Evolution vs. Intelligent Design for Dummies

[Tommy J]

Let me start this thread with a statement on my beliefs:

I believe in Evolution Science. Why....because every observable part of our environment lends itself to this conclusion.

*Scientists can show a clear linkage from the ape to modern man through time.

*The big bang theory is logical and consistent with astronomical measurements reported.

*Things like diamonds and petroleum can be proved to have only existed via millions of years of change.

*Events like the Great Flood as accounted in the bible aren't consistent with measurable changes in the earth's topography.

*Accounts of Noah and building a 'super-tanker' full of every species on the planet are from my perspective ludicrous.

*We can clearly see via direct observation of other planets e.g. Mars billions of years of change.

*Carbon dating is a demonstrated and effective science

*The Dinosaurs DID exist and that cannot be refuted. And they didn't exist just 6000 years ago and anyone who makes such a claim is making an absurd assertion.

*An intelligent designer wouldn't make such obvious mistakes in nature as the image on our retina being reversed.

I could go on and on. The bottom line is that every piece of evidence on our planet from my perspective leads me to believe that we evolved.


OK, that being said I've seen some pretty smart people debate this back and forth here.

For my sake and the other scientific dummies like me who are reading this, I'm starting this thread. If either side could please make the case on Intelligent Design vs. Evolution without going way over 'our heads' with things like the speed of light arguments and such.

Thank you.

[On My Way]

Hello Tommy

I was going to start a thread like this because I have questions the other way.

How if we evolved from pond scum, how did the different sexes evolve? I mean if you have some goo and it mixes with other goo and man starts to evolve then how do we have the different sexes? If I mix yellow and blue I get green but not two different kinds of green.

From what I understand to make DNA you need Protien and to make Protien you need DNA? Which came first The Chicken or the Egg?


You wrote

An intelligent designer wouldn't make such obvious mistakes in nature as the image on our retina being reversed.

Can you not see fine with your eyes? How exactly do you know it is a flaw? Not some book explaination but your own words please

Scientists can show a clear linkage from the ape to modern man through time.

Can you elaborate on this
I thought most scholars now believe "Lucy" was a Chimp

Thanks for starting this thread

[Tommy J]

Hello Tommy

I was going to start a thread like this because I have questions the other way.

I just want to follow along with the debate w/o the techno talk. I was hoping that some of the scientists who are debating this would also be willing to explain their argument at a more basic level if possible.

How if we evolved from pond scum, how did the different sexes evolve? I mean if you have some goo and it mixes with other goo and man starts to evolve then how do we have the different sexes? If I mix yellow and blue I get green but not two different kinds of green.

From what I understand a random suffling of DNA caused this.

Can you not see fine with your eyes? How exactly do you know it is a flaw? Not some book explaination but your own words please

Because an intelligent designer wouldn't design our retina to display the image in reverse only forcing our brains to reverse the image. It would be right side up to begin with.

I thought most scholars now believe "Lucy" was a Chimp

Correction, chimp.

[On My Way]

Hello Tommy

From what I understand a random suffling of DNA caused this.

Where did the first DNA come from?

Because an intelligent designer wouldn't design our retina to display the image in reverse only forcing our brains to reverse the image. It would be right side up to begin with.

OK now please tell me(you or anyone else) how exactly does science know that the image is projected reversed? and what exactly is wrong with that? We still can see without any effort right?

Correction, chimp

What the capital letter?

[Aineo]

Conclusions

Claims of poor retina design are often raised by evolutionists to argue against Intelligent Design.80 A review of research on the vertebrate retina indicates that for vertebrates the existing inverted design is superior to the verted design, even the system used by the most advanced cephalopods. Its design has been maximized for life in our environment and no doubt would function poorly in another environment, such as that experienced by undersea bottom dwellers. This review supports Hamilton’s conclusion:

Instead of being a great disadvantage, or a “curse” or being incorrectly constructed, the inverted retina is a tremendous advance in function and design compared with the simple and less complicated verted arrangement. One problem amongst many, for evolutionists, is to explain how this abrupt major retinal transformation from the verted type in invertebrates to the inverted vertebrate model came about as nothing in paleontology offers any support.81

Rather than being fired, our camera designer would no doubt be promoted for utilizing a less obvious, but, as a whole, a far more functional design.
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2000/PSCF3-00Bergman.html

Evolutionists argue from ignorance concerning the human eye.

[Yehren]

Naturally, the prescence of material in front of the receptors degrades their sensitivity and acuity. If you doubt this, try putting a little dust on the surface of a digital camera's sensor.

There are useful reasons for the material to be that way, but the result is suboptimal, and requires a "blind spot", an area in which our vision fails, which cephalopods do not have, since they have evolved a more elegant and effective solution.

The backwards configuration of the vertebrate retina is optimized as much as it can be without turning the whole structure inside out. Such changes are very difficult to do by gradual steps, and so it hasn't happened.

[Aineo]

Naturally, the prescence of material in front of the receptors degrades their sensitivity and acuity. If you doubt this, try putting a little dust on the surface of a digital camera's sensor.

There are useful reasons for the material to be that way, but the result is suboptimal, and requires a "blind spot", an area in which our vision fails, which cephalopods do not have, since they have evolved a more elegant and effective solution.

The backwards configuration of the vertebrate retina is optimized as much as it can be without turning the whole structure inside out. Such changes are very difficult to do by gradual steps, and so it hasn't happened.

Like I said evolutionists argue from ignorance. Before anyone accepts this ludicrous comparison to the eyes of a cephalopod I suggest they research experts in human vision.

[Tommy J]

Hello Tommy

Where did the first DNA come from?

An amino acid and a protein combined.

[On My Way]

Hello Tommy

Where did the first DNA come from?

An amino acid and a protein combined.

I thought that when amino acids are combined that is what makes protien.
Isn't there only 20 amino acids? so then you could create life by mixing aminos and proteins?

[justforfun000]

Like I said evolutionists argue from ignorance. Before anyone accepts this ludicrous comparison to the eyes of a cephalopod I suggest they research experts in human vision.

Ummm, I'm afraid this completely debunks your arguments above Aineo. Sorry.

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2000/PSCF9-00Lahti.html

Evolutionary Theory Misunderstood

Dr. David Lahti, ASA Student Member
Museum of Zoology and Department of Biology
University of Michigan

lahtid@biology.lsa.umich.edu

From: PSCF 52 (September 2000):215-217.

