Chapter 2. Biological Eye  Designs

Chapter 3. Eye
 Design Illustrations

Chapter 4. Eye 
Reproduction

Chapter 5. Optical 
 Systems Design 

Chapter 6. The Eye Designer

A. Eye design 
evidence
1. Specific designs for 
 specific needs
a. Camera
b. Pinhole
c. Concave mirror
d. Apposition
e. Neural superposition
f. Refraction superposition
g. Reflection superposition
h. Parabolic superposition
2. Additional design 
discussion
3. Intelligence in 
development of building 
blocks of life
4. Comparison with man's 
vision system design
5. Lack of intelligent 
 design in evolutionary 
 theory

B. Eye integration 
design evidence
1. Eye integration with 
brain
2. Eye integration with 
other parts of body
3. Integrated vision 
growth
4. Embedded programming 
of automatic vision functions
5. Using vision integration 
technology to control 
animals as robots

C. Design evidence
1. New discoveries 
relative to vision system 
design
2. Optical design themes
3. Belief in a world system 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 6
Section A
-  Prev Page           Go to Chapter Links -             Next Page - 

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

6. THE EYE DESIGNER
A. Eye design evidence
     Vision is key to many of our body functions and activities that provide a means of establishing a sense of community. Unfortunately, our extremely complex eyes are taken for granted by many people. The complexity and huge variety of eyes in insects and animals is difficult to understand without the assumption of an eye designer. Obviously, it has taken more than natural selection of random events to produce and optimize so many different eye designs. In technology work, increasing complexity often requires more intelligence, planning, and power.
     The frequency of similar but diverse eye designs of different sizes, shapes, and materials establishes persuasive evidence for a single designer, as compared to random events (designs) generating similar creatures. Random designs are more likely to be found in the form of non-living rock formations of Natural Parks, such as the Carlsbad Caverns, Zion, or Grand Canyon, rather than in discrete, functional, living, reproducible vision systems.

1. Specific designs for specific needs     There are specific eye designs for the unique cells of each creature. Insect eyes, relative to body size, are proportionally large, as compared to most animals. Some insect eyes are able to provide more sensitivity for better vision at low light levels by combining sensors at the cost of reducing the overall resolution. Diffraction limits of optical design impact the overall design for each of the different designs. For specific examples, we summarize and comment on the original eye design types from Chapter 2 relative to the extent of evidence for intelligent optical design. 

a. Camera      Camera-type eyes form an image from one set of lenses on a single optic axis. These eyes are found in animals of all complexities and sizes. They occur in humans and large vertebrate animals, but can also occur in small animals, aquatic creatures, spiders and  many others. In general, slightly different designs are required for aquatic creatures and creatures of different sizes. The typical optical design for a camera-type eye forms an inverted image on the retina. The human retina contains up to 125 million sensors of one type to make up an advanced imaging system that is far more complex than present optical technology. (Figure 6-1a from pg. 135, Iridology, Vol. 2, 1982, published by Bernard Jensen Enterprises, Escondido, CA 92027)  (Fig 6.1b adapted from 1999 Eye Poster from Anatomical Chart Co. Skokie, IL)

Figure 6-1a Camera lens eye  diagram of Human Eye Fig 6-1b Human Camera Eye

Evolutionists use small change arguments to justify the complexity needed for eye or vision system development. They claim that each generation would only need to contribute a positive increase in the development of eyes of 0.005 percent per generation The following Figure illustrators the evolutionary approach to eye development where Nilsson and Pelger claimed that Eyes may evolve in 400,000 generations. (Reference: Figure 1.6, p. 9, Animal Eyes, Michael F. Land, Dan-Eric Nilsson, Oxford Animal Biology series, Oxford University Press, 2002- Please see their book for more details )

Figure 6-1c Sequence Of Camera Eye Development According To Theory Of Evolution. (For critique click on David Berlinski)

b. Pinhole      The pinhole eye design occurs in the eyes of the nautilus, a primitive form of flatworm, and in other simple animal forms. This is a less complex optical design approach to an eye system that does not require a camera lens. Light is not focused, as in the camera  type eye. The pinhole eye typically contains a retina with fewer sensors than the camera type eye. This type of eye uses natural optical diffraction to form an image from a pinhole. It is one of the less complex optical designs which may be the most likely to occur with a minimum of intelligent design. This assumes the existence of genetic code for the components of all the necessary cells in some accessible order with mechanisms to control the construction order and position of each cell. (p.300, Fig. 2, Vision Optics & Evolution by Dan E. Nilsson, Biosciences, Vol. 39, No. 5, May 1989) c. Concave mirror      The "concave mirror" design is found in a number of small eyes. Very small concave mirror eye optics enable light to form inverted images on small retinas. These eyes are more complex than pinhole eyes, in that they use an internal concave mirror to form an image.

