Monday, August 25, 2014

Müller Cells are Wavelength-Dependent Wave-Guides

Enhancing the Cone Photoreceptor Sensitivity

The best arguments for evolution have always been from dysteleology. This world, as evolutionists explain, just does not appear to have been designed. Consider our retina for example. Isn’t it all backwards, with the photocells—which detect the incoming light—pointed toward the rear and behind several layers of cell types and neural processes. Does this make any sense? Surely such a claptrap would offend any “tidy-minded engineer,” as Richard Dawkins put it. But such arguments have never worked and the history of evolutionary thought is full of their failures. Aside from the fact they are metaphysical and not open to scientific testing, they inevitably are simply false. The “bad retina design” argument, as discussed here, here, here, here and here for example, has repeatedly been rebuked. As we learn more we find the retina has all kinds of subtle and clever designs. And now new research out of Israel continues to confirm this trend. Unbelievably, the scientists have demonstrated that the retina’s Müller cells are wavelength-dependent wave-guides that focus the longer-wavelength green-red light onto the cone photoreceptors and pass the shorter-wavelength blue-purple light through to the rod photoreceptors.

It just so happens that is a great idea because while the cone photoreceptors are fast acting and provide color vision, they are less sensitive and need all the help they can get. The rod photoreceptors, on the other hand, are mainly sensitive to the shorter-wavelength blue-purple light, so they don’t miss too much the filtering out of the green-red light. As one science writer concluded:

Having the photoreceptors at the back of the retina is not a design constraint, it is a design feature. The idea that the vertebrate eye, like a traditional front-illuminated camera, might have been improved somehow if it had only been able to orient its wiring behind the photoreceptor layer, like a cephalopod, is folly.

It just isn’t very smart to criticize a design when you’ve never built one yourself and, much less, don’t even know how it works. It’s even worse to then use that ill-conceived criticism as justification for the claim that the design arose spontaneously. From a scientific perspective that claim was always weak. Now it is simply ridiculous. The retina’s incredible design reveals the details of what always was intuitively obvious. As Paul explained, God has made foolish the wisdom of this world.

10 comments:

  1. Unguided/blind watchmaker evolution can't produce photo receptors. Evolutionists can't even produce a model for unguided evolution doing such a thing.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Dr Hunter,
    It just so happens that is a great idea because while the cone photoreceptors are fast acting and provide color vision, they are less sensitive and need all the help they can get. The rod photoreceptors, on the other hand, are mainly sensitive to the shorter-wavelength blue-purple light, so they don’t miss too much the filtering out of the green-red light.


    It seems overly complicated, the filtering process and any signal attenuation results from it no matter how little,would be unnecessary with single photoreceptors capable of full spectrum, the addition of the ability to perceive infrared wavelength would be an enhancement. Less complicated and therefore less subject to system failures in human design is considered a superior design.

    Now I don't know if such a receptor is possible, but then neither do you know it isn't possible. Just saying that optimizing the photoreceptors eliminates an unnecessary work around to accommodate less optimal photoreceptors. That is human terms is a better design.

    Now perhaps the existence of the less optimal dual systems and limited wavelength sensitivity has another explanation,

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It only seems "overly complicated" to simple minds.

      Delete
    2. V:

      Just saying that optimizing the photoreceptors eliminates an unnecessary work around to accommodate less optimal photoreceptors. ...

      Did you make the same complaint against the evolutionary claims of inefficiency and poor design practice? I'm merely pointing how precarious are such arguments. You're claim that it is "an unnecessary work" comes from an evolutionary perspective. From a scientific perspective, we simply don't know.

      It seems overly complicated ...

      It may be. But that view comes from an evolutionary perspective. We have never built one, and we don't even know how to design one. The consistent failure of evolutionary claims is a good reminder.

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    4. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    5. Dr Hunter:
      Did you make the same complaint against the evolutionary claims of inefficiency and poor design practice?


      Technically the use of several parts to accomplish what one part can accomplish is less efficient . That is why sometimes it is more efficient to tear down and rebuild that to remodel.

      The design of the eye looks like a remodel. Modified existing structures to accommodate improvements. Some remodeling is good design, some is bad design. In evolutionary theory bad remodeling doesn't reproduce as often good remodeling. In intelligent design bad remodeling seems to reproduce readily.

      Of course in human design the option of designing a structure from the ground up is available,

      I'm merely pointing how precarious are such arguments.

      " It just so happens that is a great idea because while the cone photoreceptors are fast acting and provide color vision,"

      So what you are pointing out is that it is possible for evolutionary processes to have " great ideas"? That good design of existing parts is a bad argument against evolution by ID? Otherwise " Great idea" implies some knowledge of the abilities and knowledge of an abstract designer.

      You're claim that it is "an unnecessary work" comes from an evolutionary perspective

      Actually what I said was" Just saying that optimizing the photoreceptors eliminates an unnecessary work around to accommodate less optimal photoreceptors."

      This is from design perspective, from an evolutionary standpoint it is not unnecessary, even small increases of visual acuity are beneficial. In human design, there are other options to gradual change.

      But that view comes from an evolutionary perspective.

      No, it comes from a perspective of the only intelligent design we have experience with.

      We have never built one, and we don't even know how to design one.

      Actually I believe scientists have created an organ recently, but since design advocates have no problem using the machine analogy that would open up that line for everyone.


      The consistent failure of evolutionary claims is a good reminder.

      True, never making an actual claim avoids that problem. Monday-morning quarterbacks are always right.



      Delete
  3. Fascinating research.

    What it doesn't change is the fact that in the fovea - the small 'pit' in the retina that produces the sharpest, most hi-res imaging - the mesh of cells that covers the rest of the retina is pulled aside, allowing the photoreceptors there unobstructed access to the incoming light. Seems pretty obvious which is the best solution for the sharpest vision, Muller cell waveguides notwithstanding.

    ReplyDelete
  4. i have had serious eye trouble in my life and welcome healing of eyesight by anyone.
    eyes have always been a case for how unlikely evolution could create something from selection on mutations. this is why evolutionists, some, say the eye is poorly designed.
    They need it to be poorly designed to show it evolved and was not created.
    however when it takes research to figure it out and still they are not healing anyone then it must be complicated and its poor design is still not that poor if it is poor at all.
    It should be the first instinct that something so complicated CAN not easily be defined YET. This new research hints at more research and so who can say whats poor design or clever design.
    By the way the research should be in North america where the money would have better results. Israel research is funded by yank taxpayers for the record.

    ReplyDelete
  5. My mom used to say, "If he's so smart, why ain't he rich?"
    For example, Richard Dawkins is rich from--among other follies--critiquing the super-intelligently designed eye, but he's never designed a better working eye. If he's so smart, why ain't he a better eye? Oh, I see... he doesn't know how.

    ReplyDelete