Human Eye Function

[DJROIDSS]

This guy is dumb, he took a 2 hour class and he thinks he knows everything. god also gave us glaucoma, cataracts, astigmatism, myopia, hyperopia, and retinal detatchment so we can go blindly slowly and painfully while other creatures like owls have superior eyes than us. us humans his ingenious creation the he loves so much is def and blind compared to animals

[andybreeden]

Does Niles know there are other books besides the bible?

[Hufflewaffle]

yah, the idea that photoreceptor cells can develop in organisms over millions of years is so much more far fetched than a non changing, immaterial consciousness existing in non-space/time building stuff out of nothing.

That takes a whole different kind of blindness!

[gregrutz]

You are not a scientist either.

The nuclear reactions of the sun are complex so I believe in Ra, the sun God.

[chillmax]

You were never a real atheist, you were confused, and by the sounds of it, you still are. Good luck with believing nonsense, what a waste of a life. Yes 'things' are amazing, but this does not mean a magical being created it.

[bellatrix336]

He's so right! how could all these complex systems just come into being from one big bang? God is real and he is the creator of all these things

[PrsnlFrdm911]

It's an interesting concept, I'd like to think we will have an answer someday.

[supertotoro]

Combine that critical thinking of yours with reading a book. (and I don't mean THAT book, I mean a real book written by scientist)

[adparker314]

Argument From Ignorance (well known logical fallacy):

"I don't get it, therefore..."

No Randall, you can't justify leaping from you own recognised ignorance to ANY conclusion!

[Alexdurrant7]

Uuuh... no. The human eye can be reduced down to a patch of light sensitive cells, say, 5 cells by 5. It won't be much, but it will able to distinguish between light and dark. Give that patch of cells another dimension, say a thickness of two cells, and it will be able to measure and be receptive of the angle at which light is hitting it. Add another layer and the reading will be more accurate and detailed.

[srkkroh11]

i believe the camera is made from idea the human eye.from this i believe the god.

[LordSande]

But the thing is.. you CAN make almost EVERYTHING sound way more complicated than it really is which is what you and other creationists do. Surely our legs are quite complicated as well when you explain them in great detail, but somehow you seem to forget that? Oh and what would you know about the human eye without science? You'd know that when you hit a human in it for working on sundays he wouldnt see anything.

And because X is complex therefore god exists?

[endoftheworldboy]

the human eye is actually poorly constructed, its easily damaged and not to mention all the spectrums of light we cant see, humans have literally made better optical sensors then "god" ever did.

[ikinmoore]

Did God give shortsight/longshort/cataracts and all those other problems doctors have a nak of sorting out. It Evolved Okay !

[raido1324]

This guy admits he is not a molecular biologist. He just uses his "thinking". So if I just "use my thinking" I can probably comprehend quantum mechanics even if I have a highschool education and work in retail. Wonderful logic Mr. Lawyer. This garbage is not evidence of anything. Just because its too hard for you to understand doesn't mean a deity made it.

[LifeisX]

Good job reflect7.Can't wait to see more videos

[iamnicompoop]

Jesus f*** christ! The evolution of the eye has been explained a million times! We have in nature animals in all stages of evolution of the eye! From photo-sensitive skin patches to the eyes of mammals.

I can't believe people are still using the eye as an example of irreducible complexity.

[ImmerWeddinger]

Why do you litter youtube with this drivel?

[CucumberMagic]

@ImmerWeddinger some people (like me) are interested in things like this, okay? if you don't like it, don't watch it!

[thepfaufamily]

I don't like a man who presents an argument with such calculated modesty; and Richard Dawkins...PLEASE, not even atheists should respect the majority of that man's claims. But to believe in something just um, well, because it's so darn unbelievable ; D is well stupid. Options are limited to two: Pascal Faith- give God credit so as not to burn in hell; or simply ditch salvation pursuit and seek a life adherent to I don't know, perhaps Immanuel Kant's Categorical Imperative?

[mexicochris1]

if the world had a brain, then id believe in evolution but since we live in a complex planet.

with complex lifeforms that couldn't have appeared by them selves. i prefer to believe in a God.

its all just to logical, everything points to a higher power.

[kentekent]

But it's not logical any more when you start thinking about were this "god" character came from.

God couldn't just have appeared on his own. Nothing creates nothing.

[joeshabadoo17]

Alright, my fellow atheists need to stop being pricks. People of faith stop distorting scientific evidence to suit your own desires. There is an inherent incompatibility between science and religion. We could provide a mountain of evidence that would only be a mole hill in the shadow of their faith. So I retract my initial statement, these people are unthinking fools clinging to an ancient manuscript full of immoral acts of rape, murder, and genocide when cast in the light of this modern world.

[reflect7]

Yes jgoemat, but if all these separate subsystems arent present and performing at the same instant, the human eye wont work and has no purpose. Logically, it is impossible for random processes, operating through gradual mechanisms of natural selection and genetic mutation, to create numerous separate subsystems when they provide no advantage to the whole until the very last stage of development and interrelation.

[jgoemat]

Look at the digital camera you mention. Do you think digital cameras were designed from scratch? No, it was an evolution. All of these things had to be created before the digital camera and they all have other uses. The designer of the digital camera made a relatively minuscule leap to put the parts together for a new use. 1) Glass 2) Lenses 3) Electricity 4) Batteries 5) Transistors 6) Processors 7) CCDs 8) Plastic 9) Diodes 10 Buttons 11) LCDs 12) USB 13) Wires 14) PCBs

[muranziel]

Again analogy of lifeless and unreproductive objects. One thing that all living life forms have posessed during the last billion or so years is.... A way to reproduce them selves is something what clocks, cameras, watches and alikes are missing and that's what people who make these analogies usually miss. yeah, Eyes don't have reproduction method but it doesn't need one since the host has one and it's the host who transfers the genes to make an eye forward to next generation.