Fig 6-2 Pinhole Eye Diagram Figure 6-3 Concave Mirror  Eye Diagram (Like Fig. 2-7)

     Curved mirrors are often used to form images on sensors. In general, they can have higher image resolution in a small space than pinhole eyes. Typically, an image is focused on a transparent retina, which is made up of an array of specially designed transparent eye sensors. This type of eye is similar to a reflective telescope design using a concave mirror instead of a camera lens. (p.299, Fig. 2, Vision Optics & Evolution by Dan E. Nilsson, Biosciences, Vol. 39, No. 5, May 1989)

d. Apposition
     Note the following detail design of a facet for this small eye. All this happens in a diameter on the order of a human hair. Yet the apposition compound eye design occurs in many insects such as ants, wasps, dragonflies, honeybees, and cockroaches. It is one of the more common small eye designs. Each of many small facets, or lenses making up the eye, is a separate light sensor.

Some crabs also use a similar design along with some other distributed eye sensors that may not provide specific images. The brain provides apposition eye images by combining the output of the sensors of each small lens facet.Each lens facet contains its own sensor to detect light from specific angular segments of a scene. Each very small eye sensor has a small lens and light pipe to gather a small part of the total image. Signals from each facet of the image are then relayed to the brain. For the brain this is an extremely complex approach to obtain images. One advantage of this type of compound eye is the ability to detect movement within a partial scene, while using less brain processing time than that required to process the full image. An advantage over camera and pinhole eyes is that they can cover very wide fields with less total volume used for the eye optics. (P. 359, Physiology of Photoreceptor Organs, 1972, Ed. by M. G. F. Fuorki, Pub. by Sprinzer- Verlag)  e. Neural superposition      The neural or brain superposition eye also has a number of small lenses or facets arranged in a compact pattern. Several lenses collect light from each small part of the total field of view. Using the neural superposition approach, the brain puts the small images together from multiple sensors  within multiple small eye facets all receiving light from a single point in the field. Here each facet may contain seven very small separate light guides and sensors. Each of these sensors has its own optical axis to pick up part of a scene, but the signals for a given point come from a number of adjacent facets. Each part of a visual field of view requires sensors from multiple facets to gather detailed scene information. Compared to previously described eyes, image processing would need to be quite different for this type of eye. The image processing design in the brain has to be very compact, considering the small brains of creatures that use eyes with this type of optical design. (p.303, Fig. 3b, Vision Optics & Evolution by Dan E. Nilsson, Biosciences, Vol. 39, No. 5, May 1989)

Figure 6-4 Apposition Eye  Facet (Ommatidia) Detail  Illustrating the Small  Variations of the Index of  Refraction within the Key  Components of the Fly Eye (Like Fig. 2-9) Figure 6-5 Neural  Superposition Eye Diagram (Like Fig. 2-11)

f. Refraction superposition
     These eyes occur in moths, some flies, many beetles, and some shrimp. This may be a more difficult eye to reproduce, but it does give considerable design flexibility for many small insects. An array of clear refractive or transmitting lenses works to produce an image on a small retina. Since each facet is the equivalent of a small telescope, it contains the equivalent of two lenses, to make the image upright. This optical design is similar to some gradient index lens arrays.

