Turns Out Eyes Are Not Poorly Designed

[Bronzeage]

A zoom lens and night vision capacity would be great, but I'd only get myself into trouble, which would require improvements in other body parts. If I could be faster than a speeding bullet, more powerful than a locomotive and able to leap tall buildings at a single bound, that would be great. I think x-ray vision comes with that package, too.

... and don't forget friggin lasers... how can you forget the friggin lasers?

The diet required to fuel laser generating organs is just too tough to maintain.

 

[Underseer]

I don't think evolutionists argue that natural selection inevitably leads to bad designs.

I think they argue the opposite, that it is a good process for tweaking and letting better designs win out over designs not as good.

The problem with the entire "design" discussion is we don't actually have any idea about what we are discussing.

The Space Shuttle is a very well designed machine, yet it has managed to kill its entire crew, twice. The designers were caught in a dilemma. No matter what they designed and built, it had to actually fly in space and come back. This required compromises which sometimes meant it couldn't always do both.

The better a design is, the more specific and limited it is. The Space Shuttle is a great way to get to space, but it's not much good for anything else. I live in a semi-tropical part of the US. It's 96F degrees today. I can handle that, but my cat is better designed to survive a Louisiana winter. She can stay outside in freezing weather with little chance of death from hypothermia, and still doesn't mind staying out all day long in the summer.

The idea that a device which functions for the purpose for which it is used is some kind of poor design, because someone thought of someway it could do something a little better is ridiculous. What would any possible eye design improvement yield a human, in terms of survival? Pull the lever on the Way Back Machine and consider what were the critical needs for human eyesight. We got all that and and the eye which once only had to worry about lions, turned out to be perfectly suited for spotting a polar bear on a snowbank. This was after we solved that "no furry skin" design problem.

The "poor design" argument is not an argument that poorly designed, but that if life is designed, then the designer made a series of decisions that no competent designer would make, while those arguing for design insist that the designer is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent. When we say "bad design," we don't actually mean things were badly designed, we are simply pointing out that if life was designed, life should look very different from what we see.

 

[Bronzeage]

The problem with the entire "design" discussion is we don't actually have any idea about what we are discussing.

The Space Shuttle is a very well designed machine, yet it has managed to kill its entire crew, twice. The designers were caught in a dilemma. No matter what they designed and built, it had to actually fly in space and come back. This required compromises which sometimes meant it couldn't always do both.

The better a design is, the more specific and limited it is. The Space Shuttle is a great way to get to space, but it's not much good for anything else. I live in a semi-tropical part of the US. It's 96F degrees today. I can handle that, but my cat is better designed to survive a Louisiana winter. She can stay outside in freezing weather with little chance of death from hypothermia, and still doesn't mind staying out all day long in the summer.

The idea that a device which functions for the purpose for which it is used is some kind of poor design, because someone thought of someway it could do something a little better is ridiculous. What would any possible eye design improvement yield a human, in terms of survival? Pull the lever on the Way Back Machine and consider what were the critical needs for human eyesight. We got all that and and the eye which once only had to worry about lions, turned out to be perfectly suited for spotting a polar bear on a snowbank. This was after we solved that "no furry skin" design problem.

The "poor design" argument is not an argument that poorly designed, but that if life is designed, then the designer made a series of decisions that no competent designer would make, while those arguing for design insist that the designer is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent. When we say "bad design," we don't actually mean things were badly designed, we are simply pointing out that if life was designed, life should look very different from what we see.

Why do you make that assumption?

Assume there is a conscious entity that designed all of creation. This entity would have by definition a greater understanding of the task than we could ever hope to imagine. What would appear to be bad, inadequate, or in anyway unsatisfactory, would actually be something we just don't understand.

But just for the fun of it, what would life look like, if were designed?

 

[Keith&Co.]

But just for the fun of it, what would life look like, if were designed?

Ultimately, we wouldn't know exactly what a 'perfect' designer's design would be unless we could know his goals. Then we could measure the distance between what he wanted to do and what he did.

However, we do have people who say that God is perfect and we're his design and his design is perfect. if that's true, then there must be an explanation, somewhere, for why we have one bottleneck where air and food both pass. Lacking an omniscient view of the choking babies of humanity, all i can say is that as far as human engineering standards go, it's a fucked-up design feature. You don't pump gas through your air conditioner or insert nuclear fuel rods through berthing.

Defendants of a perfect designer need to explain how this design is superior to something like a dolphin's where food and air go through different, non-conflicting passages.
They don't have a good explanation for why their alleged god would do things this way. They can't show that there is a non-human set of standards in play. They do argue from credulity and ignorance ("It's a mystery!") but then they get upset when we say that doesn't really come anywhere close to supporting their claims.

