666...the Devils Moving Average

Where do you find this crap Doubter?

This is quite amusing. The creationists now attempt
to prove the poor design is GOOD, using science. LOL :D

"So why is Dawkins' "tidy-minded engineer" design such a bad idea? Dawkins thinks that the neural layer should be under the photoreceptors, putting them between the photoreceptors and the choroid. Where would the RPE (which is required to regenerate the photoreceptors) go?"

Well gee.... why don't we just ask an OMNISCIENT, OMNIPOTENT god???

Are the creationists being serious here? Are they saying
god is INCAPABLE of coming up with a design which allows
for photoreceptors which are NOT blocked by the wiring
while at the same time solving the issues Mr Rich Deen
is complaining about?

This is SO absurd.

There are design flaws EVERYWHERE you look in nature.
You can come up with as many EXCUSES for god as you wish,
but the fact is, HE HAS NO EXCUSES if he REALLY is all knowing
and all powerful.

I would love to hear the EXCUSE for a giraffe dropping a newborn
6 feet onto its head!!

Maybe being dropped from six feet is really beneficial somehow right?
What a joke.

Get real guys. Look at the obvious.
How many animals have SUPERIOR vision that humans???

Is god NOT capable of learning from his "previous designs" ???

Why cant I have eagle vision???? Oh thats right...
God is not smart enough to design MY eye as well as
another animals eye. Maybe god has a severe MEMORY PROBLEM? :D

These creationists are really desperately stretching here
to defend an obviously weak and indefensible position.

Without modern medicine/science, many mothers would
DIE giving birth because their babies head is TOO LARGE
to pass through their hips.

What is the BRILLIANT design behind this mechanism???
Maybe they are supposed to SQUUUUUUEEEZE harder
and give birth to a CONE HEAD baby because massaging
the BRAIN is good for them? LOL..

Yeah...some kids DO come out with cone heads, but im
talking about somthing that looks more like a long TUBE. LOL.
WORM HEAD babies attack! AAaaaaah.....

Another BRILLIANT design by an OMNISCIENT creator.
Do you really believe we are all perfectly designed by a perfect creator???
I mean really??? If you believe that, then you truly
believe in fairy tales.


peace

axeman




Quote from Doubter:

A 1st year, MERE HUMAN, mechanical engineer would know
NOT to wire an optic nerve IN FRONT of the light sensitive
receptor cells in the human eye.

Our eye's are wired BACKWARDS!

Dawkins goes through numerous of these evolutionary
hiccups in his books. OBVIOUS, and really bad design
errors abound in nature.

Errors that any semi competent engineer would not make.
axeman
_______________________________________________

Bad Design in the Human Eye?
The vertebrate eye is quite an exceptional organ in terms of its function. Light passes through the cornea, then through the lens where it is focused on the retina, which contains the photoreceptors (rods and cones) for detecting this light (see diagram to right). Each rod and cone that receives light fires a signal to the neural apparatus, which transmits the signal to the optic nerve, which goes to the brain for processing. The brain does some fancy processing, including inverting the image and interpreting what is seen (this is a whole other story that cannot be covered here).

The invertebrate eye is much simpler and is quite different, especially in the design of its retina. The invertebrate retina is composed of the photoreceptors, which face the incoming light, followed by the neural layer, and the underlying layers that supply nutrients and oxygen through a capillary bed. However, the vertebrate retina is said to be "inverted," since the neural layers face the light and the photoreceptor cells actually face away from the incident light. Evolutionists say that this arrangement was the result of improvised evolution in which obvious errors in "design" were accommodated through successive mutational alterations to make the apparatus work in a functional manner. According to Richard Dawkins, a leading proponent of evolution:

"Any engineer would naturally assume that the photocells would point towards the light, with their wires leading backwards towards the brain. He would laugh at any suggestion that the photocells might point away, from the light, with their wires departing on the side nearest the light. Yet this is exactly what happens in all vertebrate retinas. Each photocell is, in effect, wired in backwards, with its wire sticking out on the side nearest the light. The wire has to travel over the surface of the retina to a point where it dives through a hole in the retina (the so-called ‘blind spot’) to join the optic nerve. This means that the light, instead of being granted an unrestricted passage to the photocells, has to pass through a forest of connecting wires, presumably suffering at least some attenuation and distortion (actually, probably not much but, still, it is the principle of the thing that would offend any tidy-minded engineer). I don’t know the exact explanation for this strange state of affairs. The relevant period of evolution is so long ago."

