(Click on underlined link to go to subject)
- Contents
Chapter 1. Vision
System Design
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
Chapter 4
Section C and D
- Prev
Page
Go to Chapter
Links - 
Next Page
- 
(Click on PICTURE IN TEXT to bring up LARGE PICTURE)
4. EYE REPRODUCTION
C. Design
Control
1. Control of cell
complexity
Cell DNA is pre-programmed with basic design
data to reproduce camera- type eyes having a consistent size, focal length,
vision, and interface with the brain. Control of design in spite of materials
variations within each person indicates a huge design challenge in manufacturing
and repair. Eye design difficulty is increased by the variety of inputs,
environments and purposes.
When we consider eye defects and diseases,
there are amazing repair functions and intelligence compensations that
go on in the eye and brain to give usable vision. This adds to the case
for a designer providing for increased reliability by building repair functions
into the eye.
How many man-made
vision systems have this technology?
Ecological systems also show design. In the
design of complex systems, one needs to keep building blocks as versatile
and as small as possible for maximum flexibility. In eyes, there are a
significant variety of controlled building blocks or cells to make up different
tissue types that function in plants, animals, and humans. Eye cells require
very specific variations of materials for good optical vision. For example,
gradient index material requires a precise array of small material variations
with increasing or decreasing index of refraction in transparent material.
Overall design control seems to be a necessary
part of any discussion on the reproduction of eyes. It would seem that
the illustration of progressive human creativity of optical systems provides
a strong basis for an intelligent design philosophy, as opposed to the
Blind Watchmaker approach set forth by Dawkins. Optical systems do not
fall together without intelligence, materials, design, fabrication, and
assembly.
People are prone
to believe in beneficial mutations, but how probable are they?
There could be little thought of beneficial
mutations, if there weren't bad ones, and it is highly probable that with
respect to eyes most mutations would not be beneficial. The reproduction
process also has to be elegantly designed to include an orderly progression.
Vision is a complex technology, but the reproduction of specific cells
seems to be far more difficult. Their DNA codes control consistent reproduction
of optical design using specific materials. DNA patterns determine the
genetic code information to provide for specific cell multiplication.
The reproduction process is full of irreducible
complexity. Eye formation is consistent with specific detailed genetic
DNA codes. DNA and RNA designs are so complex, it is going to take years,
using modern computers along with considerable creativity in software and
instrumentation, just to understand DNA eye code details and the process
of reproduction. At the present time only simple organisms such as bacteria
are understood, so it will take some time just to figure out the copying
methodology and cell mechanics for eyes. Just the fact that so many scientists
are spending so much time and billions of dollars to research DNA design,
communicates the difficulty of understanding the reproduction process.
Assuming we do learn to interpret the eye’s DNA code, we would also need
to know how to communicate, apply power, and control input to understand
gene regulation for reproduction. Human design, materials and power are
necessary in new designs for vision system.
What about all
the engineering, manufacturing, and quality control in our eye?
What if current
production engineers waited for natural evolution of previous products?
2.
The DNA plan for control of cell integration
|
Our eyes, like life, are special. They are
not just the existence of simple materials that have arrayed themselves
to form a vision system and then reproduce themselves.
