from blood born nutrients, then passed along to the photoreceptors in the modified
cilia projecting from the cell body (see diagrams in links above). As the retina is invert, the cell
bodies are further away from the choroid, with the light harvesting disks between them and the
choroid. Consequently, all blood born nutrients delivered by the choroid in vertebrates must
diffuse from the choroid, through the pigmented epithelium, then past all the photoreceptor disks
to the mitochondria in the cell body to be used (and all waste diffused in the reverse direction).
Delivery from the cell body end would result in a shorter diffusion distance through less restricted
space; ie, more efficient delivery. This point is born out by the fact that choroid oxygen tension
drops by only 3% from artery to vein. n consequence, the retinal artery, though it only carries
5% of the blood supplied to the retina, carries 40% of the oxygen used by the retina.
Denton says
Blood absorbs light strongly, .. From this we can immediately discount
one possible way of supplying the photoreceptors in a non-inverted retina
where the photoreceptor would form the inner layerpointing directly
towards the light, i.e., by placing a choriocapillaris-type system of blood
vessels in front of the photoreceptor cells, i.e., between the
photoreceptors and the light. While such an arrangement might well
deliver sufficient quantities of oxygen to the photoreceptors, the sensitivity
and acuity of any such hypothetical "eye would be greatly diminished by
the highly absorbent complex of blood vessels positioned between the
light and the photoreceptor layer
This is pretty silly, with the current arrangement, the photoreceptors have a range of ganglion
cells, supporting cells, nerve cells and bIood vesseIs already piled thickly on top of it (when you
look into the eye with and ophthalmoscope, you can see the superficial blood vessels on top of
the retina, there are also capillaries that dive deep into the cell layer as well. The retina already
has a mass of blood, and lots of other things, getting in its way. Of course there is a better way
to do it, the way cephalopods do it.
n cephalopods the blood vessels are right next to the terminal parts of the photoreceptor
process, the photoreceptor cell bodies and the pigment cells where it is needed. You can see
the blood vessels and pigments in this paper on the octopus retina. t is far more efficient than
the vertebrate system for both cooling and nutrient delivery. No wonder cephalopods require a
much smaller blood supply to the eye.
Both the "cooling bath and the "nutrient/oxygen delivery arguments actually reveal that the
vertebrate eye is a kludge. The high flow rates are required because the quirky design means
more efficient methods can't be used.
Denton brings in other arguments for the "superiority of the vertebrate "back-to-front retina, but
they are irrelevant. Fore example, vertebrate photoreceptors can detect a single photon as he
claims, great, but so can cephalopod photoreceptors, and they are not covered with gunk that
absorbs or scatters the incoming photons. Cephalopods occupy many niches, from shallow
water tidal zones with high light intensities to the abyssal depths where every photon counts,
some are ambush predators, and some are active hunting predators. Some see in black and
white, some see in colour, some see polarized light (which vertebrates can't). Many have visual
acuity equivalent to many vertebrates; cuttlefish have equivalent visual acuity to cats as befits
their status as active hunters. All this without an invert retina. When Denton says
that in redesigning from first principles an eye capable of the highest
possible resolution (within the constraints imposed by the wavelength of
light16) and of the highest possible sensitivity (capable of detecting an
individual photon of light) we would end up recreating the vertebrate eye
he is just plain wrong.
The pre-adaptation concept Denton prattles on about is nonsense. We are to expect that an
intelligent designer will give the marine vertebrates, which are significantly more numerous in
species and population than the terrestrial vertebrates, a poorly designed retina so that a very
few percent of all terrestrial vertebrates can have supposedly superior vision? This is a definition
of "good design of which was not previously aware. And again, cephalopods do it better.
Let's be clear, the vertebrate eye works, and works rather well given its limitations (one merely
has to contemplate the visual acuity of the eagle to see that the "design works well). But it is a
suboptimal Heath Robinson "design where the limitations of the original invert retina setup
(which were irrelevant to amphioxus and the small chordates in which the vertebrate eye
evolved) are worked around by kludges. t is like claiming that the misground Hubble mirror with
its correcting lenses is the "best possible design because it gives clear pictures.
Once again, the vertebrate eye fails as ntelligent Design. D proponents loudly proclaim they are
not creationists and one is left to wonder why they have appropriated a bad Creationist
argument.