Dawkins doesn't know why the vertebrate retina is designed this way because he doesn't really understand how the eye works. In fact, the retina is designed with slightly suboptimal light gathering abilities so that it will be functional for at least several decades. If it were designed according to Dawkins' "tidy-minded engineer," it would not work at all, as we shall see.

First, we need a short introduction to the physics of light. The electromagnetic spectrum emitted by the sun is composed of many different wavelengths, a small percentage of which are visible to our eyes (370-730 nanometers). The near-visible wavelengths include the longer wavelengths (infrared) and the shorter wavelengths (ultraviolet). The amount of energy within each wavelength is inversely proportional to the wavelength. Therefore, electromagnetic energy that consists of shorter wavelengths (e.g., ultraviolet light) is more energetic.

Although the visual apparatus cannot detect the high energy wavelengths, it is still affected by them, since the entire system is exposed to the full spectrum. In contrast, the rest of the body is protected from high energy light by pigment (melanin) in the skin. Even so, a lifetime exposure of the skin cells to this light can result in DNA damage, which may lead to the development of cancers. The eye contains a special layer of cells, the Retinal Pigment Epithelium (RPE), which has complex mechanisms for dealing with toxic molecules and free radicals produced by the action of light. Specific enzymes such as the superoxide dismutases, catalases, and peroxidases are present to eliminate potentially harmful molecules such as superoxide and hydrogen peroxide. Antioxidants such as a-tocopherol (vitamin E) and ascorbic acid (vitamin C) are available to reduce oxidative damage.

Because of continuous damage caused by light, the discs (along with the photopigments) of the photoreceptor cells are continuously replaced by the RPE. If this were not the case, the photoreceptors would quickly accumulate fatal defects that would prohibit their function. In addition, the RPE cells contain the pigment melanin, which absorbs stray and scattered light to improve visual acuity. The RPE is in contact with the choroid layer, which contains a very large capillary bed, which has the largest blood flow per gram of any tissue in the body. Why is the blood flow so high in the choroid? Since the RPE and photoreceptor cells are in constant regeneration, they require a high rate of exchange of oxygen and nutrients. In addition, it appears that the high rate of blood flow is required to remove heat from the retina to prevent damage resulting from focused light (the old magnifying glass in the Sun phenomenon).

So why is Dawkins' "tidy-minded engineer" design such a bad idea? Dawkins thinks that the neural layer should be under the photoreceptors, putting them between the photoreceptors and the choroid. Where would the RPE (which is required to regenerate the photoreceptors) go? If it were between the neural layer and the choroid, it would be too far away from the photoreceptors to constantly regenerate them. In addition, this design would put another layer between the photoreceptors and their blood supply, reducing the exchange of oxygen and nutrients, and minimizing the effectiveness of the choroid in removing heat from the receptors. Dawkins' idea of "good" evolution would prevent the photoreceptors from being regenerated and would likely lead to heat damage. Such a design would certainly fail within the first year of use. It's a good thing that God does not design the way evolutionists would!
Rich Deem
_____________________________________________
More...
 
Same old argument that has already been refuted several times.

Your post is full of unprovable assumptions.

You are NOT capable of coming up with ANY probabilities without
knowing all the variables involved.

I guess you are just not capable of understanding this
basic statistic principle and will continue to argue from ignorance instead.



Let's try this one more time with a SIMPLE analogy.