Eyes have an overall plan for integration as specified in detail by the genetic code within cells. Specifications and plans for man-made optical systems typically include a series of drawings and specifications that provide a basis for fabrication and integration of one component with another. This is how an engineer would describe detail components and their interrelationships to the full vision system design. Chemical manufacturing is also provided in each cell to provide very specific materials for eye reproduction and repair. The DNA eye plan integrates compact mechanical and complex chemical manufacturing processing designs within each cell. One could equate genetic blueprints to a current production situation, but that is such a crude analogy that it does not fully illustrate the complexity of the reproduction process. To achieve some perspective of the size of a DNA code or pattern within a blood cell, consider the size of a blood cell. It is about 10(-5) of a meter or 10 microns in diameter. Then consider smaller parts within the nucleus of the cell, where DNA coils are on the order of 10(-7) meters in size. The building blocks or features of the DNA code are on the order of 10-(9) meter or a nanometer in size. It takes 400 of these to make up the wavelength of blue light. As a result, it is impossible for an optical microscope to see the detailed features of DNA. Now one can see how it is possible to store massive amounts of DNA information in less area than a computer hard drive or CD ROM uses to store several bits of information (a square of 2 microns x 2 microns x 1 layer thick). See the following illustration to compare the size of the building blocks. (The following 6 figures adapted from pictures in the book Power of Ten - About the Relative Size of Things in the Universe by Philip Morrison & Phylis Morrison and the office of Charles & Ray Eames, Scientific American Library, 1994. These illustrate the relative size of the cells that make up the building blocks of eyes. Also visit "Powers of Ten" web site.) Attention to very small details and communication during the cell reproduction process is truly amazing. There is the huge problem of coordination of many cell interconnections, when integrating programming for high-level image parallel processing in a complex vision system such as eyes. The number of interconnections at the cell level in complex nerve cells may approach 50,000 in cells found in the path from the eyes to the brain. There are millions of connections to eye retina cells that have to remain coordinated to the brain. Thus there is little probability of interfacing man-made eye systems in the same way as nature's eyes. Some new systems that contain thousands of interconnections between microscopic retina contacts may soon provide limited artificial vision over a limited field of view. DNA research may not include answers to fundamental origin questions. If cell origins required power and knowledge outside of physical reality, then all current origin theories could be inadequate. Speculation about historical origins cannot be tested adequately. The study of the origin of materials is complex, as evidenced by design evident in the Periodic Table of elements. This table gives all the natural elements. Some non-stable heavy elements have been temporarily manufactured during recent years. Chemical processing provides for consistency in a wide variety of materials for different eye parts. Specific material variations, complex configurations, and orderly cell arrangements are necessary for image clarity. Even small material or shape deviations can cut down the eye's resolution by a significant amount. One has to understand detailed mathematical models of eye optics to appreciate this. See Figures 4.6 through 4.9 for the effect of a minor variation. The resultant spot size increase indicates ones lack of ability to see fine detail. It is the small size spot on the retina from a very small object approaching infinity that gives us good vision. Since all images are made up of many small spots we must have good transmission of each spot. As the spot size increases there are overlap of spots and a blurred image results. In most lenses we see good center focus while the edge focus degrades significantly. The value of the flexible supporting material around our eyes that allows automatic focusing is evident by our ability to clearly focus on different color objects at a wide variety of distances with widely varying light levels. The eye must work reliably in many different environments without direct engineering, manufacturing, and quality support. The engineering design of nature's eyes is beyond that used to develop current man-made vision systems. |
-- .1mm or 100 microns field of view (10-4 meters) of skin shown for illustration of size 
blood cell - 10 microns field of view (10-5 meters) 
blood cell - 1 microns field of view (10-6 meters) 
cell nucleus - 0.1 micron field (10-7 meters) looking at coiled coils of DNA stored in the 46 chromosomes within each cell 
cell nucleus - 0.01 micron field (10-8 meters)looking at coiled coils of DNA 
cell nucleus -- .001 micron or 1 nanometer field (10-9 meters) looking at the details of DNA structure |
How would we program an eye assembly containing a large number of cells with very critical spatial and materials programming?
The integration of eye light control and information transfer with the brain is made more complex with requirements to make repairs when the eye is damaged. It would seem that intelligent control and sensing using the DNA in each cell would be required. Because of the commonality of organisms reproducing all the time, we seem to miss the overwhelming complex reproductive action going on in eyes.
By now it should be obvious from an engineering point of view that controlled reproduction of a wide variety of different eyes in animals, humans, and plants requires unique plans. Specific actions require the introduction of intelligence. Evidence of programmed intelligence in the actions of animal eyes is apparent as we compare one generation to another generation.
