tuppence wrote:
Are the eyes 'wired backwards'? Haven't you guys gotten over that nonsense yet?
from a friend:
I am an ophthalmologist, and can tell you that the retina must be "inverted". That is, the photoreceptors (rods & cones), (or outer
segments) MUST be on the outside in order to be in contact with the choroid, their blood supply. Evolutionists' design, with the photoreceptors on the inside curvature of the retina simply would not function, due to their high metabolism. Having the neural components of the retina in front of the photoreceptors is not any kind of optical handicap either, since the neural elements are separated by less than a wavelength of light, so there is no scattering or diffraction, and the light gets through this with near-perfect transparency. The evolutionists' design would not place the photoreceptors in contact with their source of nutrition (the choroid). This is a serious problem because rods & cones completely replace themselves at a very high rate (about every 7 days I think), due to phototoxicity, and other damage. No, I prefer the original design!
There is plenty more, even on the net if you use your Google or other search engine, but that gives you an idea of the excellence of the design of our human eyes.
No, God did not make any mistakes, but we do, and frequently. That is why I prefer Him as my foundation rather than what people think they know.
That's nice. It's a pity it didn't refute the fact that the
human eye
is wired backwards compared to the squid eye, which is what this is all about. That paragraph didn't once mention other organisms. The human eye is flawed, admit that your God is either a bad engineer and favours marine life to man in terms of optics, or that the evolutionary path of the squid's eye was better than ours.
We call this a red herring. Get back to me when you address the fundamental differences between a squid's eye and our own.