(1) Matsui S et al., Adaptation of a deep-sea cephalopod to the photic environment. Evidence
for three visual pigments. J Gen Physiol. 1988 Jul;92(1):55-66 (2) Schaeffel F, Murphy CJ,
Howland HC Accommodation in the cuttlefish (Sepia officinalis). J Exp Biol. 1999 Nov;202 Pt
22:3127-34. (3) Parver LM. Auker CR. Carpenter DO. The stabilizing effect of the choroidal
circulation on the temperature environment of the macula. Retina. 1982, 2(2):117-20. (4) Parver
LM. Temperature modulating action of choroidal blood flow. Eye. 1991;5 ( Pt2):181-5. (5)
Denton, M The nverted Retina: Maladaptation or Pre-adaptation? Origins & Design 19:2
4 TrackBacks
Getting The Mooney Treatment from The Loom on November 20, 2006 1:21 AM
Things have not been going so well on the political front for the advocates of intelligent design (a
k a the progeny of creationism). This election season their allies on state boards of education in
Kansas and Ohio went down... Read More
Attack mouse of the D crashes, bursts into flames, and explodes! from Pharyngula on November 20, 2006 9:44 AM
Casey Luskin has been posting a series of articles to argue with Carl Zimmer, and has finally
posted his last attempt, which Zimmer has dealt with. We have a new catch phrase, thanks to
Luskin, in reference to the... Read More
SciBlog Anthology suggestions so far from A Blog Around The Clock on December 24, 2006 1:13 AM
Wow! posted the call for suggestions on Friday night, it is a weekend and a holiday, the traffic is
down to a half, yet got so many suggestions already, both in the comments and via e-mail!
am... Read More
Science Blogging Anthology - The Council Has Spoken! from A Blog Around The Clock on January 8, 2007 9:41 AM
know you've all been waiting for this. Well, after two all-nighters, the deed is done. Under the
fold is the final list of 50 posts that will be included in the anthology. There may be some small
1 2 3 4
changes if... Read More
112 Comments
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank | November 14, 2006 7:00 AM
he claims that Michael Denton has demonstrated
Gee, isnt it surprising that Witt never mentions the fact that Denton
used to be a Fellow at Discovery Institute, but left because he thinks
ID is a load of crap . . . . .
minimalist | November 14, 2006 7:11 AM
Ive heard repeatedly that Denton left the DI and pretty much
repudiated the crap he used to write, but I havent been able to find
a source for this claim.
Anyone have a link?
Michael Suttkus, II | November 14, 2006 8:27 AM
Denton brings in other arguments for the
"superiority of the vertebrate "back-to-front
retina, but they are irrelevant. Fore example,
vertebrate photoreceptors can detect a single
photon as he claims.
The Celestial Grammar Teacher calls thee SINNER!
:-)
Its worth noting that certain aspects of cephalopod eyes are a bit of
a kludge as well. Most cephs have holes in the middle of their lens.
Why? Because they evolved from primitive pinhole eyes as found in
modern Nautilus. Its a really stupid system that just happens to work
better than no lens at all.
But if you could combine a vertebrate lens and iris with the
cephalopod retina and related structures, you might actually get an
eye that could seem intelligently designed.
"Seem being the key word, but its irrelevant because we still dont
have any eyes remotely like that. We just have really stupid ones.
Bob C | November 14, 2006 9:27 AM
Michael, Ian could rip the terminal e off of "fore and stick it onto the
end of "blood born. These slips are not to be borne. Oh, wait, maybe
they are. Im terminally confused. :-)
k.e. | November 14, 2006 9:58 AM
The Celestial Grammar Teacher calls thee
SINNER!
:-)
**Applause**
Nowth thay ith wif a lisp.
..ersorrymycelestialpronunciationteachertookadayoff
as did..my c*!!*stia! punct:u@tion over!ord.
Glory to the great Kosmic spller indy skye. Praise her vowels and
share the grammer.
//end sillyness (for now)
If I understand this right, the great I designer (yes first person
singular) up in heaven (blessed be her drafting team) saw a need for
TV and to facilitate this made sure we could pixelate when we were
still swimming in the oceans. Brings a new meaning to being post
literate. Makes sense to me.
stevaroni | November 14, 2006 10:52 AM
Ya Know, down here on earth, us mere-mortal engineer types go to
battle with conflicting design requirements every day (think battery
life versus processor power, for example).
Despite this - and I know this is hard to believe - we are sometimes
able to work two or even three core requirements into one single
product!.
So Im a little disappointed to hear that the Big Draftsman in the Sky
couldnt take his successful arthropod design and retrofit it to my
poor little peepers.
Maybe he was too busy that day to hit the foundry twice. Hmm, but
that might imply that our creation was an afterthought when he got
done with the squids, and he was just using up old parts. Either that,
or he made us first, and we werent important enough in his mind to
go back and fix.
