Evolution and the alternative

Evolution and the alternative

Possibly a year ago, maybe more, I watched a discussion/argument on this site, between a creationist and a couple of atheists. Atheists, by default, are evolutionists. In the atheist philosophy, every natural creature is an accident, a product of mindless natural selection, somehow breaking the second law of thermodynamics and creating order from chaos, simply by dint of sunlight and oodles of time. Much like heating up a large nugget  of copper ore with sunlight and slowly watching a beautiful, intricately detailed and polished vase appear - as time and chance make their effects felt, except that organic evolution is several hundred million times more complex.

The discussion was about design and the atheists had raised the tired argument about the human eye being an example of poor design, because the retina is in the “wrong” place.  Already at that time, there was a paper discussing how brilliantly the eye adapted to low-light or colour, due to the placement of the rods and cones – but the studies were still too fresh to be widely known.

I was tempted to quote that paper and add my two cents, about how every claim from people professing to have superior ideas to creation, eventually have to swallow their own words. But I refrained – and now it seems that even the eye argument is being reluctantly allowed to go down the tubes, along with Haeckel’s faked embryos, the fortuitously appearing fragments of skull of Piltdown man, Darwin’s finches, fruit-fly mutations and the other embarrassments that evolution is tempted to use to prop up its ailing theory.

I recently came across an article about a paper to be presented at the American Physical Society on the fifth of March, this year. It includes the following interesting (a creationist might quip “inevitable”) statements. Note how difficult it is for the evolutionists to avoid reaffirming their religious dogma about it being evolution anyway:

Get Deals on non ferrous metals : Aluminium, Copper, Zinc, Brass, Aluminium Sheets, Extrusion,Zinc ingots Suppliers, Brass Ingots ,Wires, Rods, Ingots, Copper Wires, Rods , Aluminium Suppliers, Copper Suppliers , Zinc manufacturers, Brass suppliers wholesalers, Non-Ferrrous Metal suppliers wholesalers, Aluminium Dealer

From a practical standpoint, the wiring of the human eye - a product of our evolutionary baggage - doesn't make a lot of sense. In vertebrates, photoreceptors are located behind the neurons in the back of the eye - resulting in light scattering by the nervous fibers and blurring of our vision. Recently, researchers at the Technion - Israel Institute of Technology have confirmed the biological purpose for this seemingly counterintuitive setup.

"The retina is not just the simple detector and neural image processor, as believed until today," said Erez Ribak, a professor at the Technion - Israel Institute of Technology. "Its optical structure is optimized for our vision purposes." Ribak and his co-authors will describe their work during the 2015 American Physical Society March Meeting, on Thursday, March 5 in San Antonio, Texas.

Ribak's interest in the optical structure of the retina stems from his previous work applying astrophysics and astronomy techniques to improve the ability of scientists and ophthalmologists to view the retina at high detail.

Previous experiments with mice had suggested that Müller glia cells, a type of metabolic cell that crosses the retina, play an essential role in guiding and focusing light scattered throughout the retina. To test this, Ribak and his colleagues ran computer simulations and in-vitro experiments in a mouse model to determine whether colors would be concentrated in these metabolic cells. They then used confocal microscopy to produce three-dimensional views of the retinal tissue, and found that the cells were indeed concentrating light into the photoreceptors.

"For the first time, we've explained why the retina is built backwards, with the neurons in front of the photoreceptors, rather than behind them," Ribak said.

Wait for the evolutionists to claim a victory by saying “See!. This is how science works!”. Fine. Does that mean that you now admit that the eye could be optimally designed?

Hmmm. I didn’t think you would.

As for the next fallacy that evolutionists are going to have to finally divest of the dregs, is their still-firm insistence on claiming that the human body has some four or five vestigial organs. The appendix, the vestigial nictating membrane in the inner corner of the eye, the coccyx, male nipples, erector pili (goosebump muscles), oh, and wisdom teeth. That’s six (in fact, there are even more). They should feel relieved – there were once TWO HUNDRED organs and structures in the human body classified as vestigial. Imagine a determined evolutionist giving up his vestigial bits to prove his confidence!

Almost daily, new functionality is found for “vestigial” organs. Bioscientists have known for a long time that the appendix reboots the gut with bacteria if the intestine is flushed. They know that we can’t sit or stand properly without a coccyx, the  – and so on. In fact, the experts are a lot less certain than their faithful supporters who are happy to preach evolution without making the effort to understand the science they pretend that “every scientist agrees with”. An interested reader can easily find out the critical or important functions for every one of the “vestigial” organs – but only if s/he is willing to make this slight effort.

Even the bastion of anti-theistic evolutionism, National Geographic, has now circumspectlyproclaimed that “vestigial organs are not so useless after all!”. Wow! Thanks NG! So you’re saying they’re useless, just not so useless! Let’s see in another year’s time. That’s how fast things are changing. I confess to feeling slightly smug – I know it’s rude, so I must apologise.

Source : www.news24.com/MyNews24/Evolution-and-the-alternative-20150312