Gradient index lenses can greatly reduce the overall size of an optical system where an upright image is required. Like very small lenses, gradient index material allows imaging by light being bent by radial variations of the index of refraction. Gradient index material occurs in many natural eyes. Repeatable radial cell variations of each facet are required to make these imaging systems work. There is very little probability of this material arrangement occurring (in even one facet) of an insect eye without intelligent design control. (p.303, Fig. 3c, Vision Optics & Evolution by Dan E. Nilsson, Biosciences, Vol. 39, No. 5, May 1989)

Figure 6-6 Refraction  Superposition Eye Design (Like Fig. 2-13)

g. Reflection superposition
     In a reflection superposition eye optical design, a number of reflective, instead of purely refractive lens elements, work together to form an image on a series of image receptors acting like a small retina. Here, principal optical elements are reflectors rather 

than clear refractive elements like eyeglasses. A small number of the total reflective surfaces are used to form small increments of an image. Light is reflected off the sides of small internal facets to focus light as an image on a small group of sensors. Typical creatures with this optical design include some shrimp and crayfish. The optical design is quite similar to other superposition designs. (p.303, Fig. 3d, Vision Optics & Evolution by Dan E. Nilsson, Biosciences, Vol. 39, No. 5, May 1989)

Figure 6-7 Reflection Super-  position Eye Optical Design (Like Fig. 2-16)

h. Parabolic superposition

In the parabolic superposition compound-eye design, the parabolic surfaces of the inside of each facet reflect light and focus it onto a sensor array. Many parabolic reflective surfaces work together like arrays of lenses to produce an image on a group of receptors like part of a small retina. This form of design uses both refractive lenses and reflective parabolic surfaces. Each facet functions something like a Galilean telescope. (p.303, Fig. 3e, Vision Optics & Evolution by Dan E. Nilsson, Biosciences, Vol. 39, No. 5, May 1989)

Figure 6-8 Parabolic Super-  position Compound-Eye  Design (Like Fig. 2-18)

2. Additional Design discussion
     Current image processing for robotic application still is difficult without consistent lighting, but living creature image processing has been in use for a long time. If one were to assume that eyes evolve from a simple design to a more complex design, we should have many intermediate forms that would have poor or no vision. Evidence of "dead end" evolution, would be minimal because creatures without good eyes would not survive. The evolution theory has to take into account the abrupt end of the Ice Age (about 12,500 years ago). At that time there was a 20 degrees Fahrenheit temperature increase.

Here one can imagine very gradual micro changes within a specific design and type of creature, but not changes in fundamental optical design. One can look at a number of different eyes such as the following group of eyes and wonder how they are related and how their designs have survived so long and how they came into existence at all. (Pg. 152, Iridology, Vol. 2, 1982, published by Bernard Jensen Enterprises, Escondido, CA 92027)       Note how the shape of the eye changes. This may be the easy part. The difficult part being the retina and brain connection with the associated integrated image processing.As opposed to Eyes created by a designer, the path of evolutionary development shown in Figure 6-9a. (Reference: Figure 1.8, p. 12, Animal Eyes, Michael F. Land, Dan-Eric Nilsson, Oxford Animal Biology series, Oxford University Press, 2002- Please see their book for more details )      Advocates of intelligent design many look at some of this as design themes from a very intelligent designer While intelligent design advocates believe in the rapid creation with all animals created about the same time, the sequence of evolutionary development is shown by Figure 6-9b. (Reference: Figure 1.10, p. 14, Animal Eyes, Michael F. Land, Dan-Eric Nilsson, Oxford Animal Biology series, Oxford University Press, 2002- Please see their book for more details )

Figure 6-9 Diverse group of  Eyes (Like Fig. 6-14) Figure 6-9a Evolutionary Eye Developments Figure 6-9b Evolutionary Eye Sequence