Of course, we are made in His image, so maybe its just that hes
nearsighted.
Hmmm. none of these options is particularly comforting to me.
k.e. | November 14, 2006 11:15 AM
Maybe he was too busy that day to hit the
foundry twice.
Maybe she/they/himself mixed up the petrie dishes before they went
into the incubusator ...or should that be succubus-ator?
The incompetent designer.
There might be room for a class action suit there.
Donald M | November 14, 2006 11:19 AM
Vertebrates do very well with the limitations of
the design of the eye, but it is clear that this is no
system a competent designer would make.
The same can be said about the Ford Pinto, but no one would claim
that it wasnt designed. This is nothing more than another version of
the old "God wouldnt have done it that way argument, which raises
the question of what is a theological premise doing in what is
supposed to be a scientific argument? Perhaps there is some new
scientific reasearch studies that comfirm an hypothesis about what
God would or would not have done? If no such studies exist (and
surely they dont), then claiming that the supposed "sup-optimal
design of this or that biolgical system demonstrates there was no
design at all is little more than hand waving speculation. There
simply is no scientific basis to say that sub-optimal design equals no
design. Once again the metaphysical presuppositions overshadow the
science. When will you guys admit it.
William E Emba | November 14, 2006 11:32 AM
Ian Musgrave Wrote:
[Some cephalopods] see polarized light (which
vertebrates cant).
Actually, most humans can, especially with practice. The image you
can see is known as Haidingers brush. It looks like two short blue
bulbs in the direction of polarization, and two longish yellow bulbs in
the perpendicular direction. The image is quite faint, but
unmistakeable. Without special equipment, its easiest to see around
the time of sunset while looking towards the zenith.
A full explanation of this phenomenon is still unknown. So far as I am
aware, no known photographic technique captures the apparent
image.
See also the July and August 2005 issues of Sky and Telescope, and
the classic Marcel Minnaert Light and Color in the Outdoors.
William E Emba | November 14, 2006 11:38 AM
Ian Musgrave Wrote:
[Some cephalopods] see polarized light (which
vertebrates cant).
Actually, most humans can, especially with practice. The image you
can see is known as Haidingers brush. It looks like two short blue
bulbs in the direction of polarization, and two longish yellow bulbs in
the perpendicular direction. The image is quite faint, but
unmistakeable. Without special equipment, its easiest to see around
the time of sunset while looking towards the zenith.
A full explanation of this phenomenon is still unknown. So far as I am
aware, no known photographic technique captures the apparent
image.
See also the July and August 2005 issues of Sky and Telescope, and
the classic Marcel Minnaert Light and Color in the Outdoors.
Arden Chatfield | November 14, 2006 11:42 AM
There simply is no scientific basis to say that sub-
optimal design equals no design. Once again the
metaphysical presuppositions overshadow the
science. When will you guys admit it.
Really? Seems to me that ID making any statement that anything
was `designed or `designed well (which happens routinely) is a
metaphysical presupposition that overshadows science. When when
you guys admit that?
ID is more than happy to say "oh this is designed well, so of course
God Did It, and yet when something quite poorly put together is
pointed out, ID advocates pompously declare "oh, its not valid
science to try and second-guess what the Designer would or would
not do! You cant have it both ways.
stevaroni | November 14, 2006 12:26 PM
The same can be said about the Ford Pinto, but
no one would claim that it wasnt designed.
Au Contraire, Donald.
The Ford Pinto was actually a pretty reasonable design at the time,
given the prevailing constraints the engineers were working with.
That period in automotive history was marked by the sudden demise
of the American luxo-boat in the aftermath of the Arab oil embargos
of `73.
American manufacturers found themselves scrambling to compete
with Japanese and European builders with decades of experience and
infrastructure for making small, attractive cars (like the Honda
CVCC).
You cant just downsize components when youve just built engine-
specific plants for making big V-8s, and, while the body-on-frame
system that most American cars used was poorly suited for an
econobox, there was little manufacturing capability for a unibody
design in the Ford system.
The engineers at Ford had to compromise and improvise at every
stage of their design, still, they did a decent, if not stellar job, and if
it werent for that one tiny design flaw (a pesky tendency for the gas
tank to rupture against a frame piece in rear impacts) the Pinto
would have been remembered as a practical, if eminently
forgettable, econobox.
(Sorry for the rant, I always feel the need to defend otherwise good
engineers who are forced to produce crap)
But anyhow, youre totally missing the point, Donald.