I am proud to be a member of ASA, without doubt America's foremost organization to foster study of the relationship between science and Christianity. In the hope of a continued strengthening of this organization, I respectfully offer criticism of two papers. Specifically, both J. Bergman and M. C. Morris published papers critical of evolutionary biology in a recent issue (PSCF 52 [March 2000]: 18-30, 55-7). I believe that the theses of both are based on misunderstandings of biology.

Bergman claims that the vertebrate eye, with its "inverted" retina, is not a poor design relative to a "verted" retina, contrary to the views of prominent figures like R. Dawkins, G. C. Williams and J. R. Diamond. Bergman defends this claim in two portions: (1) "no evidence exists to support the claim that the most advanced verted eye is superior to the inverted eye," and (2) "If the human retina were verted, we have no evidence that vision would be better. Most likely it would be worse." To support the first statement, Bergman shows how even the most advanced extant cephalopod eye is inferior in function to the vertebrate eye. This is irrelevant to the point of the biologists cited in the beginning of the paper, however. Their point is not that a verted eye better than our own exists somewhere on earth, but that the inverted structure we have is not the optimal design from a theoretical standpoint. The verted design can be functionally superior to the inverted per se regardless of whether any verted eyes in existence are functionally better than any inverted eyes. It is far from surprising, then, that biologists have not sought evidence for better vision in the octopus than the human.

The second portion of Bergman's claim is defended by a physiological account of how vertebrate eye functionality would be altered if the retina were manipulated to the verted design. He rightly claims that problems as diverse as sensory overload and ultraviolet damage would probably result from such a manipulation. This too is irrelevant to the point at hand, however, since no one has postulated that eye functionality would improve with such a manipulation. Rather, the point is that if vertebrates had evolved an eye in the verted design, our vision would have developed more efficiently because of, among other things, the forward orientation of the sensory cells and the lack of a break in the retina to accommodate the optic nerve. An understanding of natural selection makes plain that, had evolution proceeded differently, and humans were walking around today with verted eyes, we would not be experiencing sensory overload and painfully shading our eyes from UV damage. No evolutionary biologist would propose the ridiculous notion that a physician could mimic an alternative course of evolution by surgically reverting the retina which has evolved in an inverted situation. Both parts of Bergman's thesis, therefore, are based on misunderstandings of the evolutionary biologist's claim about the eye, and of the way evolution works.

Other evidence of a misunderstanding of evolution can be found in the paper. "Darwinists," Bergman writes, claim that "the natural world is in fact not designed." In fact, Darwinists do claim that the natural world was designed, and is still being designed. Evolutionary biology indicates natural selection as the mechanism by which design was and is being effected, though of course biology has nothing to say about either the "purpose" or "agent" of this design in a metaphysical or theological sense. The idea of optimization is central to evolutionary biology, and optimization is the hallmark of design; and we do see much evidence of such optimization, such design, in the vertebrate eye, despite the inversion of its retina.

Another profound misrepresentation of evolution lies in Bergman's claim that no "transitional forms" or other evidence supports the evolution "from the primitive verted type common to invertebrates into the inverted eye of vertebrates." No biologist claims that extant invertebrates such as the octopus evolved into extant vertebrates such as humans; to suggest this is to commit the most basic error in thinking about evolution. All extant organisms are the tips of long branches, and no morphological structure on one tip is inherited from that of another. In fact, evolutionary biology concludes that modern cephalopods and vertebrates share their most recent common ancestor very early in animal evolutionary history, at the split of the deuterostomes and protostomes hundreds of millions of years ago. The "primitive" situation is clearly not the verted retinal structure, but no retina at all! The pinhole eye of cephalopods and the lens eye of vertebrates have evolved independently from each other, and from the compound eye of insects. To suggest that we look for transitional forms between these types of eyes is illogical. There is absolutely no disagreement in evolutionary biology about these particulars, and any respected introductory biology text presents this same situation.1

Morris's paper on altruism in nature commits similar errors in that his thesis is based on a misrepresentation of basic biological principles. Morris claims that "Darwinian mechanisms" cannot explain instances of altruism in nature, so we should see the instances of such altruism as "proof of God's creation." After describing a few means whereby evolutionary theory predicts complex interaction among individuals that can be loosely termed "altruism" (although without the psychological or intentional connotation of that term), Morris goes on to suggest that instances of cooperation in fish, ants, plants, and even cells are inexplicable by these mechanisms. On the contrary, clear explanations in biology are widely known to apply to all of these circumstances. These four explanations show how the evolution of such complex behavior can follow directly from the basic principles of evolutionary theory. This having been said, these evolutionary explanations are, of course, silent on the issue of whether God created the world or, if so, why he created it the way he did.

1. Cleaner fish--predator interactions: The benefits to cleaner fish and predators are simultaneous, and therefore no net fitness cost is incurred by either individual. The fact that predators do not eat the cleaner fish simply illustrates that the benefits to the predator of having parasites removed from their mouths is greater than the benefits that would be gained--either nutritionally or by decreasing the cleaners' aid to competitors--by eating the fish.

2. Ant--caterpillar interactions: Concerning the interactions between ants and caterpillars, Morris claims that caring for caterpillars or their pupae after their period of usefulness has passed "would not be advantageous from a Darwinian point of view." This is clearly false. Imagine the difference between two populations of ants: one that ate or ignored post-productive caterpillars, and another that continued to care for them. More caterpillars would reach reproductive maturity and lay eggs in the vicinity of the more helpful ants. Thus, the more helpful ants over the generations would be more successful than the less helpful ants because of the more substantial population size of the caterpillars that produce their food. Seeing the populations in an evolutionary (Darwinian) perspective again renders the situation easily explicable.

3. Neighbor interactions in plants: The exploitation by neighbors of protective substances emitted by a plant is explained in very straightforward terms in evolutionary biology. The production of a protective substance will be naturally selected in plants even if neighbors can benefit from it, as long as the benefit accruing to one genetic individual of producing the toxin is greater than the cost. This cost includes the energetic expenditure of producing the toxin, as well as any competitive cost of helping unrelated neighbors. The relevant benefit here is that instead of being destroyed, the plant is only partially eaten, or not eaten at all if the herbivore knows (e.g., by experience) to avoid the plant. So it is easy to see why such toxin production continues from an evolutionary perspective. In fact, in these harsh habitats where such toxins are common, neighboring plants may gain more mutual benefits by facilitation than they would harm by competition. This added layer of complexity is still squarely within the Darwinian framework. (It is similar to the cleaner fish-predator interaction.)