[elvismilk]

I use this one all the time on Christians, ID is like Ben Franklin blinking a television together after he wound in his kite.

[tenshichanyo]

But the human eye is not a digitat camera, it is a video camera, a good one at that too.

[sincitypreacher]

HOMERUN!

[randomassbass]

well.. i guess this kind of helped me with home work.. :( i was hoping this 3 minute video would be a quick help of eye info. but its cool i guess

[thevalkerie]

why did god give us a blind spot in the eye?

[reflect7]

Study the inverted retina design and all the stunning things it provides with respect to all the other visual elements. There are tradeoffs in designing/engineering any system. By the way, since the two visual fields overlap to a large degree, the blind spot of one eye is covered by the other eye's visual field.

[randomassbass]

it's kinda like why can't we bend in any way we want I guess.. or why we don't have 6 or 4 fingers? idk

[elvismilk]

Remember God has his reasons, LOL, that is why he causes fingers to be lost in accidents everyday, hence he gets his 4 finger man the hard way.

[mmmcculloch3]

@thevalkerie The real question is: "Why did God give us life?" Each day truly is a gift.

[benalissa284632]

okay no if one part is missing it doesn't ciese to function i use the um mouse trap as an example take the hold down bar and base and catcher there is still a function you could use it as a paper clip or there were things there before that evolved out like abde you say b can't go to d to complex but what if there was c n evolv abcde but c wasn't needed so it evolved out evolution can create irreducbaly complexty it just makes redundance and they evolve away there you have it

[Ivor7777777]

I've seen the Dawkins video about the evolution of the eye. The only way a person can believe Dawkins explanation is if they totally refuse to even consider a designer.

The human brain is like an umbrella it only works when it is open. We should all be open to considering different viewpoints.

Our lives should not be based on which world views we like, but whichever world view can stand up to the closest scrutiny without falling apart.

[MillionSword]

Actually yeah we shouldn't even consider the possibility of a designer, because there is no reason too. If someone was born and never heard of god or religion and learned of the FACTUAL explanations that we have for everyhing around us then the idea of a god wouldn't even enter their head. The only reason we have this notion today is because back 1000s of years ago we didn't have these explanations and so figured that there must be a god. Surely you must see this.

[elvismilk]

Animism is a better way to describe what was probably a result of the first thinking fears of the harsh, chaotic, ever changing environment affecting our ancient ancestors.

[whoracle3]

lol. wow the creationists are running out of ideas "OMG ITS SO COMPLEX SO THAT MEANS GOD EXISTS!"

[1n354a]

My shoes are complex...so I suppose I have to agree that there is a god.

Now I could actually learn how my shoes come into being, about the factory in China, the workers and raw materials, the process of putting the shoes together....but it is MUCH easier just to believe that there is a loving god who wants me to have shoes.

Praise god.

[elvismilk]

You make EdwardCurrent proud

[benalissa284632]

um the eye has been proven to been irrecudably complex this is ignorant i can't imagine it so it's can't be irreducably watch dawkins makes the eye on youtube behe has been told

[reflect7]

I'd love to see the "empirically verified data supporting the evolution of the eye." Please post -- Thanks.

[andysterdam]

I'll refer you to 2 YT vids by Richard Dawkins:

watch?v=rUOpaFVgKPw

watch?v=sb2fjftZrkE

[Larty42]

Complete ignorance of a possible naturalistic explanation -> "The eye was designed." -> Randall Niles fails.

[JonathanMcLatchie]

Larty42 - Perhaps you would like to give me a plausible explanation for the origin of the eye? No room here? Then do drop me a private message and request my email address - I will be happy to fully investigate any conjecture you can offer.

[prer0gative]

Some things (eyes, wings etc) do seem to be so efficient and/or complex, it can be hard for us to imagine how they evolved, can't it.

There are actually some videos on here at the moment with Richard Dawkins giving explanations for the evolution of both the eye and the wing. The explanations are not only plausible, they help dispel some of the misconceptions many people have about what evolution actually means.

I hope that helps, JonathanMcLatchie.

[seabrain]

This guy is right about one thing. The eye is MUCH more impressive than a digital camera. But evolution is still more realistic than saying "Oh, there was some invisible being that just 'made it' ". The eyeball is far more complex than a digital camera, because the digital camera didn't gradually develop over MILLIONS of years like the eyeball did.

[JonathanMcLatchie]

The human eye is one example of an area where evolutionary thinking actually impedes on scientific progress. Evolutionists, hampered by evolutionary logic, tend to see the eye as somewhat poorly designed, and hence cease to look for a potential reason for the alleged flaw. Extensive research has been carried out into the potential advantages of the eye being designed the way it is, which I will be happy to discuss if anyone is interested in such matters.

[reflect7]

But an earthworm photo nub is still an earthworm phot nub and a trilobite eye is still a trilobite eye -- Just because we have simpler eye structures in nature doesn't mean that those simpler eye structures were evolutioanry ancestors to the human eye. You have to make that philosophical conjecture outside of science, right?

[somecomputergeek]

If you can't imagine transitions in the human eye, you're just not looking, but several stages of the evolution of the eye can be seen in nature.

[flashback1234]

amen!

[mistoline]

He says it himself - he's not a scientist and he just can't believe that the eye developed. Unfortunately, his understanding and imagination are limited and that's his problem. Just because he doesn't have the education to know about the pre-stages of the eye (pigmented ocelli, the eye of the nautilus, etc) or can't imagine it happening doesn't make it untrue that the eye has developed.

[fritleyfrisp]

and just because we can't explain a designer by science doesn't make it untrue, no?