The human eye has a blind spot since it develops from the inside out (exactly what would be expected if it formed from a light sensitive patch that ultimately curled in on itself).
Since we have two eyes, we don't have a blind spot in our vision. Each eye does separately, but we don't. Because we have two eyes with overlapping fields of vision. Accordingly, there is no reason to think the blind spot in each separate eye is a "mistake" or an example of poor design.
The proto-human eye would then have functioned like a pin-hole camera until a lens evolved from a thinning skin patch. The nerves carrying the signal have to "punch through" the back of the eye leading to a spot that has no receptors.
All speculation of course, But when you say the nerves carrying the signal had to punch through the back of the eye (leading to a spot that has no receptors), you are implicitly asserting that the early eye originally had no nerves carrying a signal. But that's a problem for without an optic nerve to carry a signal to the brain the early eye would have been useless. An eye, regardless or how primitive or advanced, is of no benefit without an optic nerve to carry a signal to the brain. So how did they early eye develop before there was a way to carry a signal to the brain?
The octopus eye has no such problem. It's nerves run from the back of the receptors (exactly as if it's lens had started out as an underwater membrane covering a light sensative patch before it evolved to curl into a focusing shape.
More speculation. Did the light senstive patch just appear along with an underwater membrance covering it and an optic nerve attached to carry a signal to a brain? Now we have 3 things that have to show up simultaneously. IOW we have irreducible complexity.
One would expect a designer to use the best design, especially since the octopus design is older than the human one.
So far the only poor design you've demonstrated is the failure to cover the holes in your argument.
How can you determine which design is best - the octopus or the human? Both work perfectly well for the creature in question.
BTW these questions remain unaddressed - (they all involve your philosophical/theological assumptions*):
Why do you think a designer would only produce "near perfect" creations?
Why do you think a designer would necessarily be "near perfect" himself, herself, itself?
How do you determine "near perfect" designs anyway - scientifically, of course?
*Being an atheist, you may not even realize you have theological beliefs, but you clearly do. |