In many cases, even the moderate level of explanation just offered is unnecessary to account for plants benefitting their neighbors. First, many plants are significantly clonal, such that nearby stems may appear to be separate individuals but are actually genetically identical to each other. Even complete sacrifice of a portion of a genetic individual (in botanical terms, one or more ramets) would be predicted by evolutionary theory if benefits accrued to the genetic individual's survival and reproduction as a whole. Second, plants whose seeds germinate close to them (i.e., plants with limited dispersal) will tend to be clustered, such that neighbors are much more likely to be genetically related than would be expected by chance. In these instances, benefitting one's neighbors is benefitting one's genotype as it is instantiated in closely related individuals (kin selection).

4. Endosymbiosis: The last specific instance Morris provides of supposedly evolutionarily inexplicable altruism in nature is the "cooperation" between cells that is hypothesized to have taken place in the early evolution of eucaryotes. This interaction involves the symbiosis of a bacterium and a larger cell, where one individual resides within the other, each reaps simultaneous benefits from the interaction, and there is no net fitness cost of doing so. Such an interaction is one of a class called mutualism, which is an extremely common and evolutionarily straightforward situation. On the other hand, in instances where there is a fitness cost to an organism of harboring another, the symbiotic interaction is labeled parasitism. Morris assumes that evolutionary biology predicts that all symbioses are parasitic, which is simply not true.

Therefore, all of the examples Morris adduces in support of his thesis that Darwinian mechanisms cannot explain altruism in nature are misguided. Moreover, the errors committed are on points so fundamental to biology as to exhibit a serious lack of consideration of the science. In actuality, more complex and difficult situations than the ones Morris presented do exist in nature, where biologists are still attempting to determine what evolutionary mechanism resulted in certain types of complex social behaviors. Even if some of these had been cited instead of the relatively uncomplicated examples above, biologists know better than to bank heavily on our lack of understanding of natural phenomena. A more successful, more humble, and theologically more respectable attitude is to admit our present ignorance, and search for an answer with an open mind.

Incidentally, the above instances have nothing to do with the notion that "all human morality can be reduced to the random action of selfish genes," which Morris falsely claims to be "the inevitable logical conclusion" of Darwinian mechanisms. This issue is another one altogether, but as Morris does not expound upon it, neither will I.

These two papers offer arguments that exhibit misunderstanding of elementary principles of modern biology. The arguments are actually based on these misunderstandings and cannot be sustained without them. As suggested in my above argumentation, the errors committed in these papers could have been corrected with an attention to any of the many thorough introductions to general biology or evolutionary biology which are in wide use today (e.g., those by Campbell, Keeton and Gould, Purves et al., Futuyma). Certainly a reviewer with a professional background in the disciplinary area germane to the papers would be expected to have caught such gross misrepresentations. I take this opportunity to offer criticism so that an awareness of the problems involved may develop in prospective authors, and so that the reviewing process for the journal may continue its growth in scientific attentiveness.

[justforfun000]

For the record, someone on another board I posted had this viewpoint on the ASA:

And the journal itself seems pretty suspect to me. For example, here's one of their position statements:

Quote:
It should be well known to readers of the Journal ASA that the ASA does not take an official position on controversial questions. Creation is not a controversial question. I have no hesitancy in affirming, "We believe in creation," for every ASA member.

The Biblical doctrine of creation is one of the richest doctrines revealed to us by God. It reveals to us that the God who loves us is also the God who created us and all things; at once it establishes the relationship between the God of religious faith and the God of physical reality. It is because of creation that we trust in the reality of a physical and moral structure to the universe, which we can explore as scientists and experience as persons. It is because of creation that we know that the universe and everything in it depends moment-by-moment upon the sustaining power and activity of God. It is because of creation that we know that we are not the end-products of meaningless processess in an impersonal universe, but men and women made in the image of a personal God. It is by the formulation of "creation out of nothing" that we affirm that God created the universe freely and separately, and reject the alternatives of dualism and pantheism. To worship God as Creator is to emphasize both His transcendence over the natural order and His imminence in the natural order; it is to recognize that His mode of existence as Creator is completely other than our mode of existence as created. To appreciate God as Creator is to recognize that which He created as intrinsically good; the rationale for scientific investigation, the assurance of ultimate personal meaning in life, and the nature of evil as an aberration on a good creation are all intrinsic to such an appreciation. We believe in creation. It is unthinkable for a Christian to do otherwise.


While this later goes on to define "creation" so broadly as to be almost meaningless, the attitude is clear. They include under the same banner several views: "Young Earth View, Old Earth View, Theistic Evolution View, and Intelligent Design View". This is ridiculous, since no good scientific organization would present such blatantly anti-scientific views as valid theories. Their peer-review process isn't up to snuff, either; articles which display blatant misunderstandings of science are actually published instead of being properly ripped apart and spat upon.

[justforfun000]

And a further good point...This is all from the same thread. On this forum there are a lot more scientifically educated people as part of the membership than the average webboard.

It's the usual creationist / ID argument. They're taking evidence and forcing it to fit their hypothesis. They're also making the usual baseless assumptions and ignoring alternative explanations in favor of intelligent design. Their conclusions sum it up nicely:

Quote:

Claims of poor retina design are often raised by evolutionists to argue against Intelligent Design.80 A review of research on the vertebrate retina indicates that for vertebrates the existing inverted design is superior to the verted design, even the system used by the most advanced cephalopods. Its design has been maximized for life in our environment and no doubt would function poorly in another environment, such as that experienced by undersea bottom dwellers. This review supports Hamilton’s conclusion:

Instead of being a great disadvantage, or a “curse” or being incorrectly constructed, the inverted retina is a tremendous advance in function and design compared with the simple and less complicated verted arrangement. One problem amongst many, for evolutionists, is to explain how this abrupt major retinal transformation from the verted type in invertebrates to the inverted vertebrate model came about as nothing in paleontology offers any support.


In this conclusion, we can observe the usual creationist tendency to force the evidence to fit their intelligent design hypothesis, while completely ignoring other mechanisms which dould produce the same end-result. (They point out that there are no transitional forms between invertebrates with verted retinas, and vertebrates with inverted retinas . . . ignoring the fact that vertebrates and invertebrates diverged a very long time ago, and that eyes generally don't preserve well in the fossil record.)

