If you enjoy what you read here you will also enjoy my novel
21 days in May
Please be aware this blog may be considered Illegal almost anywhere!

The Clearly Godless Human Eye

There have been arguments both for and against god nestled in the complexities of the human eye.
My own knowledge of the eye kind of slid down the slope of disinterest with the first diagram I saw in Biology class. I took the view, “As long as it works, I'm not fussed why! And I’m never going to take mine apart, so what’s the point of knowing the names of its components?” Yeah, yeah, I know, kinda childish but hey, I was a child.
However, the god-squad makes a fuss about the miraculous mechanics of the human visual system, so I thought I'd cast a beady eye across the subject… (You can probably expect more rubbish optic-puns.)

Many sources detail the imperfections of the human eye, very clearly detailing the flaws, or you can watch the first 3 mins 30 secs of this video “Intelligent Design (2): The Human Eye”


http://www.youtube.com/embed/CZkPAanGXsc

So, it seems clear that the Octopus eye, with its blood vessels on the sensible side of the retina and no blind-spot, is better than the human eye but also, if one was setting out to design the ‘perfect’ human eye, why would a creator not include access to the full ultra-violet to infra-red electromagnetic spectrum like the Mantis Shrimp?
The evidence against intelligent design of the human eye seems incontrovertible, you'd have to be an the exact opposite of intelligent, an idiot, to rig up the human eye the way their god is supposed to have, but I’m going to focus my conjecture here on lens design.

You're probably aware that a design “feature” of the eye is that the image is projected onto the retina in an upside down and left to right switch. This strikes me as an odd “feature” to build into an organ which has the expressed purpose of delivering to the brain, clear images of the current actual environmental circumstances.
Seems to me, whether concave or convex, there would be clear benefits to having a second lens.(If you want, have a look at the Refracting Telescope Designs on Wikipedia.)
As the image would be displayed correctly on the retina, the 'newborn' brain wouldn't have to learn how to correct the image. And this benefit would extend to the entirety of the lifespan; a second lens would release the portion of each brain’s available processing power that is permanently allocated to performing this image correction process.
Wouldn’t any designer worth his salt easily spot that an additional, simple, energy-efficient bio-mechanical subsystem (lens and ciliary body mechanism) would eliminate this constant drain of more valuable system resources? Indeed, you could say that a definitive role of any designer is to make structural changes which clearly improve energy and resource efficiency. The improvement to the overall system performance that a second lens would bring, makes it worthy of inclusion regardless of any extra survivability benefit for the newborn.

So, for my perfect design, I’d include a secondary lens to correct the inverted image and, as a little tweak to the whole rig, I'd add of a set inter-ciliary body muscles, to change the distance between the lenses and provide zoom capability. What the hell, it’s just a conjecture. Or is it?
Check this out...
"Secondary lens formation caused by implantation of pituitary into the eyes of the newt, Notophthalmus*1

Whole pituitary glands, as well as equivalent-sized pieces of kidney, liver, and adrenal tissue, were implanted into the anterior chamber of the adult newt eye. Secondary lens formation was present in 16 out of 17 cases of the pituitary implantation experiments in which the pituitary tissues were exposed to the anterior chamber fluid." Full Article - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0012160676900130

The human pituitary gland is located in the brain between the eyes.
Now, I don't know the science, which is probably why I’m leaning toward the next conclusion, but is it not likely that the current pituitary position is responsible for the formation of the lens we have? And, is it therefore, not a possibility that a future human evolutionary mutation could bring an individual’s pituitary gland into closer proximity than 'normal' to the eyes and form a secondary lens?

Watch that space!

No don't actually, you'll go cross-eyed and give yourself a headache!
But, oh, wait, what if going cross-eyed and giving your self a headache would cause the pituitary mutation and give us a second lens??

Right, I know, half of you actually watch that space and half of you watch it metaphorically. ;)

As final flight of fancy…
In a future time a new race comes to visit our planet. In the course of our friendly initial interactions it’s discovered that we have similar monotheistic biblical creation myths, a rapport develops.
Later, in an exchange of medical knowledge, it’s discovered that the visitors have a second lens which displays the universe “the way god meant it”.
We ‘see’ it inverted and so, in their eyes, we are the spawn of Satan.
But hey, that could never happen, could it?


More on the eye here
This is one of the Too Many Questions

PEACE
Crispy
Please leave a comment - Anything will do
The best communications are often,
THREE WORDS OR LESS
OR ONE OR MORE FINGERS!

Created In The Blink Of An Eye?

One of my Christian twitter followers had a look at this video and complained that it "Does not address Behe's 20 year old claim".