 

[sdelsolray]

Turns Out Eyes Are Not Poorly Designed

Another mere assertion from the Creationist Calvanist-wannabe.

You were simply not chosen for this. Go away to your preordained destiny.

 

[Underseer]

The "poor design" argument is not an argument that poorly designed, but that if life is designed, then the designer made a series of decisions that no competent designer would make, while those arguing for design insist that the designer is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent. When we say "bad design," we don't actually mean things were badly designed, we are simply pointing out that if life was designed, life should look very different from what we see.

Why do you make that assumption?

Assume there is a conscious entity that designed all of creation. This entity would have by definition a greater understanding of the task than we could ever hope to imagine. What would appear to be bad, inadequate, or in anyway unsatisfactory, would actually be something we just don't understand.

But just for the fun of it, what would life look like, if were designed?

• Humans would either not use the same spine as quadrupeds, or else our spines would connect with the pelvises in a way that is horizontal to the ground like most other bipedal animals on this planet (e.g. ostritches). Because this is not the case, most humans are doomed to experience back problems later in life.
• The recurrent laryngeal nerve would not take such a ridiculously circuitous path from the brain to the larynx in mammals.
• Cetacean embryos would not spend precious energy growing rear limb buds only to spend more energy using phages to shrink the rear limb buds later on. A designed cetacean embryo would simply not grow those rear limb buds in the first place because they are not needed in the final organism.
• The fact that we use the same pipe to eat and breathe guarantees that a certain number of people will choke to death every year. Simply having two separate pipes could have avoided this.
• As Neil deGrasse Tyson points out about mammalian design: "Who puts an entertainment complex in the middle of a sewer?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_poor_design

 

[Bronzeage]

Why do you make that assumption?

Assume there is a conscious entity that designed all of creation. This entity would have by definition a greater understanding of the task than we could ever hope to imagine. What would appear to be bad, inadequate, or in anyway unsatisfactory, would actually be something we just don't understand.

But just for the fun of it, what would life look like, if were designed?

• Humans would either not use the same spine as quadrupeds, or else our spines would connect with the pelvises in a way that is horizontal to the ground like most other bipedal animals on this planet (e.g. ostritches). Because this is not the case, most humans are doomed to experience back problems later in life.
• The recurrent laryngeal nerve would not take such a ridiculously circuitous path from the brain to the larynx in mammals.
• Cetacean embryos would not spend precious energy growing rear limb buds only to spend more energy using phages to shrink the rear limb buds later on. A designed cetacean embryo would simply not grow those rear limb buds in the first place because they are not needed in the final organism.
• The fact that we use the same pipe to eat and breathe guarantees that a certain number of people will choke to death every year. Simply having two separate pipes could have avoided this.
• As Neil deGrasse Tyson points out about mammalian design: "Who puts an entertainment complex in the middle of a sewer?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_poor_design

I've always thought it was crazy that elevators can't go sideways and take me straight to my door, but knowing little about architecture and elevator engineering, my ideas would only reveal my ignorance of the real parameters.

The old recreation/sewer joke has been around long before Tyson repeated it. So far, no one has submitted sketches of suggested revisions to mammalian genitals, but it would be interesting to see a few.

 

[Underseer]

• Humans would either not use the same spine as quadrupeds, or else our spines would connect with the pelvises in a way that is horizontal to the ground like most other bipedal animals on this planet (e.g. ostritches). Because this is not the case, most humans are doomed to experience back problems later in life.
• The recurrent laryngeal nerve would not take such a ridiculously circuitous path from the brain to the larynx in mammals.
• Cetacean embryos would not spend precious energy growing rear limb buds only to spend more energy using phages to shrink the rear limb buds later on. A designed cetacean embryo would simply not grow those rear limb buds in the first place because they are not needed in the final organism.
• The fact that we use the same pipe to eat and breathe guarantees that a certain number of people will choke to death every year. Simply having two separate pipes could have avoided this.
• As Neil deGrasse Tyson points out about mammalian design: "Who puts an entertainment complex in the middle of a sewer?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_poor_design

I've always thought it was crazy that elevators can't go sideways and take me straight to my door, but knowing little about architecture and elevator engineering, my ideas would only reveal my ignorance of the real parameters.

The old recreation/sewer joke has been around long before Tyson repeated it. So far, no one has submitted sketches of suggested revisions to mammalian genitals, but it would be interesting to see a few.

Sorry, but by your argument, there is no such thing as bad design.