Of course, we have to ask if the inverted retina was perfect for terrestrial environments and poor for undersea environments, then why do fish have the same inverted retina that all other vertebrates do. If an intelligent designer designed the eyes of all creatures, then it would make sense that fish should have the same retinas that ocean-dwelling cephalopods have since, after all, the inverted retina allegedly doesn't work too well in a dark undersea environment.

[Yehren]

Vertebrate eyes are good enough for their purpose, even with the defects mentioned.

And that's what evolution does.

Fish have vertebrate eyes, because fish, like all vertebrates, have common ancestor. So, while cephalopod eyes might work better for them, evolution can't undo vertebrate eyes by gradual steps.

And so they stay.

[Aineo]

justforfun000, in the articles you posted we find an Darwinian evolutionist defending his belief, people adressing a supposed agenda, and not one word from an expert is eyes or vision.

Side stepping the issue does not address the issue.

[justforfun000]

justforfun000, in the articles you posted we find an Darwinian evolutionist defending his belief, people adressing a supposed agenda, and not one word from an expert is eyes or vision.

He was defending evolution with an ARGUMENT showing evidence against what they were trying to say. The only way to dispute what he brought forth is to counter his points. There's no "belief" involved.

The fact that he is a Dr. at the Museum of Zoology and Department of Biology, University of Michigan is not enough to qualify him as an "expert"? In any case, argue his points. Not his credentials. Appealing to Authority is still a cop out in the long run. Instead of actually bringing forth specific arguments, you just say "THIS is the expert, so whatever he says is right".

Side stepping the issue does not address the issue.

It's not sidestepping one bit. It's DIRECTLY showing a complete argument against the other side. Instead of dismissing it out of hand, REFUTE it if you can.

[The Puppetmaster]

justforfun000, in the articles you posted we find an Darwinian evolutionist defending his belief, people adressing a supposed agenda, and not one word from an expert is eyes or vision.

Side stepping the issue does not address the issue.

I find this humorous given the times within the past 24 hours of joining that I have seen you quoting Creationist literature and yet don't find this in the least bit suspect.

[Aineo]

Show me where I use faith to show that the human eye is not an "imperfect design" as compare to the "design" of the cepholapod eye? Evolutionists who have no knowledge of vision and the advatages of our eyes over the eyes of a cepholapod argue based on "design" and if they are going to argue on "design" then talk to an expert that understands the "design" of the human eye and can explain why we have a blind spot that does not in the least affect our vision.

Now if you are going to side with the evolutionists at least show some integrity and research the issue, don't play the parrot and simply repeat what they say.

[Aineo]

I find this humorous given the times within the past 24 hours of joining that I have seen you quoting Creationist literature and yet don't find this in the least bit suspect.

Laugh your heart out and then stop your hypocritical avoidance of discussing science by appealing to agendas similar in nature to Darwin's and his cohort's.

As to my quoting "creationist" sources at least those sources share information that is factual while evolutionists sources simply denigrate the opposition.

[The Puppetmaster]

As to my quoting "creationist" sources at least those sources share information that is factual while evolutionists sources simply denigrate the opposition.

Where is your evidence for this?

[The Puppetmaster]

Show me where I use faith to show that the human eye is not an "imperfect design" as compare to the "design" of the cepholapod eye? Evolutionists who have no knowledge of vision and the advatages of our eyes over the eyes of a cepholapod argue based on "design" and if they are going to argue on "design" then talk to an expert that understands the "design" of the human eye and can explain why we have a blind spot that does not in the least affect our vision.

Now if you are going to side with the evolutionists at least show some integrity and research the issue, don't play the parrot and simply repeat what they say.

How exactly does a blind spot not hamper our vision given it is very well understood that the brain uses additional processing power to fill in the spot with interpretations the the environment?

[Aineo]

How does the "blind spot" in human vision disadvantage humans? Now can you discuss the "science" of the human eye or is opposing ID your ony agenda?

[The Puppetmaster]

It's not just the blind spot (which can make certain objects invisible to us), but also the weak attachment the retina has to the back of the eye, unlike the cephalopod model.

And this is the science of the eye last I checked.

[Aineo]

It's not just the blind spot (which can make certain objects invisible to us), but also the weak attachment the retina has to the back of the eye, unlike the cephalopod model.

And this is the science of the eye last I checked.

Vague remarks that again side stepped the question. What is the disadvantage for humans of our blind spot?

[The Puppetmaster]

Vague remarks that again side stepped the question. What is the disadvantage for humans of our blind spot?

I have pointed this out. Did you miss the post?

What use is having a far weaker attachment of the retina then? Is this better than the cephalopod eye as well, or is the retina coming easily detached from a blow to the head somehow a good thing?

In that case, how about the weak ligaments around the knee and the proximity of the female reproductive organs to the urinary tract?

[Aineo]

The fact I have a weaker attachment of the retina does not cause the blind spot. You have side stepped my question. How does the blind spot affect the vision of a human being? Is my vision impaired in any way because of this blind spot?

[The Puppetmaster]

The fact I have a weaker attachment of the retina does not cause the blind spot. You have side stepped my question. How does the blind spot affect the vision of a human being? Is my vision impaired in any way because of this blind spot?

Yes, because light is not detected by the retina there and so the brain has to "fill in the gap" so to speak. This is impairment. The retina statement was not sidestepping, it was a related issue attached to the design of the human eye.

[Aineo]

When I am looking at my computer screen, my poodle, at the tree in the park in front of my house or at Grand Mesa 30 miles from my back door I see the entire object I am looking at. I don't have a blank spot in my vision. If I close one eye I can still see the whole image without a blank spot. How does the "blind spot" affect human vision?

BTW, I do not have a detached retina (which is an injury to the eye).

[The Puppetmaster]

When I am looking at my computer screen, my poodle, at the tree in the park in front of my house or at Grand Mesa 30 miles from my back door I see the entire object I am looking at. I don't have a blank spot in my vision. If I close one eye I can still see the whole image without a blank spot. How does the "blind spot" affect human vision?

BTW, I do not have a detached retina (which is an injury to the eye).

http://www.19.5degs.com/element/632.php

That is a simple way off demonstrating the blind spot. You don't notice it because, as I have stated, the brain covers the spot up with what it has in memory so as to keep the image fluid.

