Chapter 2. Biological Eye  Designs

Chapter 3. Eye
 Design Illustrations

Chapter 4. Eye 
Reproduction
A. General requirements 
1. Optical, computing and intelligence requirements
2. Design for eproduction
3. Physical development 
requirements

B. Optical design and 
integration
1. Optical design issues 
2. Programming issues relative to probability 
3. Original intelligence issues 

C. Design control 
1. Control of cell complexity 
2. The DNA plan for control of cell integration 

D. Questions and comments on evolution related to eye reproduction 

Chapter 5. Optical 
 Systems Design 

Chapter 6. The Eye Designer

Related Links

Appendix A - Slide Show & Conference Speech by Curt Deckert

Appendix B - Conference Speech by Curt Deckert

Appendix C - Comments From Our Readers

Appendix D - Panicked Evolutionists: The Stephen Meyer Controversy
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

EYE DESIGN BOOK
Chapter 4
Section B
- Prev Page            Go to Chapter Links -             Next Page - 

(Click on PICTURE IN TEXT to bring up LARGE PICTURE)

4. EYE REPRODUCTION
B. Optical Design and Integration
1. Optical Design issues     As previously noted in Sections II, both small compound insect eyes and camera-type animal eyes include diverse advanced vision design. Eye designs occur with material variations within different animal types such as the use of different pigments to see different colors, as compared to small variations of materials making up the human eyes. Each eye design seems to be designed specifically for its application. In the case of human eyes, the design seems to be constant for most people, except for very limited pupil, iris, retina, and size variations. For some people of farsighted and nearsighted conditions, corrections arerequired, while some animals may have limited sight because of similar defects. See the following Figures regarding the critical nature of eye design. 

Figure 4.6 Eye Model in focus  to see with high resolution Figure 4.7 Spot sizes for small star images with the best focus at the center

Figure 4.9 Eye Model out of focus  to illustrate the effect of a 2 mm  thickness lens error on the images  of small stars focused on the retina Figure 4.8 Spot sizes for small star images when the thickness of the lens has a 2 mm thickness error

     (Compare with Figure 4.6 and note small difference in picture and large difference in spot diagrams that make a huge difference in vision -- look at size of spot relative to that of a focused image of a small star)

     How do we account for overall stability of each part of the eye?
     The overall design complexity of insect, animal, and human eye functions and construction requires considerable data to describe them well enough to manufacture or reproduce them. In recent years, we are finding out that DNA codes have adequate data capacity to describe very detailed methodologies for reproduction, integration, repair and functioning of complex vision systems. 
     Material combinations and shapes found in typical eyes are not likely to come together by chance to form vision systems. Transparent optical cell materials, manufactured within eye cells, have to be consistently variable over the volume of a lens, thereby requiring complex programming and assembly. Subtle variations of eye materials and configurations have to be generated from genetic codes. This is based on considerations of optimized optical design. Eye reproduction is an example of the integration of a non-reducible system. 
     Commonality and order of many creative designs in many eyes indicates themes of a single designer/creator. Many scientists tend to choose common ancestry to explain commonality. Designs done according to a number of similar themes suitable for different creatures are like an optical designer leaving signatures on each eye design. Consider the alternative of a series of random beneficial accidents strung together over thousands or even millions of years to present such a variety of reproducible eye designs. 

2. Programming issues related to probability
     We are just now starting to understand what eyes are able to do. All this is related to intelligence and probability. Eyes by most mutations must be blind eyes, just as dogmatic faith in beneficial mutations can be a blind faith. 
     As we go way back in history, how did the reproduction process start? 
     The early concept planning, designing, and programming must have had a beginning, and therefore a designer. Reproduction had to be an integral part of the design. In comparing natural eyes to man-made eyes, we find that natural eyes are far more complex. This is basically because of precise light control, limited space, complete interfacing with a brain, and variable material construction requirements. These are all important but their capability to repair and reproduce is what really sets natural eyes apart from man-made eyes. Even today, total system design must take into account the means of manufacturing and repair in the life cycle of a product.
     Sizes, surfaces, shapes and materials of eyes have to be programmed within precision tolerances for all types of eyes. This is especially true of compound and camera eye designs where eyes or eye segments operate close to optical diffraction limitations (note section II). It is as if the optical designer optimized the eye's shape for every specific application. The DNA code for precise cell development is a key requirement for programmed eye development. The original eye design has to be good, because there are too many variables to make a case for design by chance.
     How could this communication be designed and programmed without outside intelligence?
     If one takes the probability of each necessary cell occurring, it approaches a near impossibility, but putting an eye together with the cells as a given or starting point also provides a near impossible probability. 
     Can anyone make a case for the low probability of evolution of the reproduction process? 
     A constant chemical medium is not the message. Particular chemicals must be intelligently programmed into the DNA code array. There is plenty of proof that intelligent people can communicate, design communication systems, and develop technologies. This analogy with an intelligent creator will prove to have realistic probabilities. 
3. Original intelligence issues

     DNA programming of cells and materials indicates that very high intelligence is necessary for the total reproduction system to function. Darwin did not have a complete theory that included detailed knowledge of eyes. And he certainly did not have a good explanation for reproduction of complex eye designs. Thus, it is probable that he knew very little about the complexity of vision and its reproduction, as we know it today. Now it is possible to grow parts of certain eyes such as compound insect eyes from some existing cells, using genetic engineering technology. This is only using the DNA plans as originally set forth in the original design.

As we research Darwin and other  early scientists who influenced current thinking, we find that the unique development of eyes was an admitted weakness of Darwin's overall theory. He had no idea of the complexity of eyes and brains. Other evolutionary theories can also be weak when they ignore initial intelligence.      Man's ability to achieve some degree of simple machine vision intelligence has been evolving during the development of computers since the mid-1950's. For example, far less complex programming for man-based intelligence systems has been used for image processing since the mid 1970's. By the late 1990's there were considerable advancements that start to duplicate many functions of human vision. Man is now using systems, such as the following, to provide vision for robots and other intelligent machines. (Pg. 353, Neuro-Vision Systems, Ed. by Madan M. Gupta, George K. Knopf, IEEE Press, 1994)

Figure 4.10 Vision Systems  for Intelligent Machines

     If we have experienced the use and creation of optics equivalent to eyes, we may not be prone to believe in an evolutionary process based on random events. Since we experience the result of a complex optical design process, it would seem that scientists would choose an alternative to evolution that takes into account the reproduction process design. Typical manufacturing processes are not a series of random events, but instead are a planned sequence of events requiring specific materials crafted to specific dimensions within definite tolerances. This is especially true in the case of automated processes such as Bio Reproduction. 
     Isn't evolutionary theory something like trying to explain the origin of an automated factory without allowing any intelligent engineers, designer's, and suppliers' involvement in its origin? What about its daily operation?
     The question of how reproductive capability evolved without intelligence is a question that could lead to a belief in a master designer with unlimited intelligence. From my years of experience in building optical systems I believe, even if there were considerable time involved, there cannot be multiple high-resolution reproducible visual systems evolving by random mutation without a designer. Somehow the intelligent design part of the reproduction process had to be part of a master design plan, for each particular type of eye. 
     Where is measurable proof of the sources of intelligence and programming in evolution of eye reproduction? 
     We find considerable evidence of original programming and intelligence that provides evidence of an intelligent designer in the area of biological vision reproduction. Evidence of intelligent design could include knowledge available at birth, learning capability, light control, focusing control, ability to point the eye at a target, and the ability to track a specific moving object.