This is nothing more than another version of the
old "God wouldnt have done it that way
argument . There simply is no scientific basis to
say that sub-optimal design equals no design.
Bull pookey.
Reverse-engineer any manufactured product and you can learn a lot
about the capabilities and methods of the designer.
Anybody whos handled, for example, western and Asian machine
tools, can tell just by the different materials that China hasnt had a
good steelmaking infrastructure as long as Germany has.
A cash register full of precision mechanical parts probably came from
an older, established company, which has interest in amortizing an
existing assembly line, while an equivalent product full of fast
microcontrollers probably comes from a new player, which has to bite
the bullet on NRE anyhow, so they optimize unit-cost.
Howard Hughes built the famous Spruce Goose out of a very sub-
optimal material. Even without knowing about WW-II you could
surmise that he was probably facing some sort of supply problem
with aluminum.
Reverse-engineer the Pinto, compare it to the Civic, and you can see
exactly what technology the two builders did and didnt share.
Its perfectly scientific. Its all cause-and-effect. Down here on Earth
thats the way we have to do things.
Yes, the Pinto was a flawed design - because it was built by mortal
engineers. Engineers working with all sorts of arbitrary, earthly,
constraints.
You can tell something about those constraints just by carefully
examining the design.
But all-knowing, all-seeing, all-powerful God - a God who made all
the physical laws of the universe in the first place - just plain doesnt
have those limits.
Theres just no reason for God to compromise. God should be able to
make a perfect product - He controls all the rules.
He is, in fact, not only the only engineer in the known universe who
has the opportunity to do a perfect design - hes actually got the
easiest time of it.
So if, as you propose, Donald, He still consistently borrows
inappropriate parts from previous designs and does a slap-dash
modification to repurpose them into another sub-optimal design,
there are only two good explanations.
1) God is not all knowing/seeing/powerful or. 2) God is incompetent.
This is a fascinating new line of reasoning you have there, Don. Which
option do you favor?
Glen Davidson | November 14, 2006 12:54 PM
Vertebrates do very well with
the limitations of the design
of the eye, but it is clear that
this is no system a competent
designer would make.
The same can be said about the Ford Pinto, but
no one would claim that it wasnt designed.
You think it might have been Ford Pinto designers who designed the
eye?
What you anti-science sorts fail to recognize is that you have an idiot
savant designer, who can design what humans cant hope to design
de novo (flagellum as it exists in all of its complexity-or the eye,
which often is an example of what "couldnt evolve), yet cant think
well enough to put the blood vessels behind the retina. Or, he can
think to do it, but not in vertebrates.
Which leads to the next failing of your "thought. We have good
explanations for "poor design, indeed, we know why designs are
often poor. It is because evolution produces little novelty and it
cannot "see ahead to design anything from scratch. Hence the "poor
design that we fits into evolutionary constraints (archaeopteryx is
not simply "poorly designed compared with modern birds, it is
"poorly designed because it was adapted from a small theropod
dinosaur. You have no explanation at all), and above all, "poor
design follows the well-established patterns of inheritance.
We can tell you why sperm whales have the "poor design, then,
when the giant squids that it eats have the better "designs-the
reason being that whales are come from a lineage constrained by
evolutionary events that gave it a poorer "design, and squids are
not. Why dont you explain why marine mammals have one "design
and squids have quite another one? If evolution doesnt explain it,
there is no explanation, the only outcome with which IDists and
creationists are satisfied.
This is nothing more than another version of the
old "God wouldnt have done it that way
argument, which raises the question of what is a
theological premise doing in what is supposed to
be a scientific argument?
Yes, why do you claim that design is a scientific argument when you
steadfastly refuse to posit a designer producing predictable results?
Im glad youre seeing the problem at last.
Perhaps there is some new scientific reasearch
studies that comfirm an hypothesis about what
God would or would not have done? If no such
studies exist (and surely they dont), then
claiming that the supposed "sup-optimal design
of this or that biolgical system demonstrates
there was no design at all is little more than hand
waving speculation.
Tell that to Dembski, who tries to tell us what is expected from God.
Indeed, it is mere speculation, our point exactly.
There simply is no scientific basis to say that sub-
optimal design equals no design.
Actually, it isnt optimality that shows design, it is rational design,
novelty, and borrowing good ideas from disparate sources, that
indicates design by known designers. It is only because
IDists/creationists frequently claim that "design is "too good to have
evolved that we point to the many examples of "poor design to
show how false your claims are, even by your own standards.
Nevertheless, optimized "designs are presumably possible via
evolution, as well as through design proper.