[Aineo]

Ah, but I have to close one eye to take your test and I have 2 eyes. Now place a piece of tape over a cepholapod's eye and see if the cepholapod has problems with its vision. BTW, your explanation is incorrect. After covering your right eye and moving your head toward the screen the red dot disappears and then reappears after the blind spot is passed.

[The Puppetmaster]

But the blind spot exists... to what purpose? That fact that humans and vertebrate fish have one and a weaker attachment of the retina and cephalopods don't is curious, no?

[Aineo]

Does the blind spot detract from my ability as a human to have effective eyesight? Do cepholapods have depth of field and would we as humans have depth of field if we had eyes like a cepholapod? In fact the blind spot is not even a factor until my nose is so close to the screen it is uncomfortable and then only with one eye open.

If our type of eye is such a bad design why are camera's designed like our eyes and not like a cepholapods?

[Tiggy]

If our type of eye is such a bad design why are camera's designed like our eyes and not like a cepholapods?

Sorry, but cameras ARE designed much more like cephalopod eyes than human. Cameras are designed with NO blind spot, like cephalopod eyes, so the 100% of the image falls on the CCD (or film) without being blocked. The CCD elements face the lens (just like the cephalopod layout, unlike the mammalian backward retina layout) and the wiring goes directly from the back of the CCD elements into the memory (just like the cephalopod layout, unlike the mammalian retina optic nerve wiring) Would you buy a camera that put a round black spot in the middle of every picture?

The mammalian eye is not a bad design, it is an adequate design given the physical design constraints evolution had to work with. Cephalopod eyes evolved through a completely different evolutionary pathway, so they have a completely different physiology. There are many types of eye design found in the natural world, from very simple to very complex. Here is a good reference that summarizes the evolutionary pathways of various eye types. As I warned, detailed scientific pertinent data is technical by nature, so you will have to learn at least some basic terminology to follow along.

http://www.maayan.uk.com/evoeyes1.html

- Tiggy.

BTW, why were so many on topic messages deleted from the Steve Jones thread? Did someone accidentally hit "edit" twice in one night?

[Aineo]

A camera inverts the image on the film (like a human eye). I used to have my own color darkroom Twiggy so again don't get condescending, and I am will aware that a camera does not have a "blind spot" and that the "blind spot" in my eyes do not affect my vision.

Now if you are going to contribute to this discussion how about answering questions and leave the sarcasm at the door?

[Tiggy]

Now if you are going to contribute to this discussion how about answering questions

Be glad to. Do you have questions on the technical material on eye development I linked to above? I'd be happy to explain the scientific terms in layman's words for you if you like. You did read the referenced material, didn't you? It will be hard to discuss the technical details if you didn't.

and leave the sarcasm at the door?

I'm sorry if you mistake my candor for sarcasm. I assumed you came here in good faith, as I did, to learn. What can we both do to avoid future musunderstandings?

- Tiggy

[Aineo]

First of all, as I stated on other threads I am 61 years old, a college graduate, and have many experiences in life that help me distinguish between candor and sarcasm. I will list a couple, I am ex-gay, an ex-con, and worked for a sarcastic woman for 23 years who tried to pass off sarcasm as candor. Now she paid me a handsome salary to put up with her "candor" but you don't. I have not mistaken your "candor" for sarcasm.

I have asked a couple questions on this thread that you and other evolutionsits have simply ignored. Do cephalopod's have depth of field (camera's do and so do humans) and how does our "blind spot" affect our vision?

[Tommy J]

First of all, as I stated on other threads I am 61 years old, a college graduate, and have many experiences in life that help me distinguish between candor and sarcasm. I will list a couple, I am ex-gay, an ex-con, and worked for a sarcastic woman for 23 years who tried to pass off sarcasm as candor. Now she paid me a handsome salary to put up with her "candor" but you don't. I have not mistaken your "candor" for sarcasm.

I have asked a couple questions on this thread that you and other evolutionsits have simply ignored. Do cephalopod's have depth of field (camera's do and so do humans) and how does our "blind spot" affect our vision?

My goodness lets all get back to the point. The eye example is but one in our bodies related to why or why not their's evidence for ID.

Lets move on please.

Lets talk about fossil records (Dinosaurs etc), carbon dating, and soil erosion which all support Evolution.

[On My Way]

Hi Tommy
Before we move on I would like to get an answer as to why the so called human blind spot is a detriment to our eye design.

[Tommy J]

Hi Tommy
Before we move on I would like to get an answer as to why the so called human blind spot is a detriment to our eye design.

I'll give you a non-scientific answer. In hunting and gathering as early humans did it would have been extremely useful to not have such.

[On My Way]

Hi Tommy

I don't buy that.

We can hunt now and we are still here.

The blind spot is still not explained as to why it is inferior.

Eagles have excellent vision with their eyes designed the same way. and they can see prey from a 1/2 mile away.

[J-dog]

Hi Tommy


Eagles have excellent vision with their eyes designed the same way. and they can see prey from a 1/2 mile away.

Why can't we?

[Aineo]

Hi Tommy


Eagles have excellent vision with their eyes designed the same way. and they can see prey from a 1/2 mile away.

Why can't we?

Why should we?

[J-dog]

Hi Tommy


Eagles have excellent vision with their eyes designed the same way. and they can see prey from a 1/2 mile away.

Why can't we?

Why should we?

Why shouldn't we?

[Aineo]

For someone who seems to think evolution is the anwer to the origin of species your little game is infantile. Why should we humans need the ability to see as well as birds of prey?

[J-dog]

:D For someone who seems to think evolution is the anwer to the origin of species your little game is infantile. Why should we humans need the ability to see as well as birds of prey?

Your continued use of insulting language says more about your position than it does mine.

[Aineo]

I will continue to be blunt. That little exchange of questions was infantile and if you don't like it then you don't have to post.

Why should humans who have the ability to use tools, produce artificial light, and have other advantages over birds of prey need the ability to spot a mouse in a field from 1/2 mile away?

[Green]

Why should humans have a blind spot? Why should they have a secondary blind spot that blinds the center of their visual field in low light?

Why should eyes be constructed so that serious damage in one often leads to blindness in both?

Evolution isn't perfect nor is it design. It's just natural selection, making incremental improvements. So suboptimal organs are no surprise.

[Aineo]

Since this "second" blind spot has been brought up in the past do you think you could link to a site that discusses this "second" blind spot?