1) I have a peg board with 1 million holes in it.
2) I have a bag full of red pegs and white pegs
3) You are NOT allowed to see how many pegs are in the bag,
touch the bag, weigh the bag, nada.

QUESTION: What is the probability that I will get 2 red pegs
in a row on the board, if I attempt to randomly fill the board with all
the pegs in the bag????????


ANSWER this question correctly Shoeshine, it's a serious question.



peace

axeman


Quote from ShoeshineBoy:



Here’s some examples from where those numbers come from:

1. Sagan himself came up with one of them. He and another scientist observed that stars must be of a specific mass density. If the mass density is too small, then the planet must be significantly closer to the star. And tidal interactions go up exponentially with the distance closer to the star. The rotational period in this case quickly goes from days to months! (Both Mercury and Venus experience this.) A larger mass density leads to even greater problems: the star burns too quickly and erratically for advanced life. Sagan himself noted that only 1/1000 stars would have a reasonable mass density.
2. An advanced-life planet must be orbiting one and only one star. Of course, a planet ripped away from a start will be too cold and a planet orbiting a binary system will have too unstable of an orbit and will frequently pull the planet into deadly temperature zones.. Only about ¼ stars are bachelor stars.
3. Most galaxies have stellar densities that are far too high to support advanced life. If stars are too close, then their gravitational interactions would disrupt planetary orbits. And of course if the stellar density is too low, then heavy elements will be thinly distributed to produce a proper rocky planet for advanced life.
4. Most people do not realize only 5% of all galaxies are the “nice” spiral galaxies like the Milky Way. The other 95% are elliptical or irregular. In elliptical galaxies, star formation ceases before sufficient rocky planet material can generally form. With irregular galaxies, you have two problems: 1) they have active nuclei, so any life would be bombarded with the nastiest of radiation and 2) they also do not sufficient heavy element concentration to form the kind of rocky planets necessary for advanced life.

When you put these together, you get the list on p. 151.
More...
 
Quote from axeman:

I would love to hear the EXCUSE for a giraffe dropping a newborn
6 feet onto its head!!

Maybe being dropped from six feet is really beneficial somehow right?
What a joke.

Get real guys. Look at the obvious.
How many animals have SUPERIOR vision that humans???

Is god NOT capable of learning from his "previous designs" ???

Why cant I have eagle vision???? Oh thats right...
God is not smart enough to design MY eye as well as
another animals eye. Maybe god has a severe MEMORY PROBLEM? :D
More...
yes, yes!! give them more, axe!!
 
Axeman - How was the fire? Pretty impressive I'll bet and several hundred thousand acres is immense.

We in cooperation with the USDA have a 20 year experimental prescriptive burn research project that we started burning in a year ago. Only a few hundred acres for the first fire(we didn't want it to get away on the first burn) but it was still impressive. I am fascinated by all of the technology measuring instruments that they used and some were burned up by design, also incorporation of GPS and ground water and temperature measurements. They also simulated heavy rainfall after the burn to measure sediment run off and erosion. The purpose is to study the fire interval and emulate the natural cycle and see if that helps to prevent these catastrophic events. They put some of their instruments under the firefighter tents or blankets to test them but the results weren't too encouraging.
 
It was pretty crazy. I was in a few of the areas that
the fire got pretty close too. (At friends homes).
Watched a neighborhood burn to the ground from a
nearby mountain 1 valley away, at night.
Looked like a lava flow line, glowing red as it moved
down the mountain.

My place is pretty far from any of the fires.

There is a dense fog of smoke everywhere today.
Most people are not going to work because of the air quality.

Hopefully the sea breeze kicks in today and the rest of the
week and clears a lot of this out.

I was sneezing all day yesterday. Felt like I had a bad cold.

The sun was blood red.
The orange sky makes everything look weird.
Greens are brighter, etc. Surreal.
It rained ash off and on all around the city.

Some places had enough ash, that it looked like a light
coat of snow that would swirl as cars drove by.