Evolution of the Eye - http://youtu.be/swGFMEqZKSU

While I believe Behe has since stated that "because science has not yet discovered a process by which a nerve may become photosensitive does not mean that it is impossible via evolution", as his work, which is now twenty years old, is a common argument for intelligent design/creationism I thought I'd attempt to address this point. It's not my topic, as I've repeated, when it comes to evolution I don't know shit, I just report the news, however, could light sensitivity have come from merely sensitive?

Eyes are defined in multiple ways and many carry the meaning "organs that detect light, and convert it to electro-chemical impulses in neurons" but others define an eye as simply the organ 'of vision' or 'of sight'.
The parameters of that 'vision' only become 'set' by the meaning we allocate to the word but as 'eyes' are capable of all sorts of vision from infrared to ultraviolet, 'sight' is much more wide that we describe it.1
Also, there's no reason to believe that the current highly specialized function of the eye, is what the eye 'originally' was. Some eyes can 'see' heat - in ice cold water the detection of heat means the detection of food.

That conversion of nerve cell to photosensitive cell has not yet been explained
may simply be because it would be an evolutionary leap too far.


A mutation which allowed a standard nerve cell to become exodermal would provide advantage; the new exodermal cell would provide a 'signal'. The signal from an exposed tooth nerve may be agony, often one cannot tell hot or cold but one can always tell 'extremes' of temperature.
Also, biology loves symmetry even in mutation so two nerve cells erupting on opposite sides of the being is likely (e.g. snails eye stalks) and would give distinct directional signals.
Instinct would drive the being toward one or other and experience of the consequentially discovered object that was providing the 'signal' would give positive or negative feedback to the being. In simple terms - Cold = no good, warm = food possibility.
After a minimum of only three trials of following the instinct to 'go toward cold' or 'go toward warm' a result could emerge, positive enough to gamble on, as to which 'direction signal' to follow.
If the instinct was to follow cold, then two of the results could produce 'of no use' responses and only one 'useful'.
If the instinct was to follow hot, then two of the results could produce 'useful' responses and only one 'not useful'.
One result reinforces the instinct; the other teaches that the instinct was 'wrong'. Whether the initial instinct was right or wrong, the fact that knowledge is power was as true then as it is now.

I think the problem with the eye is that we think of it as the magnificent camera it is; we forget that the 'first' 'eye' need not have been able to 'see' but simply to 'give advantage'. When clear advantage becomes established, the natural process of mutation takes of over, each generation slightly different, the mutation which provides the most advantage, gains more/better food for it's owner which provides the resources to produce more offspring, the new mutation becomes the norm etc. etc.

As the organisms 'minimal' advantage allows it to become more complex, more/different enzymes/proteins are likely to be produced within the being, made from the nutrients being absorbed or imbibed from the 'better' sourcing of food from the environment.
With newer building bocks in the mix, the being's offspring will be made slightly differently, the previous advantage giving 'eye buds' benefit from the new ingredients and the being spawns offspring where the eye buds are able to discern shape or heat.

Over a creature's life its offspring forms three groups, 50% have parent's style of 'eye'.
25% have 'new' eye mutation but don't figure out how to use it and die without reproducing.
Remaining 25% have 'new' eye mutation but DO figure out how to use it and thrive. It gives a food sourcing advantage over the 'original' eye group of .0001%
Over 10000 gens the thriving 'new' eye group's reproduction rate outstrips the 'original' eye group and because of the new eye groups' success, the original eye group is squeezed into extinction via natural selection.


More on the eye here
This is one of the Too Many Questions
PEACE
Crispy
Please leave a comment - Anything will do
The best communications are often,
THREE WORDS OR LESS
OR ONE OR MORE FINGERS!

1 - Science Daily - 'Seeing' Without Eyes: Hydra Stinging Cells Respond to Light

YouTube - BBC Reporter does Dougal McGuire

Reporting from Dublin on the Irish Election for the BBC, Andrew Martin's comment shows his appreciation of Father Ted
BBC Reporter does Dougal McGuire - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8E1s0UdSyZs: ""


This is one of the Too Many Questions
PEACE
Crispy
Please leave a comment - Anything will do
The best communications are often,
THREE WORDS OR LESS
OR ONE OR MORE FINGERS!

On The First Day God Created Evolution.

I've heard it before - I’m sure I'll hear it again.
So, if God created evolution, here are my questions...
Why?
Evolution is natural selection:-
1. The lifeform which performs the best in each environment has more offspring.
2. Goto 1.
The 'end point' for evolution is extinction of all life in the universe; while even a single bacteria remains, evolution continues.
So, unless anyone can suggest another reason for ‘why’ a supposedly omniscient god would create evolution, I'm going with...
It can only have been to see how it would play out.