The trouble for you is that both "very good designs and "poor
designs happen to betray their derivative origins, to fulfill the
predictions of evolution. We have good explanations (generally, if not
always) both for the "good designs that we see, and the "poor
designs. All you have is the ridiculous plaint that "we dont know
how God would design. That may be, however we do know how
evolution would "design, and it is essentially as we observe in
organisms, in cladistics, in the derivative structures seen throughout
life.
Once again the metaphysical presuppositions
overshadow the science. When will you guys
admit it.
We do admit that your metaphysical presuppositions overshadow
what you call "science, which is without any meaningful predictions
(sorry, complexity beyond the capability of known designers is not a
prediction of design, rather it is an indication of non-design).
We sometimes do take the word of IDists at face value, however, and
ask if any marks of design exist in organisms. When we do not find
them, the "obviousness of design in organisms is no longer evoked
by the true believers, rather the invisibility of design (since we dont
know what it looks like when God does it) becomes your argument.
And yes, thanks for finally admitting our primary objection against ID,
that no evidence for it exists.
Glen D http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm
infamous | November 14, 2006 12:57 PM
"Seems to me that ID making any statement that anything was
`designed or `designed well (which happens routinely) is a
metaphysical presupposition that overshadows science.
But, but, but. ID doesnt make a claim about WHO the "designer is
or His intentions, it just says that we can detect His "design!
"There simply is no scientific basis to say that sub-optimal design
equals no design.
Evolution works with what it has, which is why we would expect to
find flaws like this or vestigial structures. On the other hand, it seems
a "designer wouldnt leave these in the design. I find that people
resort to these "science cant make claims about the metaphysical or
what have you when they dont like the implications of the evidence.
stevaroni | November 14, 2006 1:01 PM
[Some cephalopods] see
polarized light (which
vertebrates cant).
Actually, most humans can, especially with
practice.
I find that Im sensitive to polarized light out at the very outer edge
of my visual field.
It manifests itself when Im sitting in my car on a bright day, looking
ahead, and I can detect moir patterns in the glass of the drivers-
side window, just at the edge of my peripheral vision (which instantly
go away if I turn my central vision onto them).
It took me a while to work it out, but with a little experimentation, I
eventually I figured out that the pinpoint source of the sun and
oblique angle combined with the multi-layered safety glass to make a
primitive polarizing filter with significant banding.
Oddly, Im also much more sensitive to flicker out at the extreme
edges, too.
stevaroni | November 14, 2006 1:15 PM
[Some cephalopods] see
polarized light (which
vertebrates cant).
Actually, most humans can, especially with
practice.
I find that Im sensitive to polarized light out at the very outer edge
of my visual field.
It manifests itself when Im sitting in my car on a bright day, looking
ahead, and I can detect moir patterns in the glass of the drivers-
side window, just at the edge of my peripheral vision (which instantly
go away if I turn my central vision onto them).
It took me a while to work it out, but with a little experimentation, I
eventually I figured out that the pinpoint source of the sun and
oblique angle combined with the multi-layered safety glass to make a
primitive polarizing filter with significant banding.
Oddly, Im also much more sensitive to flicker out at the extreme
edges, too.
stevaroni | November 14, 2006 1:26 PM
[Some cephalopods] see
polarized light (which
vertebrates cant).
Actually, most humans can, especially with
practice.
I find that Im sensitive to polarized light out at the very outer edge
of my visual field.
It manifests itself when Im sitting in my car on a bright day, looking
ahead, and I can detect moir patterns in the glass of the drivers-
side window, just at the edge of my peripheral vision (which instantly
go away if I turn my central vision onto them).
It took me a while to work it out, but with a little experimentation, I
eventually I figured out that the pinpoint source of the sun and
oblique angle combined with the multi-layered safety glass to make a
primitive polarizing filter with significant banding.
Oddly, Im also much more sensitive to flicker out at the extreme
edges, too.
Steviepinhead | November 14, 2006 1:59 PM
Cue Lenny, and his usual post about DonaldMs monthly drive-by lie.
Michael Suttkus, II | November 14, 2006 2:00 PM
Lets see if theres anything to say in response to Donald not covered
by stevaroni .
*thinks*
*thinks*
Hmm. the answer seems to be no. Well, Ive never let that stop me.
Donald M Wrote:
The same can be said about the Ford Pinto, but
no one would claim that it wasnt designed.
Yes, clearly the Ford Pinto was designed by a loving, caring,
omnipotent deity. He loved his children so much he wanted them to
be BURNED! Hail and Amen!