I want the sun and fresh sea air back :mad:


peace

axeman



Quote from Doubter:

Axeman - How was the fire? Pretty impressive I'll bet and several hundred thousand acres is immense.

We in cooperation with the USDA have a 20 year experimental prescriptive burn research project that we started burning in a year ago. Only a few hundred acres for the first fire(we didn't want it to get away on the first burn) but it was still impressive. I am fascinated by all of the technology measuring instruments that they used and some were burned up by design, also incorporation of GPS and ground water and temperature measurements. They also simulated heavy rainfall after the burn to measure sediment run off and erosion. The purpose is to study the fire interval and emulate the natural cycle and see if that helps to prevent these catastrophic events. They put some of their instruments under the firefighter tents or blankets to test them but the results weren't too encouraging.
More...
 
had a friend who was just there and she wrote:

All the schools are closed and the air is so bad you can't leave your windows
open and shouldn't spend much time outside. Let's just say San Diego children
are bouncing off the walls.

The ash is falling like snowflakes, the smell of smoke is heavy and the sun
is a dull red ball in the sky when you can see it. The city is requesting
water and electrical conservation.

Tuesday isn't predicted to be much better. So I headed for the airport Monday
night and waited for a flight home. The flights were running better than
Sunday even though the smoke was worse. Air traffic control is out of LA
since the Mirimar station was evacuated.
 
Quote from axeman:


Let's try this one more time with a SIMPLE analogy.

1) I have a peg board with 1 million holes in it.
2) I have a bag full of red pegs and white pegs
3) You are NOT allowed to see how many pegs are in the bag,
touch the bag, weigh the bag, nada.

QUESTION: What is the probability that I will get 2 red pegs
in a row on the board, if I attempt to randomly fill the board with all
the pegs in the bag????????


ANSWER this question correctly Shoeshine, it's a serious question.
More...
I would guess close to 1.0. You're driving at something. Lay it out there...
 
Here are a few other examples:

Rotational period: The rotational period of any life-bearing planet must be within a few %. If the rotational period is too short, the temperature differences between night and day would be deadly to advanced life. If the rotational period is too fast, wind velocities would be just as deadly. Example: Jupiter has a rotational period of 10 hours and winds frequently reach 1000+ mph.

Tectonic Activity (i.e. earthquakes): W/o earthquakes, nutrients essential for life on continents would erode and accumulate in oceans. If earthquake activity was to great, well you can figure that one out.

Jupiter: A life-capable planet must have a large planet in the right location with the right size. Jupiter “coincidentally” fits both. It is 2.5 times the mass of all other planets combined and it is in the best location between earth and the cometary cloud that surrounds the solar system. Because of this, Jupiter draws comets into itself (a la 7/94) or deflects comets right out of the solar system. If Jupiter was not there, we would not be here to even debate this subject.

Jupiter/Saturn eccentricities: French astronomer Jaques Lasker determined that if the outer large planets were less irregular, then innter planetary motions would be so extreme that climatic instability would result.
 
I would love to hear the EXCUSE for a giraffe dropping a newborn
6 feet onto its head!!

Maybe being dropped from six feet is really beneficial somehow right?
What a joke.
Axeman
_____________________________________________

You need to be around birthing more. (Wanta volunteer?)
In many, many cases the newborn needs a slap or shock of some kind to kind of wake up and start breathing. They used to slap a baby's bottom to jump start them. (Don't know if they still do that with the no spank policies.:D) Occasionally the placenta has a too thick wall and it takes some fairly violent action to break it. If it doesn't break then the newborn suffocates or drowns. The ones that do drown won't reproduce so they evolve away from that characteristic or they were designed with that flaw or for some other purpose, whichever you choose to believe. This is a family line characteristic but in all these many generations the flaw has not been bred (evolved or planned) away from. I don't have the answer to that problem yet. Also the lungs in some cases have too much fluid in them and certain procedures are required to expell that fluid or the baby drowns. This is normally caused by a backwards birth in which the contractions of the mother force the fluid into the lungs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top