This suggests that he DOES NOT KNOW how it will play out.
I'm assuming this for two reasons…
1. If he did know, what would be the point?
2. If we were to assume a god created evolution because he could not generate humanity any other way then…
a. We must admit that an inability to create humanity directly means god may not be described as omnipotent.
b. Humanity may not consider itself special but rather a merely a link in the evolutionary chain.

That he ‘doesn’t know’ in turn suggests that a god who is 'creator of evolution' may not be the god of scripture - no matter what scripture you read - because in all scriptures, to be a god means to be 'all knowing' and that humankind is 'special' to that god.

Now let's just stand still on that for a minute before we move on.
NOT THE GOD OF SCRIPTURE - ANY Scripture.

If a god created evolution, we may only assume that all the scriptures are wrong.
But hey, if they are all wrong, where is the notion of god coming from?
Is it ONLY from OUR need to answer whence we come?
It must be; if all the scriptures are wrong why assume a god?

In fact, all the components of religion crumble to dust the moment you suggest that god created evolution.

There is no soul required for evolution (Evolution is a self perpetuating entropy bubble without it) so there's no need for salvation of that non existent soul, so there's no need for a place for that soul to 'end up'; no heaven required for evolution no hell required.
There's no morality required.
It means Jesus was just a man with some nice principles who got nailed up for sedition; this makes his legend the tale of a revolutionary but not the son of a god. It also casts doubt on how truly virtuous his old ma was!

You see, a whole wall of trouble when you claim God Created Evolution but just for now, let's assume that it's the case, God did indeed create evolution.

For me, if you're going to set evolution running you are going to see it out, aren't you? If you didn't, wouldn't that show fickleness which is, I'd suggest, shall we say, an unattractive trait for a god; not conducive to being trusted?
Yeah, I reckon, you're going to see it through, I mean, you have suspended your omniscience for the duration of it! Not being omniscient myself I can only guess that it would be a bigger handicap than being blind (no diminishment of difficulties associated with blindness intended) Or rather, suspended omniscience as far as this/our universe is concerned; there would be no reason for god to not be omniscient over other domains he may be caretaker of.. Hey that's a thought; all the books seem to suggest that the universe is the only thing in their god's life! That's a little short-sighted wouldn't you say? That 'we' (universe) are his only pastime?

Where was I? Oh yeah, to go to the lengths of suspending his omniscience to see how Evolution turns out; that's taking it pretty seriously, eh?

So, the story becomes...
13 Billion years have slipped by since he cracked off his "bigus bangus" - it's a while ago so I thought Latin would be appropriate :) He's enjoyed watching the galaxies, stars and world upon world form and fall for countless millennia.
Then on this insignificant blue and green planet in the back woods of the universe something remarkable happened, something that has not happened, as far as we are aware, anywhere else in the entire history and size of the universe; life. Innocuous and bumbling, living and dying in seconds at first but over the space of a few billion years it developed into highly complex beings, the dinosaurs, which roam the whole earth for hundreds of millions of years.
I'm not even going to get into the morality of watching dinosaurs tear each other apart for millions of years but he didn't intervene so, either he was enjoying all the blood and gore or he didn't want to screw the evolution experiment.
Then suddenly out of left field, perhaps whilst he was watching the ‘fat lipped platypus’ fuck the guy who'd gave their kids the duck bill (hey, I wonder if that's where "Lord, love a duck" comes from?), a massive disaster consumes the earth. Almost all the dinosaurs are gone in a flash and the cute fluffy mammals take the driving seat.
Another few thousand millenniums and humanity rocks up, all 'the great I am' and 'happening', the first really interesting thing in the evolution experiment(universe), the first sentient thinking mammal (I know we can argue about that but for the purposes of this thought it'll do!) I mean, volcanoes and dinosaurs are all great but for a god who's got EVERY t-shirt there ever was, is, or shall be, they have to be a bit dull and humanity would look, 'All that'!
So, humanity is around for a hundred thousand years or so, wowing god at every turn when, suddenly, god decides to blow off his experiment and remember without his omniscience he has no idea how long it still has to run, to ruin the evolutionary path and nip down to earth for a little horizontal action with a, to all intents and purposes, married woman. Now, fair enough, he's a man, it's not unheard of that a line or two is spun to loosen the knickers but he rewrites the entire history of everything he knows is true, which, I think makes him a liar? or at least a great deceiver like his supposed son.