The Tacoma Narrows bridge was designed in such a way that strong winds at the right speeds brought the whole thing crashing down, but we can't call that bad design because the people who designed it might be smarter than us, and might have had a good reason to design it that way that we cannot understand.

Circuit City drove itself out of business due to the incredibly bad design of the DIVX standard that competed with the DVD standard, but we can't call that bad design because the people who designed the DIVX standard might have had some incredibly clever reason for making DIVX that way that is beyond our capacity to conceive of or understand.

 

[Bronzeage]

I've always thought it was crazy that elevators can't go sideways and take me straight to my door, but knowing little about architecture and elevator engineering, my ideas would only reveal my ignorance of the real parameters.

The old recreation/sewer joke has been around long before Tyson repeated it. So far, no one has submitted sketches of suggested revisions to mammalian genitals, but it would be interesting to see a few.

Sorry, but by your argument, there is no such thing as bad design.

The Tacoma Narrows bridge was designed in such a way that strong winds at the right speeds brought the whole thing crashing down, but we can't call that bad design because the people who designed it might be smarter than us, and might have had a good reason to design it that way that we cannot understand.

Circuit City drove itself out of business due to the incredibly bad design of the DIVX standard that competed with the DVD standard, but we can't call that bad design because the people who designed the DIVX standard might have had some incredibly clever reason for making DIVX that way that is beyond our capacity to conceive of or understand.

I never said a human couldn't make a bad design, but humans did not design the universe. The universe designed them. This means humans don't really have a place to stand in order to truly understand their own design. I had a root canal procedure last Monday. If I had to design teeth, I would like to find someway to eliminate a putrid infection in the nerve cavity. Of course, there's no telling what problems a tooth with nerves might cause. Perhaps jaw injuries from biting too hard would become common, and some one would want demand to know who had the idea of the nerveless tooth.

The problem with presenting some feature of the universe and declaring it to be a poor design, is that no one is really qualified to make that judgment.

 

[purple_kathryn]

I've had to wear glasses since I was 11 - I remain unconvinced

 

[Gila Guerilla]

The question is not whether or not the eyes are poorly designed, but whether or not they are designed at all. Care needs to be taken because design can have at least two meanings. The first is the generic term for the form and structure of something, its design, and the implications for its function, (if any). The second is the action of a thinking intelligence, which produces a form or structure.

A thing which is entirely natural and has discernible has form, structure and function has a design, as does one that is designed actively, (by a human being for example).

Again, the question with respect to the poorness of the design is not whether or not the design, (form or structure), works, or even works well. A more poignant question is, could that design be even better, and would it be better if designed by a highly intelligent, highly knowledgeable designer? Could the structure have been better designed, for the purpose for which we consider it to be intended? An omniscient, omnipotent designer, (if there were such a thing), would have the capacity to design and create the absolutely best design. When it comes to evolution, any design will be adopted if: (A) it arises, and (B) it confers a life advantage. So in evolutionary terms, good enough is good enough! If one wants to say that an omniscient, omnipotent designer, one that supposedly has the capacity to design a whole universe, would leave off at: "It works, so it'll do", smacks of laziness which might be able to be explained away, but for me, that's just not good enough.

Another question is: " Could the design, (form / structure), have arisen without a designer?" If it could, then the quality and impressiveness of the designer's achievement is significantly diminished. In that case, a designer would not be a necessary thing in explaining the design.

So maybe the design of the eye has more functionality than we might first have thought, but does that mean that it is really well designed?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The question is not whether or not the eyes are poorly designed, but whether or not they are designed at all. Care needs to be taken because design can have at least two meanings. The first is the generic term for the form and structure of something, its design, and the implications for its function, (if any). The second is the action of a thinking intelligence, which produces a form or structure.

A thing which is entirely natural and has discernible has form, structure and function has a design, as does one that is designed actively, (by a human being for example).

Again, the question with respect to the poorness of the design is not whether or not the design, (form or structure), works, or even works well. A more poignant question is, could that design be even better, and would it be better if designed by a highly intelligent, highly knowledgeable designer? Could the structure have been better designed, for the purpose for which we consider it to be intended? An omniscient, omnipotent designer, (if there were such a thing), would have the capacity to design and create the absolutely best design. When it comes to evolution, any design will be adopted if: (A) it arises, and (B) it confers a life advantage. So in evolutionary terms, good enough is good enough! If one wants to say that an omniscient, omnipotent designer, one that supposedly has the capacity to design a whole universe, would leave off at: "It works, so it'll do", smacks of laziness which might be able to be explained away, but for me, that's just not good enough.

Another question is: " Could the design, (form / structure), have arisen without a designer?" If it could, then the quality and impressiveness of the designer's achievement is significantly diminished. In that case, a designer would not be a necessary thing in explaining the design.

So maybe the design of the eye has more functionality than we might first have thought, but does that mean that it is really well designed?

An eye that gathers such a small piece of the spectrum in both wavelength and amplitude isn't seeing very much in my amateur opinion. For example it's totally useless in complete darkness, even though there is still lots to "see."

This isn't evidence for design. It's evidence for a lack of design. Forget the anatomy lesson. I want to know how the designer's "eye" works, and the apparent answer is 'not very well.'

 

[Kharakov]

The problem with presenting some feature of the universe and declaring it to be a poor design, is that no one is really qualified to make that judgment.

I'm proving improving improv in <G>.

How often is improv completely undesigned? Does it seem better when it appears undesigned?

 

[Bronzeage]

The problem with presenting some feature of the universe and declaring it to be a poor design, is that no one is really qualified to make that judgment.

I'm proving improving improv in <G>.

How often is improv completely undesigned? Does it seem better when it appears undesigned?

I've seen some bad improv. It might be easy to prejudice a judge if he knows more about the process, but we know the proof is in the pudding. It might be made from scratch, or a store bought mix, but that is why we have blind taste tests.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

It's very easy to believe something is designed, which is why it's the default position. It just doesn't take much thought or intellect.

But why don't design proponents talk about the penis? We guys piss with the same tool with which we perform the sacred act of procreation. Really! There ought to be at least a whole other bible devoted completely to the subject. I mean it's like using your garbage can to also serve dinner.

 

[Kharakov]

It's very easy to believe something is designed, which is why it's the default position.

I don't know about that- it's not easy to believe the color blue is designed (or any qualia for that matter), and there is an element of intuition in many designs.

But why don't design proponents talk about the penis? We guys piss with the same tool with which we perform the sacred act of procreation. Really! There ought to be at least a whole other bible devoted completely to the subject. I mean it's like using your garbage can to also serve dinner.

What if being good requires one to create solutions for evil as well as goo? Is it logical to have the same being do both?

 

[Malintent]

I don't know about that- it's not easy to believe the color blue is designed (or any qualia for that matter), and there is an element of intuition in many designs.

The color blue IS designed. Designed by man. Nature causes light to emit at different frequencies... and our brains interpret those differenet frequencies (within a very narrow range that we call "visible light") in ways that we call "colors" (or "colours" if you choose). "Blue" exists only in our minds and is just loosly related to a general band of frequencies within the visible light spectrum.

 

[untermensche]

The color blue IS designed. Designed by man. Nature causes light to emit at different frequencies... and our brains interpret those differenet frequencies (within a very narrow range that we call "visible light") in ways that we call "colors" (or "colours" if you choose). "Blue" exists only in our minds and is just loosly related to a general band of frequencies within the visible light spectrum.

This is true but many can't comprehend it.

They think they are looking at the real world and not a representation of it created by the brain.

And evolution is a process of design. Random designs pop up and the ones that work survive better and stick around for a while.

 

[Kharakov]

Malintent- you're seriously claiming that 'man' designed the color blue (the  qualia of blue- not the word blue, or the frequency)?

How about the flavor sweetness?

 

[Malintent]

Malintent- you're seriously claiming that 'man' designed the color blue (the  qualia of blue- not the word blue, or the frequency)?

How about the flavor sweetness?

Yes. Sweetness too.

<sigh>... OK, your eyes are one sensory organ.. and I described how we created words and descriptions for the effect those senses having in our brains... your taste buds and nasal passages are two other sensory organs that you have. While the nose is thought of solely as a "smell" sensory organ, it actually plays a huge part in "taste" along with your tongue. (Hold your nose shut and take a bite of something you like.. chew it up and swallow without letting go of your nose... how does it taste? like pretty much nothing, right?)

Things that you put into your mouth contain compounds that, when mixed with saliva, are slightly altered such that they chemically bond to your taste bud receptors. At the same time, volatile chemicals become airborn in the mouth and are bonded with receptors in the nasal passages.

The combination of signals from those receptors in the brain create the sensory input we call "taste". Just like we assign category names for ranges of light frequency, we do the same for ranges of taste sensations.

Are you going to ask me next about "soft" or "rough" being designed by man too?

<hint>Same answer</hint>

PS... it is also thought that the eyes have input on flavor.. there is a saying in the culinary world, "Presentation is half of pallete". Your eyes trick you into expecting one thing or another, which does influence taste... your perception of taste, that is.