[Green]

Here's the gist of the secondary blind spot, which occurs in low light situations:'

"Unfortunately there are a number of drawbacks using only night vision.
Among these are:
The inability to distinguish colors. No detail can be seen (about the same as 20/200 vision in daylight). That nothing can be seen directly in front of the eyes (no rods in the center of the retina), you must learn to look about 15-20° off center.

Only motion can be detected well, therefore you may have to learn to move your eyes to detect something that doesn't move.
Objects that aren't moving appear to move (autokinesis). This has probably led to a number of plane crashes.

If you need to see directly in front of you or see detail you need red. Like many myths the red light myth has some basis in fact. The red truth?
Why red? The center 1.5% of your retina (the fovea) which provides you with most detailed vision is packed almost exclusively with red sensitive cones.

This is the same area that has no rods and is responsible for the night blind spot. There are fewer total green sensitive cones than red. The number of blue sensitive cones is very small compared to green and red.
Which is just as well since the lens in the human eye cannot focus red and blue at the same time. And using green really only changes perceived brightness because of the way the signals are processed in our neural pathways. Unlike a digital camera, more pixels, in this case, doesn't give us more detail."
http://stlplaces.com/night_vision.html

[On My Way]

Hello Green

this article seems to be about Military Night Vision Goggles correct?

How does this affect our every day vision? Sounds like the night vision goggles need to go through some more eveloution

[Aineo]

Green, have you ever worn glasses with a yellow lens? In photography (especially B&W photography) a yellow filter is used to intensify light. This is handy if a photographer is attempting to take a picture when the lighting is poor. Using a yellow filter when natural light is bright will over expose the film, and using a yellow filter in glasses in bright light can damage your eyes or at least affect your vision for a period of time. This is what happens with night vision goggles. The "secondary" blind spot is a function of filters used to intensify available light and is not a genetic or "design" defect in the human eye.

You are appealing to a technological innovation that needs more work.

[Green]

this article seems to be about Military Night Vision Goggles correct?

What I was citing was a discussion of the secondary blind spot.

How does this affect our every day vision?

It greatly inconveniences us in low light situations, because we essentially can see nothing at all in the center 5-10% of our visual field.

We are effectively blind in the most important part of our visual field when light is very dim.

[Aineo]

There is no "secondary blind spot". What you are discussing is the fact the blind spot in the human eye can cause problems in low light conditions, which can be overcome by looking slightly to the left of right.

The article you linked to dealt with night vision goggles.

[Green]

Green, have you ever worn glasses with a yellow lens?

Yep.

In photography (especially B&W photography)

Not many people do that anymore. Have you done any work with the zone system? I used to do almost nothing but black and white with Panatomic X and Agfa Portriga Rapid paper. I liked the warmth of the skin tones.

a yellow filter is used to intensify light.

It can't actually intensify light. No filter can do that. Rather, it removes some of the blue light. You will get slightly less light than if you used no filter at all. I know what you mean, though, I definitely perceive it as an intensification. It was persuasive enough that I actually got a GE lightmeter and tested it to see. It does reduce illumination measurably.

This is handy if a photographer is attempting to take a picture when the lighting is poor. Using a yellow filter when natural light is bright will over expose the film, and using a yellow filter in glasses in bright light can damage your eyes or at least affect your vision for a period of time. This is what happens with night vision goggles. The "secondary" blind spot is a function of filters used to intensify available light and is not a genetic or "design" defect in the human eye.

No, it's very real. Try this. Go out on a clear night, and find the faintest star you can see, off the center of your vision, and then look directly at it. It will disappear, and not reappear until you move your eyes a few degrees to one side of it. This is because you have virtually no rods in the center of your retina, and you are essentially blind at the center of your vision in very low light.

It has nothing to do with goggles. This has been known since ancient times, although they didn't know why it happens, of course. The primary blind spot, with absolutely no rods or cones, is off-center, while the secondary blind spot is directly in the center of your visual field.

[Aineo]

No, it's very real. Try this. Go out on a clear night, and find the faintest star you can see, off the center of your vision, and then look directly at it. It will disappear, and not reappear until you move your eyes a few degrees to one side of it. This is because you have virtually no rods in the center of your retina, and you are essentially blind at the center of your vision in very low light.

Which is exactly what I posted only I posted slightly to the left or right instead of "a few degrees".

Since most people reading this forum do not have your knowledge concerning yellow filters and photography I used the term "increases" for clarity of understanding. As to people not using yellow glasses anymore the fact is they are still on the market.

Not many people do that anymore. Have you done any work with the zone system? I used to do almost nothing but black and white with Panatomic X and Agfa Portriga Rapid paper. I liked the warmth of the skin tones.

Not many people were into B&W photography when I had my darkroom either. As to the products you listed I have not done much with photography since I sold my darkroom and since about $7,500 worth of camera equipment was stolen from a friends car when we were on vacation in California and he did not have contents insurance on his car. I never used Panatomic X due to storage and temp problems.

[Green]

You know, youi can do what you did in black and white years ago with a cheap digital camera and inexpensive photo editing software now. Of course, Photoshop is nice, but there are cheaper alternatives that will do a good job of giving you great black and white images.

I'm sorry that your equipment was taken. I can't imagine what I'd feel if some of my irreplacable stuff was taken.

[J-dog]

I will continue to be blunt. That little exchange of questions was infantile and if you don't like it then you don't have to post.

I get the feeling that really do not want anyone that does not agree with you 100% to post here at all. That is how many creationist boards are run, and that is why many creationists remain misinformed.

Why should humans who have the ability to use tools, produce artificial light, and have other advantages over birds of prey need the ability to spot a mouse in a field from 1/2 mile away?

And I will be blunt, too - why shouldn't we?

Under your paradigm, we are the pinnacle of creation. Why would we not have been created with the best vision? We are a very visual species, and such excellent telescopic vision would certainly come in handy.

[Aineo]

I will continue to be blunt. That little exchange of questions was infantile and if you don't like it then you don't have to post.

I get the feeling that really do not want anyone that does not agree with you 100% to post here at all. That is how many creationist boards are run, and that is why many creationists remain misinformed.

If this were the case you would not be posting on this forum would you?

Why should humans who have the ability to use tools, produce artificial light, and have other advantages over birds of prey need the ability to spot a mouse in a field from 1/2 mile away?

And I will be blunt, too - why shouldn't we?

Under your paradigm, we are the pinnacle of creation. Why would we not have been created with the best vision? We are a very visual species, and such excellent telescopic vision would certainly come in handy.

