🚀 go-pugleaf

I expect the difference has more to do with the difference in
motion-correlated G-forces experienced.

On land, the eyes are 'hammered' with every step one takes [shock
wave absorption is a necessity].

Anyway, I find evolutionary dynamics to have their own
'intelligence' in that they 'read' the environment, and converge
upon functionality that works in that environment.

It's why one has to be careful when attempting to cross-correlate
the products of evolutionary 'engineering' with respect to
different environments.

Unless there's non-modal stuff in there, both are 'intelligent',
but only with respect to the environments in which their
progenitors have evolved.

The rest of the "creationism/evolution" 'debate' is just folks
being prejudiced with respect to that which, through experience,
they've become familiar.

k. p. collins

Kent Paul Dolan wrote in message ...
|jmdrake_98@yahoo.com (jmdrake) wrote:
|
|> Actually Bernd there is an "obvious reason" to do this.  The
extra layers
|> of non-sensitive cells that the light must pass through before
reaching
|> the sensitive cells acts like a "filter" to protect from UV
radiation.
|> That's such a concern that human "engineers" have devised UV
blocking
|> sunglasses to further block potentially damaging rays.  The
eyes of the
|> squid work fine under water where the water itself serves to
filter out
|> extra rays.  You're going off of the misconception that squid
eyes
|> are somehow "better".  They might be "better" for their
enviornment
|> but they'd be a disaster on land.  Nice try though.
|
|I just love this habit of Scientific Creationists of making up
the
|science. Light, to reach the back of the eye, has to pass through
the
|rest of the eye, millions of times as thick.  Given a choice of a
one
|cell layer deep UV filter, or a synovial(sp?) fluid chosen for
its
|(very modest, with that much pathlength in which to work) UV
filtering
|capabilities, which do you suppose an Intelligent (as opposed to
"made
|up out of whole cloth") Designer would have chosen?
|
|The squid lucked out and evolved it done right, but the luck of
blind
|evolution was less on the side of the mammals.  End of story.
Were
|there a Designer, the panda would have a real thumb, as has been
|famously noted, and which also should be in and of itself
evidence
|enough to be more than sufficient to quash such idiocy as
"Intelligent
|Design".
|
|xanthian.
|
|Note also that were there a Designer, the chambered nautilus
would
|have an eye equally capable with the squids', being fairly
closely
|related and having similar needs for a moderately similar
lifestyle.
|
|Instead, it has a "pinhole camera"-style eye.  If there were a
|Designer, apparently the "Intelligent" aspect faded in and out
pretty
|often, a total contradiction to claims of omniscience and
|omnitemporalness.