ID, Irreducable Complexity, and the Eye

Kopji said:
You cut open a cow's eye in Sunday school? Kewl.

There seems to have been a danger in sparking an unhealthy scientific interest in how things work...
Click to expand...

Well, in my case the danger wasn't too great. I didn't catch on to what the teacher was trying to accomplish until about 10 years ago. I was also accused of molesting a neighbor girl when I was 6, but didn't figure things out until about 15. I was a very slow child.

And it wasn't Sunday school; confirmation classes were held on Saturday mornings. I didn't get to sleep in or watch cartoons for three solid years. Huckleberry Hound was on Monday evenings, but conflicted with my accordian lessons.

...and my oldest son still thinks being grounded for bringing home Ds on his report card was abuse.
 
I would also add that the simplest eye is just a scathering of light sensitive cells around the body like some jellyfishes have.
 
Beady said:
Been thinking about something, and want to try it out, here.

As an extension of this argument, it occurs that there are two possible stages of development that may lie further down the road. One is telescopic/telephoto vision, where a second lens is located in front of or behind the first, and there are muscles to move them back and forth in relation to each other (or would that be a single lens, but with muscles to increase or decrease the curve?). The second would be to develop cones and rod or whatever that can see further into one or both ends of the spectrum.
Click to expand...

Owls have the ability to change the shape of their eyeball and lens, lengthening the eyeball and flattening the lens, in order to "telescope" their vision. (Or is it shortening the eyeball and making the lens more convex? I can never get the optics straight.) I'm not sure about other predatory birds, but I seem to remember they have the same ability.

The lens of the mammalian (and I think also the avian) eye filters out UV wavelengths - hence damage that causes cataracts - so cones or rods that would react to UV wouldn't have anything to react to anyway.

If the rods or cones were able to detect much further into the infrared spectrum, they would start picking up their own body heat.

ETA: We all have muscles to change the shape of our lens, that's how we focus our vision. Owls are just able to do this to a much greater degree, as well as change the focal distance of the eyeball - something mammals can't do.
 
Last edited:
John Bentley said:
(Or is it shortening the eyeball and making the lens more convex? I can never get the optics straight.)
Click to expand...

Yes, it's shortening the focal length and making the lens more convex to increase magnification.
There is also a spot magnification function in the Eagles eye that allows it to maintain a normal wide area vision (like we have) and zoom in on a specific target area. Now that's cool.

Robert
 
Pope130 said:
Yes, it's shortening the focal length and making the lens more convex to increase magnification.
There is also a spot magnification function in the Eagles eye that allows it to maintain a normal wide area vision (like we have) and zoom in on a specific target area. Now that's cool.

Robert
Click to expand...

How does that work?
 
Pope130 said:
Yes, it's shortening the focal length and making the lens more convex to increase magnification.
There is also a spot magnification function in the Eagles eye that allows it to maintain a normal wide area vision (like we have) and zoom in on a specific target area. Now that's cool.

Robert
Click to expand...

Any references for that?

Thanks
 
Beady said:
Been thinking about something, and want to try it out, here. *(snip)*

The second would be to develop cones and rod or whatever that can see further into one or both ends of the spectrum.

Is there a functional difference between an evolving eye and a defective eye? What about the partially blind?...
Click to expand...

Allow me to embarass myself. Years ago I tried the eye exercises to read "auras". For various reasons I came to the conclusion that the human eye cannot detect aura's and that auras don't exist.

One of those reasons - colour blindness. "The human eye sees by light stimulating the retina (a neuro-membrane lining the inside back of the eye). The retina is made up of what are called "rods" and "cones". The rods, located in the peripheral retina, give us our night vision, but can not distinguish color. Cones, located in the center of the retina (called the macula), are not much good at night but do let us perceive color during daylight conditions." (from here)

The human eye, cones, rods, optic nerve, and receptors in the brain, would all have to be different to be able to see auras. The book had something for everyone. Colorblind people and blind could use their intuition. The author of the aura book has some of my money and I want a refund.
 
And presbyopia-- far sightedness with age, or an increase in the near point distance (the closest we can hold an object to our face while still keeping it in focus) with age.

Due to the fact that the lens gets less bendy and the muscles less capable as we grow older.

The designer didn't factor in or didn't care much about the older eyeball?

Or perhaps the eyeball was designed when we were perfect pre adam eating the apple and whatnot?
 
Pope130 said:
Yes, it's shortening the focal length and making the lens more convex to increase magnification.
Click to expand...
That doesn't sound right.

I mean, a high-power magnifying glass does have a shorter focal length than a low-power one, but that's different because when viewing an object through a magnifying glass you bring the object very close to your eye. On the other hand, if you use a magnifying glass to focus the light from a distant object and form an inverted real image, as the lens in the eye forms an image on the retina, a higher-power magnifying glass will form a smaller image.
 
(Ghost-in-the-machine is responsible for the big writing. I didn't write it for farsighted people.)

1984 said:
Allow me to embarass myself. Years ago I tried the eye exercises to read "auras". For various reasons I came to the conclusion that the human eye cannot detect aura's and that auras don't exist.

One of those reasons - colour blindness. "The human eye sees by light stimulating the retina (a neuro-membrane lining the inside back of the eye). The retina is made up of what are called "rods" and "cones". The rods, located in the peripheral retina, give us our night vision, but can not distinguish color. Cones, located in the center of the retina (called the macula), are not much good at night but do let us perceive color during daylight conditions." (from here)

The human eye, cones, rods, optic nerve, and receptors in the brain, would all have to be different to be able to see auras. The book had something for everyone. Colorblind people and blind could use their intuition. The author of the aura book has some of my money and I want a refund.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom