A Jealous God is Offensive

An Eye On The Evolutionist

article first published : 18/12/2020.

(pw = pagan word see: Sunday Worship Terms )
seen on a pagan website (patheos.com/blogs/voodoouniverse)

Seen on a so-called "Awarded Top 50 Evolution blog":

"Many birds also have an additional translucent eyelid that allows them to look directly into the sun, at length, without damaging their retinas.

The superiority of the bird eye shows that whatever designed the human eye, be it nature or a deity, is capable of producing eyes that are much better than the human eye. The question of why nature didn’t provide humans with better eyes is easily answered by evolutionary theory: it wasn’t strongly selected for. Alternatively, why an intelligent designer would deny his favorite creatures the excellent vision that he provided lowly birds is quite a mystery."

ref https://thehumanevolutionblog.com/2015/01/12/the-poor-design-of-the-human-eye/

While this evolutionist seems to have a keen interest to be able to stare at the sun for some rhyme or reason (perhaps Sun worship) our Creator has made it clear not to.

Deu 4: 19 When you look to the shamayims (pw heavens) and see the sun and moon and stars— all the host of shamayim (pw heaven)— do not be enticed to bow down and worship what Yah'uah your Elohim has apportioned to all the nations under shamayim.

Thus Yahuah makes a clear statement which answers the evolutionist that he has not tempted man to worship the sun but rather made it damaging to the eye. Yahuah hates sun worship which is why he darkened the sun in Egypt since Pharoah and his people worshiped it and he will do the same again in the last days. There also will be no sun in the new shamayim since Yahuah will be the light there.

This same evolutionist then tries to say man's eye is badly designed because of the high incidence of myopia for instance. This however is no evidence against the original design Yahuah gave to Adam when he said it is good. It was perfect for Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden as this was before man transgressed Torah and was sent out of the garden and everything was no longer good but the land was cursed and man's functions changed. His genetics also changed and thus he would die, a disease, which was not part of the original design.

Regarding Myopia:

It has been proposed that environmental variation is more relevant to variations between populations; however, the current differences between populations are due to changes within populations, driven by educational pressures, and limited time spent outdoors. Ethnic differences in myopia and the effects of parental myopia now seem more likely to be explained by environmental influences. Genetic studies have not yet defined molecular pathways and preventive interventions, and the predictive power of current genetic data is limited.

ref https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30380590/ Myopia: is the nature-nurture debate finally over?

Ian G Morgan, Kathryn A Rose . 2019 Jan;102(1):3-17. doi: 10.1111/cxo.12845. Epub 2018 Oct 31

Genome-wide association studies have identified over 150 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated with myopia, but they account for < 10 per cent of the variation in refraction

ref: ibid

Eye disease is no evidence against a poor design of the eye by the Creator, just as death is no evidence against a poor Creation. All was perfect and good when it was created but man decided to transgress Yahuah's Torah (advice and instructions) and thus he and the earth was cursed. Redemption and eternal life is the only way out of this which the Creator also designed for man through Yahushua his Son (S-O-N) but some are too busy wanting to stare at the S-U-N.

The Complicated "Simple" Eye

While proponents of unguided evolution characterize the light-sensitive spot of some ancestral creatures as simple, it is anything but that. As a 2015 article in Frontiers in Plant Science notes, eyespots have a “high ultrastructural complexity.” Of course, this may be said, all the more so, of more advanced eyes. Consider some of the details. In forms ranging from the “simplest,” most rudimentary eye, such as eyespots in unicellular organisms, e.g. Chlamydomonas, to complex vertebrate eyes, such as our own camera eyes, rhodopsin proteins capture the light and are the first and central players in a complex chain of biochemical events. There is no vision without rhodopsin proteins. Unless rhodopsin transforms light into a signal, and that signal is used by a signal transduction pathway to promote phototaxis, neither rhodopsins nor eyespots would have a function on their own.

Rhodopsins themselves are complex. They are composed of two parts: opsin proteins, which are made of seven α-helices forming a circle, and retinal, which is a light-absorbing chromophore. Retinal is covalently linked to the opsins and horizontally positioned in the pocket inside the opsin tunnel. When a single photon hits retinal, a small conformational change is triggered in the opsin, and that triggers a cascade of several chemical reactions and biochemical transformations, ultimatively leading to sight. A 2016 article in Nature Communications observed that “rhodopsin functions as a molecular off–on switch; it is designed to be fully inactive in the dark and to rapidly convert to a fully active structure in the light.”

As a general note, functional molecules, such as those within the catalytic sites of enzymes (in our case, retinal cofactors), require high specificity in their form and are thus well conserved (unchanged, or non-evolved ) across organisms. That is because mutations within these sites usually do not confer any advantage.

ref: https://evolutionnews.org/2020/02/the-evolution-of-the-eye-demystified/ Otangelo Grasso February 24, 2020, 4:08 AM

We must remember Darwin's comment relating to the eye and he did not even have an inkling of the complexity just laid out above.

Even Charles Darwin thought his own theory was "grievously hypothetical" and gave emotional content to his doubts when he said, "The eye to this day gives me a cold shudder." To think the eye had evolved by natural selection, Darwin said, "seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree." But he thought of the same about something as simple as a peacock's feather, which, he said, "makes me sick. " Of course, anyone who has knowledge of the intricacies of the human eye and other living structures immediately realizes the problem Darwin sensed. How could an organ of such an intricate magnificence ever have a originated via random chance? Oller and Omdahl (CH) Page 274

ref: Darwin's Doubts About His Theory on Biological Evolution and Origin of Species Window View -Science

Man's Eye is Backward and Upside Down - Evolutionists claim this is Poor Design

Research by ophthalmologists has clearly shown why the human retina must employ what is called the "inverted" design. An inverted retina is where the photoreceptors face away from the light, forcing the incoming light to travel through the front of the retina to reach the photoreceptors. The opposite placement (where the photoreceptors face the front of the eye) is called a "verted" design. One of the many reasons for the inverted design is, behind the photoreceptors lies a multifunctional and indispensable structure, the retinal pigment epithelium (Martínez-Morales 2004, p. 766). This monolayered tissue contains the black pigment melanin that absorbs most of the light not captured by the retina. This design has the very beneficial effect of preventing light from being reflected off the back of the eye onto the retina, which would degrade the visual image.

The photoreceptors (rods and cones) must also face away from the front of the eye in order to be in close contact with the pigment epithelium on the choroid, which supplies the photoreceptors with blood. This arrangement allows a "steady stream of the vital molecule retinal" to flow to the rods and cones without which vision would be impossible (Kolb 2003, p. 28). The verted design, claimed by Miller to be superior, would place the photoreceptors away from their source of nutrition, oxygen, and retinal (the choroid). This design would cause major problems because rods and cones require an enormous amount of energy for their very high metabolism required in functioning, maintenance, and repair. In addition, because of phototoxicity damage, the rods and cones must completely replace themselves approximately every seven days or so.

The photoreceptors and retinal epithelium absorb an enormous amount of light on a continuous basis when the eyes are open. Because the light is converted largely into heat, the retina must have a very effective cooling system, again provided by the choroidal blood supply directly behind the pigment epithelium. If the pigment epithelium tissue were placed in front of the retina, sight would be seriously compromised. Reversing the retina so that it faces away from the pigment epithelium would also compromise sight to the degree that sight would be impossible because the photoreceptors must be embedded in the retinal pigment epithelium to obtain the nutrients required to function.

This design is extremely critical because the retina requires a high metabolism level due to the continual replacement of the photoreceptors required for vision. Consequently, the retina uses more oxygen and nutrients than almost every other part of the body, requiring an ample blood supply. The verted design would not allow the rods and cones to function properly because of the blood supply required for their high rate of metabolism. If the photoreceptors were in front of the neurons, the blood supply would have to be either directly in the light path of the receptors, or on their side, which would significantly reduce the number of photoreceptors used for sight.

In fact a person's one eye uses more energy to process vision in the brain than both legs used during the day.

Importantly, placing the retina neural components in front of the photoreceptors does not produce an optical handicap for several reasons. One reason is the neural elements are separated by less than a wavelength of light. Consequently, very little or no scattering or diffraction occurs, and the light travels through this area as if it was at near-perfect transparency. Secondly, when viewed under the microscope, most cells are largely transparent (and it is for this reason stains, such as Eosin-Y and Hematoxylin 2, are needed to better visualize the various cell parts). Consequently, the thin layer of cells in front of the retina rods and cones have a negligible light blocking effect.

In the retina region which has the highest resolution, the central retina (the fovea and, in particular, the foveola), the neurons in front of the photoreceptors are shifted to the side so that light has a direct pathway to them, resulting in the least distortion where it matters most. The high resolution macula also uses cones that are more tightly packed to achieve high resolution color vision. The peripheral retina has lower resolution and consists of mostly rods for black and white vision.

This design is a highly effective method to accurately transmit enormous amounts of data along the optic nerve in a method analogous to the zipping and unzipping of a computer file to facilitate computer file transmission. To function, the transmission must be very rapid because the image needs to be refreshed continuously like a pixel TV image. The eye's design actually appears to be optimized around the physical limits of the visible light spectrum (Calkins 1986).

The pigment epithelium tissue performs numerous other functions critical for retina viability and activity. One is that it phagocytosises ten percent of the mass of each photoreceptor outer segment on a diurnal schedule, and constantly restores the chromophore to 11-cis-retinal from its all-trans configuration, permitting visual pigment synthesis and regeneration (Dowling 1987, p. 198). It also is part of the outer blood-retinal barrier, helps maintain water and ion flow between the neural retina and the choroid, protects against free radical damage, and regulates retinoid metabolism (Martínez-Morales, et al., 2004, p. 766).

This short review covers only a few of the many reasons for the superiority of the existing design of the mammalian retina. Our knowledge now shows that the retina design is superior to what we understood even just a few short years ago. Gratitude rather than impertinence seems the more appropriate response to its ingenious design.

ref: https://www.icr.org/article/backwards-human-retina-evidence-poor-design/

The design of the eye is something we can be grateful for. As a retired healthcare professional I can tell you that the eye design by the Creator indeed allows diagnosis of many disseases even before symptoms appear eg diabetic retinopathy. A non-invasive view of the fundus of the eye has allowed us to detect many diseases including brain tumor, cancers, cholesterol, hypertension (high blood pressure), meningitis, Giant cell arteritis, lupus, Lyme disease, multiple sclerosis, sickle cell disease etc etc.

An Eye For Hopscotch

It is quite humorous how evolutionists bounce eyes around between species and would want to say that man's eye is inferior to say a bird but then when one asks them why a butterfly and caterpillar, metamorphosing repeatedly for thousands of years with DNA being rearranged in the cocoon, have never changed into another kind Z(species) as hypothesized by Darwin's theory of speciation then they will tell you, well the butterfly does not need to change it is happy with its specific niche and I guess its eyes too then. It does not want eyes like ours does it?

Evolutionists play hopscotch with your mind. A man buys a BMW sports car because of its advertised "good" design and fast acceleration. Sitting in a traffic jam this man sees a scooter pass him by traveling at a fraction of the speed and acceleration, weaving through the busy traffic . The man in the BMW is suddenly not content with his sports car as he sits stationary in the congested traffic and concludes his BMW is poorly designed. This is the philosophy of the evolutionist.

The BMW may never be content and neither the scooter. In the evolutionist's fanciful mind each should constantly be evolving to be the other, but this does not happen in Creation in fact it has not happened one way or the other, there has been NO change in kind. The analogy then : A scooter, if you will, has remained a scooter because it is designed for busy traffic and a BMW has remained a BMW sports car for its purpose - modeling upon the cat walk.

Yahushua did not use a Horse and Chariot by the way when he entered Jerusalem. Yahuah created and provided the ass, a more humble use for transport which provided a message as well to the people who wanted pomp and fanfare rather than righteousness in a ruler. This humble entry was prophesied many years before by the prophets.

Yahuah has created fast animals, large slow majestic ones etc etc each with its own niche and purpose all to show His creativity and diversity, all to point to His power.

Creator's Sovereignty in His Diverse Creation

Yahuah shows His sovereignty through the various animals he has made each with their specific design. He used this to remind Job that it is he who provides for food for each animal.

Job 38:39 “Can you hunt the prey for the lion, or satisfy the appetite of the young lions,
Job 38:40 when they crouch in their dens or lie in wait in their thicket?
Job 38:41 Who provides for the raven its prey, when its young ones cry to Elohim for help, and wander about for lack of food?

Each animal has its specific niche that Yahuah has created.

Job 39:5 “Who has let the wild donkey go free? Who has loosed the bonds of the swift donkey,
Job 39:6 to whom I have given the arid plain for his home and the salt land for his dwelling place?

As Creator His sovereignty is above the feared Behemoth and Leviathan (Job 40:19; 41:10)

(ref https://erlc.com/resource-library/articles/10-biblical-truths-about-animals/)

No Change of Kind - Each Creature (And Eyes) Best For Its Own Purpose.