How many of our much less complex engineered optical systems fall together or are reproducible without significant human help?
Therefore, to originate a specific DNA code, one can come to the conclusion that there must be an original designer.
D.
Questions and Comments on Evolution Related to Eye
Reproduction
Good science should clarify the problems of evolution as we learn more
about eye reproduction. Some of our present science is due to prior commitments.
It appears that deliberate tunnel vision is designed into much of today's
traditional science.
When people assume natural selection as an
evolutionary explanation, they forget that other, larger assumptions having
to do with the earth's environment, material, complexity, and the second
law of thermodynamics. Beyond this one must consider the origin of the
universe. It requires intelligent power to reverse the flow of entropy.
Where did initial
power come from?
What about the
design of the physical elements as indicated by the periodic table?
Evolutionary speculations depend on the flow
of the state of science at that particular time and new theories that scientists
think can be tested. I certainly wouldn't trust chance and evolutionary
speculations. When taking an engineering approach to the original evolution
of eyes we find a great need for intelligence. Eye reproduction and the
control of design requires us to ask more difficult questions about origins.
Why are many scientists
so dogmatic in claiming that micro-evolution proves macro-evolution and
that an intelligent designer is not necessary?
Why do these scientists
refuse to investigate a designer?
What if today's
DNA knowledge were in the hands of scientists of the 1800s?
Would they have
come to the same evolutionary conclusions?
Probably not, but there could have been a
more probable scientific conclusion that included a designer. As scientists
gain more experience in vision system design, it will be easier to appreciate
the amazing reproduction of eyes.
Where did the
concept of image processing for vision come from?
How would one type of creature communicate
with another to learn how eyes function?
Learning to communicate is expected to be
difficult in the most simplistic animals. Even subtle changes in eyes are
not likely to improve vision unless intelligence is included in the basic
design of every building block. Scientists free to do so should investigate
optical design of eyes. Intelligent design is needed to explain the integration
of identical optical designs from generation to generation, but we really
need a higher power to explain eye reproduction.
Scientists not believing in a master eye designer
leave an awful lot to chance mutations and therefore require a huge amount
of faith. Contrast the millions of people who design, develop, manufacture,
and invent new products to those products developed by random chance. The
probabilities of random chance eye design are so low that the composite
probability illustrates the impossibility of natural eye occurrences.
Astronomers, physicist, and chemists are amazed
at the fine-tuning of our solar system, Galaxies, and universe. There are
at least 91 requirements for our world to provide for life as we know it
(Dr. Hugh Ross). Natural selection may not work on non-living, non-producing
chemical formations. Often what looks natural to us is actually supernatural.
We will look at everything differently if we believe that the world was
created and is controlled supernaturally.
Yet, when we consider the magnitude of intelligence
required for developing reproducible eyes; many people still will not admit,
for emotional or other reasons, that there must be a higher intelligence
that provides intelligence for life.
The number of materials involved in eyes and
the way cells react and grow together also leave little probability for
any answer except for intelligent design. It seems that Darwin saw some
of this, but he declined to explain much about origins of eyes. Developments
related to eye optics details and the knowledge of image processing was
not even existent back when the theory of evolution was first accepted.
Someone had to provide intelligence for each original cell building block.
One has to ask
where DNA reproduction code design came from?
Because of the exacting nature of imaging on a retina
or other such
light sensors it is far easier to believe in an intelligent designer than
intelligence evolving randomly. This is especially true about what happens
within a cell without any outside influence, even though all types of living
organisms have similar systems. When one considers the complexity of cell
development as sub-systems in plants, animals, and humans, the evidence
of evolutionary development is questioned. Each individual eye cell must
be complete to function. This may be why over 90 percent of people say
they believe in God or another higher power. Simply, many evolutionary
experts have been educated without due consideration of intelligent design
of eyes.