I think we can safely conclude that the Ford Pinto was not designed
by the Christian God. Do you conclude this as well, Donald? Or do you
feel that we must remain agnostic regarding whether Ford Pintos are
examples of divine miracles?
Donald M Wrote:
This is nothing more than another version of the
old "God wouldnt have done it that way
argument, which raises the question of what is a
theological premise doing in what is supposed to
be a scientific argument?
Theological premises derived from the Bible:
1. God is perfect. 2. God loves us. 3. God cares about us. 4. God is
competent at design (as an omnipotent being must be in all things)
Conclusion: The God of the Bible did not directly create the eye.
Please inform me which of the premises is false.
Donald M Wrote:
Perhaps there is some new scientific reasearch
studies that comfirm an hypothesis about what
God would or would not have done?
Im talking theology! God was already outside of scientific discourse.
Theologically, it is heresy to attribute anything so cocked up as the
human eye to God.
Donald M Wrote:
If no such studies exist (and surely they dont),
then claiming that the supposed "sup-optimal
design of this or that biolgical system
See, this is your goof. The design isnt "sub-optimal. The design is
plain dog stupid. Attributing plain dog stupid design to God is an
insult to my religion.
Donald M Wrote:
demonstrates there was no design at all is little
more than hand waving speculation.
Who said there is no design? We said there is no intelligent design.
And the design is stupid! It matches exactly what we expect from
everyones favorite unintelligent designer: evolution by natural
selection.
Jedidiah Palosaari | November 14, 2006 2:09 PM
How is it that Behe produced some pretty good science back in the
day in regards to biochemistry in his research, yet cant seem to
understand the very basics of biology, including biochemsistry, and is
so off on biological reality? I mean, seriously, its never made sence
to me.
Russell | November 14, 2006 2:16 PM
Ive heard repeatedly that Denton left the DI and
pretty much repudiated the crap he used to write,
but I havent been able to find a source for this
claim.
Anyone have a link?
Well, Dentons status as erstwhile Fellow of the Disco Inst is evident
from Disco Insts own website. He seems to have become a sort of
"nonperson over there. Of course, Johnson, Behe, Wells, etc. cant
unpublish the remarks theyve all made about how Dentons
"Evolution: a Theory in Crisis opened their eyes to the "failures of
Darwinism, but in fact that book was all about challenging common
descent. In Dentons 2000(? or so) book, "Natures Destiny, he drops
that whole line altogether, and makes a pitch for a whole different
proposition: "cosmological intelligent design.
The piece Witt is resurrecting here is from 1999, when Denton and
the Disco Inst were, apparently, still on speaking terms. If I recall
correctly - and I refuse to waste the precious five minutes of my life it
would take to reread and confirm this - Denton makes the case that
the fact that the weird vertebrate eye evolved in our fishy ancestors
argues that the Intelligent Designer was anticipating the eventual
benefits of such an arrangement in their eventual warm-blooded,
terrestrial descendants.
Pretty hilarious stuff.
Jedidiah Palosaari | November 14, 2006 2:18 PM
Donald M: Perhaps there is some new scientific reasearch studies that
comfirm an hypothesis about what God would or would not have
done? If no such studies exist (and surely they dont),
Youre right. Scientific studies couldnt show that. But there are good
theological studies to indicate that the IDea of God creating systems
that dont work is a pretty poor understanding of God- at least the
Judeo-Christian God. There are some good theolgical thoughts on
how we can actually understand the Judeo-Christian God. Maybe
though youre coming from a different kind of god then that, in which
case understanding god may not be important or possible, and god
may not be perfect.
Coin | November 14, 2006 2:50 PM
Syntax Error: not well-formed (invalid token) at line 1, column 54,
byte 54 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.12.3/mach/XML/Parser.pm
line 187
Peter Henderson | November 14, 2006 2:52 PM
The folks here are probably already aware of this, but AIGs Dr David
Menton ( very similar sounding name !) has a couple of talks on the
origins of the eye :
http://www.answersingenesis.org/video/ondemand/
He makes the claim that at least one evolutionist has admitted that
we dont know the evolutionary origins of the eye and that we
probably never will.
Jedidiah Palosaari | November 14, 2006 3:07 PM
Russell brings up that: Well, Dentons status as erstwhile Fellow of
the Disco Inst is evident from Disco Insts own website. He seems to
have become a sort of nonperson over there. Of course, Johnson,
Behe, Wells, etc. cant unpublish the remarks theyve all made about
how Dentons Evolution: a Theory in Crisis opened their eyes to the
failures of Darwinism, but in fact that book was all about
challenging common descent. In Dentons 2000(? or so) book,
Natures Destiny, he drops that whole line altogether, and makes a
pitch for a whole different proposition: cosmological intelligent
design.