Under my paradigm we are created in the image of God and are imperfect or physical death would not be our ultimate end. My question to you evolutionists is why is the human eye poorly designed and all you have done is dance around the subject by appealing to problems with night vision goggles and the fact our eyes are not as sharp as an eagles. Well, we are not birds of prey so you are asking a question in response to a question. Put, lets give it a try. How many times a day would a human need telescopic vision? Until the invention of firearms humans could not kill prey ½ mile away, so you are appealing to problems of a technologically advanced society to show the human eye is poorly designed. Yet with our “blind spot” we landed on the moon and achieved other advances animals with a “more advanced” eye cannot achieve. If I use your reasoning then why don’t humans have webbed hands and feet since we can swim, or feathers since we can fly, or gills so we can dive without oxygen tanks? All of these “improvements” in design would be beneficial to at least a small segment of humanity.

[Green]

I don't know where you get night vision goggles. The reason we have a secondary blind spot relates to the lack of rods at the center of our retina. In dim light, we are completely blind at the center of our vision.

It's all cones, none of which work in dim light. So we are blind in that spot, when the light is very dim. Outside of that spot, we can see well enough.

[Aineo]

It's all cones, none of which work in dim light. So we are blind in that spot, when the light is very dim. Outside of that spot, we can see well enough.

Has science redefined the word "blind" so they can argue poor design in the human eye? Blind means "sightless", not impaired under certain light conditions. There is only one true “blind spot” in the human eye and this one “blind spot” does not impair our vision.

[Green]

It's very profound blindness in the secondary blind spot. No rods there, so in low light, you cannot see at all in the center of your vision. You can compensate to a degree, by moving your eyes about, and seeing with your peripheral vision.

But it's still blindness in the center.

And it has caused some aircraft crashes, because it causes an illusion of motion where none exists.

[Aineo]

Green, you are contradicting yourself and the article:

Only motion can be detected well, therefore you may have to learn to move your eyes to detect something that doesn't move.
Objects that aren't moving appear to move (autokinesis). This has probably led to a number of plane crashes.

If you need to see directly in front of you or see detail you need red. Like many myths the red light myth has some basis in fact. The red truth?
Why red? The center 1.5% of your retina (the fovea) which provides you with most detailed vision is packed almost exclusively with red sensitive cones.

"This has probably led to a number of plane crashes" has never been proven. It seems evolutionists like to use "probability" in defending your position but complain when others use "probability" to show evolution falls outside the range of statistical possibilities.

However, this "secondary" blind spot can detect motion so your assertion that human's are virutally blind in that spot is false. BTW, isn't this also true of cepholapod eyes? They can detect motion but not details?

[Green]

No, it can't detect motion. But what it can do, is lead your nervous system to confabulate motion where there is none. The sudden disappearance of an object (tracked by moving one's head) into the secondary blind spot, causes the optic tectum to confabulate movement, in much the same way that the primary blind spot causes the optic tectum to confabulate a background that you aren't really seeing. It samples the information around the blind spot, and tries to match that in the data it makes up.

[Aineo]

No, it can't detect motion. But what it can do, is lead your nervous system to confabulate motion where there is none. The sudden disappearance of an object (tracked by moving one's head) into the secondary blind spot, causes the optic tectum to confabulate movement, in much the same way that the primary blind spot causes the optic tectum to confabulate a background that you aren't really seeing. It samples the information around the blind spot, and tries to match that in the data it makes up.

I will repeat you are contradicting the article you quoted. Here again is what you seem to be ignoring:

Only motion can be detected well, therefore you may have to learn to move your eyes to detect something that doesn't move.
Objects that aren't moving appear to move (autokinesis). This has probably led to a number of plane crashes.

[Green]

No, nothing at all can be detected within the blind spot. With rods, only motion is detected well. As something enters the blind spot, when you turn your gaze, it disappears, and this can give the impression of motion, even though it doesn't exist.

The sentence you quoted is about the area outside the secondary blind spot, where there are rods, and therefore vision, in low light.

The secondary blind spot can detect nothing in very low light.

Autokinesis is an illusion. It is another defect in our vision.

[Aineo]

If that is what you want to believe so be it but that is not what the article states.

[Green]

From the article:

"That nothing can be seen directly in front of the eyes (no rods in the center of the retina), ...

The secondary blind spot has no vision at all in low light. That's what it says.

[Aineo]

"Unfortunately there are a number of drawbacks using only night vision.
Among these are:
The inability to distinguish colors. No detail can be seen (about the same as 20/200 vision in daylight). That nothing can be seen directly in front of the eyes (no rods in the center of the retina), you must learn to look about 15-20° off center.

Interesting how you pulled one phrase from an article in an attempt to prove your point.

"In contrast, the ensemble of 6 or 7 million cones (each about 0.006 mm in diameter) can be imagined as a separate, but overlapping, low-speed color film. It performs in bright light, giving detailed colored views, but is fairly insensitive at low light levels."(Hecht)"
The Retina

[Green]

As it says, in very low light, nothing can be seen in the center of the visual field. You are effectively blind there in such conditions. That is a considerable flaw.

At the light levels where only rods operate, the secondary blind spot can see nothing.

[Aineo]

As it says, in very low light, nothing can be seen in the center of the visual field. You are effectively blind there in such conditions. That is a considerable flaw.

At the light levels where only rods operate, the secondary blind spot can see nothing.

You simply won't give up will you? In the "secondary blind spot" one can detect motion under low light conditions, however stationary objects can appear to move. In other words there is not a "secondary blind spot".

[On My Way]

Ok I have a new question for you all.

If evolution did happen can someone give me how this happened?

From what I understand it happened this way.

First we have some sludge.
Then somehow it came together with some other sludge.
Then an organisim was formed.
Then how did the different sexes come about?
How come all things are not one sex?

Just curious
Thanks

[Evilutionist]

Ok I have a new question for you all.

If evolution did happen can someone give me how this happened?

From what I understand it happened this way.

First we have some sludge.


Then somehow it came together with some other sludge.
Then an organisim was formed.
Then how did the different sexes come about?
How come all things are not one sex?

Just curious
Thanks

Where did you get this information? Why should anyone try to defend a cartoon version of evolution that is hopelessly confabulated with the subject of abiogenesis?

-E

[Green]

He isn't trying to be dishonest. That's what the professional creationists actually tell their followers the theory is about.

They are the dishonest ones, not their followers, who are usually completely innocent.