3. Intelligence in development of building blocks of life
     Intelligence, beyond present world class knowledge, is evident in virus, bacterium, and cell design and construction (see Darwin’s Black Box by Behe). There are increasing numbers of scientists agreeing that Darwin did not have an answer for the source of original eye design. He certainly didn't know about cell and vision system complexity. Here one does not have to look far to find many current scientists who accept the necessity of intelligent design.
     All vision operating systems in nature must be integrated with a brain for vision to occur. This means that cells cannot function unless they are a complete system. Comprehensive DNA programming design is evident in brain cells that process information from the eyes in order to visualize and recognize shapes in three dimensions. Image processing is done in both two dimensions and three dimensions where multiple clues, such as shape, color, texture, and dynamics of movement, all play roles in the recognition process. 
     The human vision system is probably the most versatile general-purpose image recognition system ever built. Other designs can surpass human eye design in limited ways, but different creatures require different functions. From what we now know about optical systems, it appears that the intelligent design of the eye of each creature has been optimized for its required field of view. Since the focus point cannot be that far off at any point in the field of view and still give a useful image, the design has to be forgiving to accommodate minor cell differences and to provide adaptation for environmental changes.
     It is very unlikely that intelligent programming evolved within the small brain of an insect or any other creature. Just providing the building blocks for the storage of visual data covering one lifetime within a small volume is a task beyond human comprehension. Based on size and life span, it is expected that small animals and insects do not have as much memory and brain processing power as larger animals. This may be because their life is very short compared to larger animals. Early creatures such as marine invertebrates do not appear to have the intelligence to genetically create or improve their own vision systems communication, computation and recognition capabilities. Here we look at early Trilobite eyes. (Adapted from www.aloha.net/~sngon /order soft Trilobite eye/Ltlin)

Here it certainly looks like intelligence has been involved in the design of such eyes, but there is also a technical story beyond the picture. These eyes contain lenses that consist of two elements. The upper lens is oriented calcite (refractive index n= 1.66) and the lower is chitin (refractive index n= 1.53). The shape of the common boundary is an aspheric surface (fourth-order).

Figure 6-10 Trilobite Eyes

     Professor Levi-Setti, an authority on trilobites, states that a calcite lens immersed in water (as would be the case for trilobites) would not function as required (R. Levi-Setti, Trilobites: A Photographic Atlas, University of Chicago Press). The lower chitin lens is shaped to correct rays emerging from the calcite lens to focus all rays on a common point. An early reference to a similarly shaped boundary was deduced by Descartes (R. Descartes, La geometrie, oeuvres de Descartes, Vol, 6, ed. C. Adam and P. Tannery, Libraire Philosophique, Paris) and Huygens. (C. Huygens, Treastis on Light, 1690. Translated by S.P. Thompson, University of Chicago Press, 1912). At that time Lev-Setti thought there was only one choice of material indices to focus an image, assuming the upper lens being made of calcite (n=1.66). He concluded: Trilobites eye design had solved a very elegant physical problem and reflected Fermat's principle, Abbe's sine law, Snell's laws of refraction and the optics of birefringent crystals. This is another indication of intelligence to determine the overall design of a living vision system.
     Click the following link for a good example of why scientists use the word design when discussing the profound complexity of eyes, even in an organism like the trilobite, extinct for more than 200,000 years. The advantage of good eye design in "The Trilobite Eye" by S. M. Gon III

4. Comparison with mankinds vision system design     We may match many of the optical capabilities of some of Nature's eyes, using today's technology, and yet we can't approach the small size of complete vision systems. As we compare optics in nature with the development of man's present optical system design capabilities, we are amazed at what exists around us. For example, special-purpose eyes for a select animal such as the pit viper’s visual infrared systems are under present study by the U.S. Air Force and others to help learn how to design better IR sensors. Similar man-made IR systems require complex detector cooling and image processing to match the vipers’ routine optical performance as it locates its next meal.
     Even when we compare computer chips and cameras, which have been reduced in size, to a simple sea slug, it still outperforms a typical portable computer vision system with respect to overall size and efficiency of vision processing. This comes partially from different methodologies of processing. Computer scientists are now considering some of these methodologies for making improvements in future vision systems. Although scientists claim biological systems came from natural selection, they have difficulty duplicating them with the help of modern science. On the other hand, modern science is helping us understand vision systems of simple-creatures”. These eyes contain technology beyond today’s typical machine vision systems. There is more use of thresholds, relative motion sensing, and adaptation in biological systems than in typical machine vision systems.
     Only recently have man-made camera sensors been able to remotely compare to natural eye sensor versatility. For example, the new smart CCD chips, where some electronic processing is integrated in the small CCD chip used as the image sensor in a TV camera.