Now, there are a few questions about this too...
1. I don't know what Mary is supposed to have looked like but let's just say she was carpenter's wife not a footballer's, if you catch my drift. If god was going to ‘rock a lady's world’ would it not have been Nefertiti or some other such grade 'A' product of human evolution?
2. Would a sentient, rational, being who wanted to see the outcome of his experiment (universe) really throw the whole 13 billion year old shooting match in the bin, billions (possibly) of years before its end, for a randy half hour with the hairy wife of an ignorant bronze age desert dweller?
It seems utterly preposterous to me that a 'divine' being would even fancy the descendant of a primate. It's kind of like you or me getting jiggy with an earthworm! Which, I'm pretty sure we'd categorize under bestiality or, for my more easily offended readers, icky!
No, it strikes me that a god of evolution would want to see if something better than humanity came along and not start stirring sprinklings of his weird morality to the evolutionary soup.

So there you go, that'll do, it's probably not every question that dogs the notion of 'God created Evolution' but it's sufficient for me to think...
No religionists, once again, you've got it wrong.


This is one of the Too Many Questions
PEACE
Crispy
Please leave a comment - Anything will do
The best communications are often,
THREE WORDS OR LESS
OR ONE OR MORE FINGERS!

YouTube - Creation Astronomy Propaganda Debunked

Creation Astronomy Propaganda Debunked - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5QhrrQ1dcA: ""

This is one of the Too Many Questions
PEACE
Crispy
Please leave a comment - Anything will do
The best communications are often,
THREE WORDS OR LESS
OR ONE OR MORE FINGERS!

YouTube - Positive Atheism

YouTube - Positive Atheism: ""

This is one of the Too Many Questions
PEACE
Crispy
Please leave a comment - Anything will do
The best communications are often,
THREE WORDS OR LESS
OR ONE OR MORE FINGERS!

YouTube - George Carlin The Best 3 Minutes of His Career "The American Dream"

YouTube - George Carlin The Best 3 Minutes of His Career "The American Dream"



This is one of the Too Many Questions
PEACE
Crispy
Please leave a comment - Anything will do
The best communications are often,
THREE WORDS OR LESS
OR ONE OR MORE FINGERS!

YouTube - Doodling in Math Class: Infinity Elephants

YouTube - Doodling in Math Class: Infinity Elephants: ""

This is one of the Too Many Questions
PEACE
Crispy
Please leave a comment - Anything will do
The best communications are often,
THREE WORDS OR LESS
OR ONE OR MORE FINGERS!

Probing The Muslim Brotherhood

Faithfreedom International is a grass-roots movement of ex-Muslims
Their article - Probing the History of the Muslim-Nazi Alliance is quite an eye opener; for those who don't know, the Muslim Brotherhood have been kissing Hitler's arse since 1933.

from the article...
"In Egypt in 1933, Ahamd Husayn started the Young Egypt movement, which was modeled closely on the German Nazi party. A delegation went to Germany for the 1936 Nuremberg Nazi party rally. Husayn adopted Nazism’s rabid anti-Semitism, and taught his young followers that Jews were responsible for cultural decadence and moral decay...

...The fascist and Nazi elements of the Muslim Brotherhood’s program included: total rejection of liberal democracy, subordination of the individual to the state, attacks on both capitalism and communism, male supremacy, sexual repression, celebration of the ‘art of death’ and obsessive hatred and murder of Jews. In the Egyptian context, the Muslim Brotherhood called for the dissolution of parliament, establishment of sharia law and the Caliphate, the abolition of interest and profit, the closing of the stock exchange, nationalization of the banks, land seizure, the glorification of factories and labor discipline, a strong industrial-military program, global military supremacy and Islamic world rule. The movement opposed the material seductions of the free enterprise system, which they labelled Jewish, and expressed this belief by burning cinemas, nightclubs and brothels."

So just a couple of questions,

As it's only than three generations since the Muslim Brotherhood where totally enamoured with fascism, anyone with me in thinking that their ideological agenda will not have changed much?

Anyone else want to wish Egypt (and the rest of us) Good Luck?


This is one of the Too Many Questions

PEACE
Crispy
Please leave a comment - Anything will do
The best communications are often,
THREE WORDS OR LESS
OR ONE OR MORE FINGERS!

Share

If you enjoy what you read here
you will also enjoy my novel
21 days in May


Please be aware this blog may be considered Illegal almost anywhere!

Too Many Questions - Headlines

Ratings and Recommendations by outbrain

My new blog:
Left of Sinister
It's kind of political.

Blogroll

Lijit Ad Wijit