[Aineo]

Actually those are valid questions. How did life originate? If you have evolution you need to start with the origins of life or evolution is nothing more than a theory without a foundation.

What are the survival advantages to having sexual reproduction versus asexual reproduction? What are the advantages of live births over laying eggs? How was DNA formed from non-organic material?

[Green]

Actually those are valid questions.

They are indeed. They just don't have anything to do with evolutionary theory. It assumes life began, but doesn't make any claims how.

How did life originate? If you have evolution you need to start with the origins of life or evolution is nothing more than a theory without a foundation.

It assumes living things exist. A pretty solid assumption, if you ask me. As far as how they came to be, evolution is indifferent to the way the first organisms got here. If God just "poofed" them, that would be fine with evolutionary theory.

What are the survival advantages to having sexual reproduction versus asexual reproduction?

That's a great question. And it's not always easy to calculate the specfic advantages and disadvantages in every instance. In general, sexual reproduction means more variation in the population, which is almost always a good thing. It means that catastrophes like a sudden lethal disease is unlikely to take the entire population. It also means that harmful mutations tend to be less damaging to the population. And it enhances the spread of useful mutations in a population.

On the other hand, where the envirionment is severe and unchanging, variation is not such a good thing. There are many ways biologists and mathematicians have worked out to assess the relative benefits.

Even bacteria have evolved ways of sexual reproduction to move genes around.

What are the advantages of live births over laying eggs?

Mostly the reduced need for maternal care. Don't have to leave the kids. There are two basic strategies; have lots and lots of offspring, and hope a few survive, or have just a few and take great care of them.

How was DNA formed from non-organic material?

It wasn't. In prebiotic conditions, a lot of organic materials appear, such as amino acids and the like. It's not part of evolutionary theory, of course, and if God just used supernatural means to make the first living things, that would be fine with the theory.

[Aineo]

Well if science cannot explain the origins of life why should we accept that evolution from a one-celled organism to the complex animals we see today is valid? If God created life why couldn't God create animals in there present form or at least the phyla that all animals are members of and then let evolution develop the diversity we see today?

You are actually arguing against yourself.

[Aineo]

That's a great question. And it's not always easy to calculate the specfic advantages and disadvantages in every instance. In general, sexual reproduction means more variation in the population, which is almost always a good thing. It means that catastrophes like a sudden lethal disease is unlikely to take the entire population. It also means that harmful mutations tend to be less damaging to the population. And it enhances the spread of useful mutations in a population.

On the other hand, where the envirionment is severe and unchanging, variation is not such a good thing. There are many ways biologists and mathematicians have worked out to assess the relative benefits.

So what you are trying to tell me is that a trutle that lays 150 - 300 eggs/year is not better suited to produce viable mutations than for a human being who can give birth every nine months?

As to appealing to mathematicicans that is a bit odd since when we bring up the odds of the human eye evolving we are told that statistical analysis of evolution is invalid or does not apply or some other story to avoid the topic.

[On My Way]

Where did you get this information? Why should anyone try to defend a cartoon version of evolution that is hopelessly confabulated with the subject of abiogenesis?

-E

Thanks for your understanding and your desire to help me with this topic.
Thanks for calling my understanding cartoonish.
What is Primordial ooze? or is it soup?
Just how exactly did life begin since you seem to know? Please do not keep it a secret.

Please note the topic you are posting in evolution and ID for Dummies.

Also please note that I did not ask you to defend anything I asked a few questions

Thanks again

[Green]

Well if science cannot explain the origins of life why should we accept that evolution from a one-celled organism to the complex animals we see today is valid?

Evidence. We are still learning about the former, but we have compelling evidence for the latter.

If God created life why couldn't God create animals in there present form or at least the phyla that all animals are members of and then let evolution develop the diversity we see today?

Could have. Or He could have done it the way the evidence shows He did. He chose to do it the latter way.

You are actually arguing against yourself.

That conclusion seems at odds with the evidence. Perhaps you could explain what you mean.

[Green]

Aneio, the site you are quoting from says that the secondary blind spot can see nothing in very low light.

Read it again. That's what it says.

Let's see if I can find you some more information...

Ah... here:

From Sport Pilot:
"The "Night Blind Spot" appears under conditions of low ambient illumination due to the absence of rods in the fovea, and involves an area 5 to 10 degrees wide in the center of the visual field. Therefore, if an object is viewed directly at night, it may go undetected or it may fade away after initial detection due to the night blind spot."
http://www.esparacing.com/sport%20pilot ... 20spot.htm

[Aineo]

I have twice posted a part of that article that plainly states motion can be detected, or have you decided to ignore that part of the article? However here it is one more time:

Only motion can be detected well, therefore you may have to learn to move your eyes to detect something that doesn't move.

[Green]

The point of course, is that it can't be detected in the secondary blind spot.

That is, as the article points out, completely blind in low light.
Outside the blind spot, motion can be detected.

[Aineo]

The point of course, is that it can't be detected in the secondary blind spot.

That is, as the article points out, completely blind in low light.
Outside the blind spot, motion can be detected.

Well, I guess we will have to agree to disagree since the article does not state what you are trying to force on it and neither does the site I linked to that deals specifically with the anatomy of the human eye.

[Green]

It does say that the central portion of your retina is completely blind in very low light. That seems very clear to me.

[Aineo]

It does say that the central portion of your retina is completely blind in very low light. That seems very clear to me.

I suggest you reread both the article and the information on the site I linked to. Only motion can be detected in low light conditions because of the absence of rods.

[Green]

But outside the blind spot only.

[Aineo]

But outside the blind spot only.

Nope, since outside your supposed secondary blind spot color can be detected under low light conditions as can movement.

[Green]

No. In low light no color at all can be seen, since rods don't detect color, and cones won't work at all.

Try it yourself. In the lowest light at which you can see anything, you will see no color.

Here's a way to test the secondary blind spot:

On a clear night, go out and find the faintest star you can locate, and then look directly at it. When you do, it will disappear, because you are completely blind at that light level in the center of the eye. If you look slightly to one side, you will find that the star can then be seen.

[Aineo]

Green, you are beating a dead horse. I live in a mountainous area of Colorado and walk a black dog at night in varying degrees of lighting conditions and when he moves I have no problem keeping track of him but when he stands still I do. So I “experiment” with your “secondary blind spot” every night.

Have you taken the time to check out this Internet site? http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb ... na.html#c2

The fovea centralis is the anatomical feature that is under discussion.