These can provide some pre-processing and external control of light that approaches that of the eye's retina and iris. One can even combine one or more small computers with the smart-chip CCD cameras to make them more useful. New CCD chips, coupled with very small lens arrays, has enabled man to develop smaller vision systems with higher sensitivity. Consider the digital camera on a chip as shown on Figure 6-11. The basic chip is silicon or sand packaged in a suitable mounting for use in a camera system. (From Photobit product description for B-159, 592x384 pixels, 7.9 microns/pixel)      Could this camera chip evolve without any intelligence?      Programming for eye control and parallel image processing in the brain is slower but more complex than the serial programming of man-made vision system. This is because a large number of tracks of information are programmed separately and then have to be programmed to come together to visualize a finished image.

Figure 6-11 Digital  Camera on a Chip  Figure 6-12 Electronic  camera boards using small  image sensor chips  (approximately actual size)

      Complexity of cell packaging and material configuration is seen in the eye design of small flies and other insects. It gets even more advanced in larger creatures. An example of electronic packaging of cameras made up of various image sensor chips and associated electronics is shown by Figure 6-12. (From Edmund Scientific Industrial Optics Catalog - 2000)
     Formation of each very small facet of compound eyes requires parallel chemical and electronic processing. This must be integrated within each of a wide variety of cells or building blocks to provide specific combinations of materials for optical, sensing, and computing systems. Even the simple white fly with its complex optical systems has a far smaller fully integrated vision system and control computer than man has been able to create. This is because of the small efficient complex communication linkage with the brain and other parts of the body. Some of mans' smaller computer chips are considered as smart dust, but consider the system design and manufacturing intelligence going into these small microchips. 
     The attention to detail is evident in the micro pattern on the moth’s eye for the reduction of reflection to aid in its survival. Man is just now able to approach such design and intricate manufacturing to achieve similar anti-reflective coatings on simple IR lenses. It has taken man over 6000 years to gain the knowledge to even ask important questions about eye design and intelligence origins.

Figure 6-13 illustrates on one hand how far we have come, but also how far we have to go to design a reproducing eye. The following examples illustrate some current effort at reproducing eyes. These examples are limited to growing a human cornea (U. S.) from existing cells and a larger part of a frog eye from existing live embryonic stem cells (Work done at the University of Tokyo -- Reported by O. C. Register Jan.4, 2000)       We are still a long way from building functioning reproductive eye systems. For example, we are able to synthesize only some parts of the vision system representing limited eye-brain functions, or provide very limited artificial vision to some people.

Figure 6-13 Part of a Frog  brain (R) and eye (L)  grown from existing  live embryonic stem cells --  each segment is about  2 millimeters in diameter

     Man's control, optical interfacing, and pattern recognition, with memory functions, have yet to be fully integrated into any creature or device capable of optical system replication or repair.

5. Lack of intelligent design in evolutionary theory     Despite the extreme claims of evolutionary origin theory, there is a lack of solid evidence on intermediate formations of eyes. If animal or insect eye types changed, as evolutionary theory specifies, it is highly probable that insects or animals with transitional eye forms would have died because of the lack of ability to see well enough to survive. Also, if these intermediate forms all died, none would have survived to change to new forms. For example, if evolutionary theory is true, then we should find millions of different limited transitional eye designs in fossils and in current creatures. Without this evidence, the probability of major evolutionary changes between major eye designs approaches zero.
     It is more probable that slight differences in eyes will regress to previous states, because of adaptable design freedom and variations in the original gene pool of the original eye design. Realistically, individual cells may have variations or blemishes that could accumulate to produce differences in eyes that may not be positive improvements. This limited flexibility and/or adaptability of eye designs to specific environments within types of animals also includes cell variations and adaptability. 
     What is the evidence for creative mutations?
     The size and functions of insects, compared to larger animals, require different optics and image processing to make each effective. There is little chance of a series of helpful optical design changes in eyes occurring from random non-intelligent inputs. For example, some eye types, such as those with a camera type optical design, are not scalable as far as one might think, because of optical diffraction limitations. Good optical performance just doesn't just happen, there has to be considerable optimization. Physical limitations on eyes can severely limit some evolutionary theories on eyes.
     Apart from that, how does one design evolve over another for a new creature? 
     In some cases one could suggest the use of more than one different eye design for one type of creature. Adaptability and certain recombinations of genes could actually be design features.

Send E-Mail to Curt Deckert - curt@cdeckert.com
Click to Visit Curt Deckert's Site - http://www.cdeckert.com