Used in reverse
Could these light funnels be used in reverse for (video) displays? If you could make overlapping red, green, and blue funnels, then LCD or Plasma screens might have more contrast.
Living optical fibres found in the eye
It is an old question: how does light make its way through all the retinal layers to finally strike the light sensitive cells at the back of the eye? A group of researchers at the Paul-Flechsig-Institute of Brain Research, Universität Leipzig in Germany, thinks it has the answer. They have demonstrated that light is collected …
-
Tuesday 1st May 2007 13:43 GMT Clive Harris
Poor old Darwin must be turning in his grave
You've just torpedoed one of the best arguments against Intelligent Design!
It goes something like this: The human eye is built back-to front, with blood vessels and nerves covering the front surface, obstructing the light from getting the the sensitive area. Since only an idiot would design it like this, therefore there is no Intelligent Designer. QED
Now it seems what we really have is a brilliant arrangement where the light, the power supply (blood vessels) and the connectivity (nerves) all get to the front surface of the photo-receptor - where they're needed - without getting in each others' way. That takes some genius! I don't think I could come up with a better design myself (and some of my designs are pretty intelligent). I'd like to see how they explain that one away.
-
-
Tuesday 1st May 2007 14:04 GMT Anonymous Coward
Explaining away Clive's comment...
Dead easy Clive...
Over a few million years, all of the vertebrates that didn't have anything like this arrangement (the ones that couldn't see properly) got killed off much more quickly, and thereby had their genes removed from the gene pool.
Basic evolution really... like Creationists who keep knocking away uselessly at fact-based scientific theories... they make such prats of themselves, and lose so much credibility, that even their good ideas are regarded with suspicion as complete bunkum, thus ensuring the inevitable extinction of Creationists as a whole...
-
Tuesday 1st May 2007 14:15 GMT elder norm
Lets keep religion out of this
Clive,
Lets keep religion out of this. Engineers design and build VCRs that regular people cannot program the time on. Does this mean that Gods creation is dumber than something simple that man creates??
See, its easy to use false logic or bad reasoning.
"LIfe is like Apple. It just works. " :-)
en
-
-
-
Tuesday 1st May 2007 19:24 GMT Anonymous Coward
Yet another block knocked away
And as we all know "Nature is so clever" as Reichenbach said.
There is nothing so funny as a believer in the Creation myth of the Atheist, who hasn't actually thought it out, trying to defend his belief in 'blind' evolution. Yet again _real_ science demonstrates that Evolution is more hole than substance.
Don't worry, in a little while one of your high priests will explain how it actually demonstrates Evolution to be true, just like the tissue found in dino bones.
Martin
-
Wednesday 2nd May 2007 02:00 GMT Tom
I can see clearly now....
.... the rain is gone,
I can see all obstacles in my way,
Gone are the dark clouds that had me blind.
It's gonna be a bright (bright), bright (bright) sunshiny day.
It's gonna be a bright (bright), bright (bright) sunshiny day.
---
Vision is a wonderful thing. Even as we (I) age and the ability to focus diminishes. Oh, well.
-
Sunday 6th May 2007 16:19 GMT R M Hill
"evolution" is not an "explanation"
Many of those who have responded to Clive's comments have displayed an amazing degree of blind faith in naturalistic evolution (or Darwinism for short). The design inference that this newly upgraded level of specified complexity discovered in vertebrate eyes bolsters cannot be so easily dismissed with words like " a little thing called evolution" or appeals to "Natural Selection" devoid of evidence. To claim that vertebrates who did not have this feature died out over millions of years does nothing to prove that vertabrates without these cells ever existed. This is merely an assumption with no supporting evidence.
Such, it would seem, is the course of those who mock a valid design inference as "religious". They deplore Intelligent Design, claiming that it is a faith commitment, and all the while, they rest their case on the undemonsrated creative power of natural selection acting on random varriation like gene mutations. Now that is blind faith and as much a dogma as any religious doctrine.
This topic is closed for new posts.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