It seems to me ironic the similtude between the Creationist groups
diversity and disagreements, well described in Pennocks "Tower of
Babel, and that of the early Gnostics. In both the infighting would
lead ultimately to being sidelined and ultimately being irrelevant.
Donald M | November 14, 2006 3:42 PM
Steveroni
Au Contraire, Donald.
The Ford Pinto was actually a pretty reasonable
design at the time, given the prevailing
constraints the engineers were working with. .
snip. The engineers at Ford had to compromise
and improvise at every stage of their design, still,
they did a decent, if not stellar job, and if it
werent for that one tiny design flaw (a pesky
tendency for the gas tank to rupture against a
frame piece in rear impacts) the Pinto would have
been remembered as a practical, if eminently
forgettable, econobox.
Okay fine. So, given that the vertabrate eye does a decent if not
stellar job, how does its supposed sub-optimal design equate to no
design at all? Its easy to play arm chair designer and imagine all
sorts of improvements in one component part of a given system, but
as you just pointed out real designers seek to acheive constrained
optimism where each sub-system contributes to the best over-all
function of the entire system.
But all of that is beside the point. The one and only point is that
there is no scientifically principaled way to equate sub-optimal design
with no design at all. That is based entirely on a metaphysical
premise somewhere in the neighborhood of "God wouldnt have done
it that way.
Theres just no reason for God to compromise.
God should be able to make a perfect product -
He controls all the rules.
Perfect with respect to what overall purpose? Statements like this
are simply fraught with huge theological premises. Thats fine, but
what are those premises doing in whats supposed to be a scientific
argument? The claim is still `sub-optimal design equals no design.
That is not a scientific statement.
Arden Chatfield
Seems to me that ID making any statement that
anything was `designed or `designed well (which
happens routinely) is a metaphysical
presupposition that overshadows science. When
when you guys admit that?
I dont see how that follows. It is a purely legitimate scientific
observation to say that chance and necessesity or their combination
lack the resources to account for the level of specified complexity
observed in some system X and that X bears all the hallmarks
normally associated with things that are acutally designed. Theres
nothing metaphysical about that. It is a farily straightforward
scientific observation. Now, it might be incorrect, or disconfirmed by
other evidence, but that is a different matter altogether. What it is
not is metaphysical. What is entirely metaphysical is to say that the
properties of the cosmos are such that any apparent design we
observe in biological systems can not be actual design, even in
principal, which is the claim made by anti-IDists all the time. In other
words, ruling out design a priori on metaphysical grounds.
Coin
Okay, so Donald, be clear here. Do you agree
then that it is not logically possible to identify a
"designed from a "non-designed object without
specific knowledge of the designer in question?
Of course I dont agree. SETI being a case in point. If it were the
case that a signal from space were discovered such as the one in the
movie Contact and was attibuted to intelligent cause, we still
wouldnt have any specific knowledge of the designer(s) in question.
But again, all this is really beside the point, which is, quite simply,
that to say sub-optimal design equals no design is metaphysical and
not scientific.
TheBlackCat | November 14, 2006 3:49 PM
While we are on the subject of the eye, why did our designer limit us
to just 3 color-sensitive pigments while giving goldfish 4, some birds
5, and some random arthropod like the mantis shrimp 16? How come
fish that live under water, which has high UV absorbance relative to
air, have UV vision while we dont? Why would a creature like humans
that are "designed to live on the ground in a savanna (or garden) be
given a point fovea that can only see straight ahead instead of a
linear fovea that can see the entire horizon like some other savanna-
dwelling mammals have? How come we are designed so that our
eyes will automatically hide from us the fact that we are going
irreversible blind from easily-correctable causes? Why do fish fish,
amphibians, and reptiles have lenses that move around in the eye to
change focus while mammals and birds have ones that change shape
and thus harder over time, forcing us to use get glasses when we get
older?
GuyeFaux | November 14, 2006 4:00 PM
But again, all this is really beside the point, which
is, quite simply, that to say sub-optimal design
equals no design is metaphysical and not
scientific.
Then why is saying "[apparent] optimal design equals design not
metaphysical?
trrll | November 14, 2006 4:03 PM
What I find particularly revealing is that the Yamamoto et al paper
was published in 1965. And the descriptive title, "Fine Structure of
the Octopus Retina, would have made it easy to find even before
the advent of searchable electronic databases. Yet even a glance at
Fig. 1 utterly destroys Dentons arguments-the extensive
vascularization is quite apparent, as is the presence of pigment to
prevent light scattering. It is even possible to see how support cells
are incorporated without interfering with photoreceptor packing-all
supposed problems with the "verted design according to Denton. So
did he really not bother to even look up the anatomy of the octopus
eye before pontificating? Or is he simply lying, expecting that most of
his audience will never bother to look it up (in which assumption, he
was apparently correct, as ID/creationists continue to cite it to this
1 2 3 4
day).
Coin | November 14, 2006 4:12 PM
Okay, so Donald, be clear
here. Do you agree then that
it is not logically possible to
identify a "designed from a
"non-designed object without
specific knowledge of the
designer in question?
Of course I dont agree. But again, all this is
really beside the point, which is, quite simply,
that to say sub-optimal design equals no design is
metaphysical and not scientific.
So "sub-optimal design is metaphysical, but "design isnt?
Why? Whats the difference?
SETI being a case in point. If it were the case
that a signal from space were discovered such as
the one in the movie Contact and was attibuted
to intelligent cause, we still wouldnt have any
specific knowledge of the designer(s) in question.
Contact is a fictional movie, not real life.
In real life, SETI starts out assuming they know something about the
"designers they are hoping to find signals from. They assume that
these designers are living beings who exist within the naturalistic
universe, and that their signals are created by electromagnetic
communication devices. They use this assumed knowledge about
their "designers, in fact, to discern whether the signals are designed
at all; they arent testing for "design by itself, theyre testing for
signs of a specific "designer. If SETI received a strange signal, they
would immediately check to see whether that signal fits with the
origin hypothesis of their assumed known designer. If the signal
didnt fit what theyd expect of the designers theyre expecting, they
would probably start looking for hypotheses involving natural origins
of the same signal. Consider the discovery of the LGM-1 signal, which,
unlike "Contact, actually happened in real life.
But even aside from this, you can absolutely bet that if we received a
signal that, for whatever reason, we "attibuted to intelligent life, the
very first thing we would do is start speculating and drawing
conclusions about the designers. We would in fact use the signal itself
to learn about the designers. We would consider the place in the
universe where the signal is identified of coming from (say, what kind
of planets or other objects are visible there) to draw conclusions
about what kind of life the signal might have come from, we would
analyze the signal itself to draw conclusions about their signal
transmission technology, we would analyze the signals content (if
any) in every way we could think of.
But youre telling us the opposite of what SETI does- youre telling us
we can identify "design without having a specific designer in mind,
but we cant then use the design once identified to draw conclusions
about the nature of the designer, since that would be "metaphysical.
$ERXWWKLV(QWU\
This page contains a single entry
by an Musgrave published on
November 14, 2006 6:24 AM.
Blind Mice vs Behe; the Evolution
of Vision was the previous entry in
this blog.
When ignorance applies scientific
vacuity is the next entry in this
blog.
Find recent content on the main
index or look in the archives to find
all content.
&DWHJRULHV
Announcements (7)
Assault on Science (455)
Bathroom Wall (13)
Book Reviews (71)
Explore Evolution (5)
The Edge of Evolution (17)
Wells' PG (16)
Conferences (24)
Darwin's Finches (1)
Designoids (9)
Education and Legal (148)
Assault on Education (504)
Florida (8)
Kansas (6)
Ohio (98)
Texas (25)
mproving science education
(91)
Kitzmiller Ruling (62)
Eugenics (1)
Evolution (667)
Biological complexity (77)
Development (29)
EvoMath (27)
rreducible Complexity (39)
Blood clotting (4)
Cilium evolution (4)
Flagellum evolution (25)
mmune system (8)
Junk DNA (7)
Phylogenetics (4)
Transitional Fossils (31)
Evolution Education (13)
Expelled (69)
Expelled Exposed (36)
Expelled Flunked (32)
Flyers/Pamphlets (3)
Humor (151)
D/Creationism (97)
Bible as Science (35)
Creationism (75)
Evolution of Creationism (46)
ntelligent Design (458)
Privileged Planet (21)
Scientific Vacuity (80)
The Wedge (11)
Quote Mines (12)
cons (2)
Peppered Moths (1)
Journal Club (32)
Legal ssues (131)
Manufactroversy (14)
Medicine and Evolution (21)
Metatalk (97)
MustRead (7)
News Roundup (29)
Origin of new genes and new
information (3)
Prebiotic Chemistry (8)