Fine-Tuning of the Optics of the Human Eye

Physicist Brian Miller explores the amazing design and optimization of the human eye in this talk from the 2023 Westminster Conference on Science and Faith. The conference was held in September 2023 in the Philadelphia area and was co-sponsored by Discovery Institute and Westminster Theological Seminary.
============================
The Discovery Science News Channel is the official KZbin channel of Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture. The CSC is the institutional hub for scientists, educators, and inquiring minds who think that nature supplies compelling evidence of intelligent design. The CSC supports research, sponsors educational programs, defends free speech, and produce articles, books, and multimedia content. For more information visit www.discovery....
www.evolutionne...
www.intelligent...
Follow us on Facebook, Instagram and Twitter:
Twitter: / discoverycsc
Facebook: / discoverycsc
Instagram: / discoverycsc
Visit other KZbin channels connected to the Center for Science & Culture
Discovery Institute: / discoveryinstitute
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer: / drstephenmeyer

[@abduazirhi2678]

Thanks for sharing this extraordinary incredible video. It was a pleasure listening to Brian. The terribly complex design of the human eye could not have been resulted from blind random process.

[@hantallica]

I literally got goosebumps every 5 min of this lecture. God is an amazing engineer.

[@huntermcquilkin9978]

God put a blind spot in the eye he's a terrible engineer.

[@arwahosny2430]

​@@huntermcquilkin9978you've must been living under a rock! The "blind spot" issue was refuted even by atheists themselves years ago and they acknowledged they were ignorant about it 😃

[@FrostekFerenczy]

@@arwahosny2430 - Are you going to claim you don't have a blind spot? I'd like to see that evidence.

[@osamahalahmari7956]

@@FrostekFerenczydoes the blind spot interrupting your life style ? No because your brain can fix it, if the blind spot aren’t there you would be blind

[@drchristopherjsernaque]

Awesome, Dr. Miller!!! 🎉🎉🎉

[@easyminimal_6130]

I don't think there's any video that goes in-depth like this one...much appreciation to those that put in the work🙌🙌🙌...

[@GreatBehoover]

Look up Dr. Douglas Axe, Dr. Stephen Meyers, Dr. Michael Behe, and Dr. James Tour. Their work has put an end to the mythology of naturalism. Once you understand what the UNASSUMED OBSERVATIONAL SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE shows, it becomes impossible to have faith in the MYTHOLOGY of naturalism. The God hatred of atheists can't overcome the FACTS of physical science. DNA CODE CAN'T SELF-CREATE and SELF-ASSEMBLE into cells ACCIDENTALLY... thus naturalism is destroyed.

[@zachreyhelmberger894]

WOW!! I studied how the ear works a while back and thought that was pretty amazing but this takes the cake!

[@ericryan8152]

One of the most fascinating videos I’ve seen in a long time, thank you.

[@cosy1914]

Absolutely incredible stuff.

[@gordonicus4637]

Amazing evidence for loving design. Thank you Dr Miller for sharing!❤

[@rodneyplewright7685]

Awesome information, brilliantly conveyed; thanks heaps, Brian.

[@refuse2bdcvd324]

Great explanations! It's time we dispense with the mythology of natural selection and get back to the observable evidence of intelligent design.

[@Papa-dopoulos]

From one theist to another, natural selection is irrefutable friend! Chemical evolution is another monstrosity altogether

[@FrostekFerenczy]

Creationism is bunk.

[@Hamann9631]

@refuse2bdcvd324, great comment! You are correct we should be scientific, instead of following unscientific religions.

[@Aengrod]

Underrated video

[@Uditha-r7h]

There is much more to the eye in addition to the good description given. We can identify 2.3 million shades of colour. Eyes send 2.3 gigabytes of information every second to the brain. This is equivalent to 18,000 songs on an ipod It takes 13 milliseconds for the brain to interpret an image from the eye . our eye focuses over 100,000 times a day It is absolutely vital to remember that our eye is part of the nervous system. The information from our eye needs to be used for all our day to day functions. Hence the complex connections with in the brain not only occipital cortex but also to the other parts such as thalamus, brain stem, motor cortex, sensory cortex and temporal lobe. These including the eye muscles are the totality of our vision. Hence, It is PARAMOUNT not to consider our eye on its own but also to look at all the brain changes briefly described in this. What ever the 'faults' the evolutionists try to find in our eye, the most important is to recognise that it serves the purpose for us. At the same time, we need to recognise that our eye is 'not the best'. In fact is some features our eye is pretty inferior. While humans see 3 main colours, peacock mantis sees 12 colours giving much sharper vision. Eagles have 340 degree vision to 180 degrees of humans.They also see 5 basic colours - hence better than humans.They have much more density of light sensitive cells. Vision on owl night time vision is better than humans.Dragon fly eye consist of 30,000 lenses. They can see a mosquito 60 ft away.Reindeer eyes can use UV light which helps in arctic environment. So, human eyes are not the best..... but optimally suited for our needs. It is NOT a design fault as all creatures are given what they need for life.... nothing less or nothing more ( except for the brain power in humans which is much much m,ore complex than the eye itself !!)

[@CarlMCole]

Great and informative commentary ! Thank you.

[@CynthiaPagba]

Great lecture!

[@mimelnaggar]

Great lecture… Enjoyed every moment of this lecture… Thank you Dr.

[@ammaralado5930]

thank you for this great presentation I see what you describe as the evolutionary explanation of how the eye is formed, works only when we ignore biology

[@allanlee9520]

Life itself seemed "designed" to the ancient people of past thousands and thousands of years ago. We as humans, even now, have always been in awe at how and why we are here and in the world around us. Looking at the intricate complexities of life around us our ancient ancestry did quite naturally what any human brain does in the absence of science and common knowledge of their time. That's kind of how our brains are hardwired naturally. Beliefs, imaginings, and assumptions are how our brains "fill in the blanks", so to speak, based on how we perceive things from limited information. Our brains were evolved that way according to the patterns studied in neuroscience. These days we now know how things came to be, how organs evolved, we have the knowledge and the means of discovery beyond DNA. And also how DNA cells split and diversify as they multiply, which is the actual progressive patterns of evolution, though it takes lengthy periods and eons of time, they can still be studied and observed nonetheless. The proof of evolution is in DNA.

[@dsplodge86]

We don’t know that at all. What are you talking about? The idea of evolution is harder to believe than it ever used to be BECAUSE of scientific discoveries.

[@HuFlungDung2]

If we actually understood DNA, we'd be able to compute brand new animals by DNA manipulation. Or restore extinct ones. We cannot do this, our best scientists only tinker with the gearing.

[@vermouth310]

Amen and blessings to you for opening our minds to the awesomeness of vision.

[@toddmanhart5253]

great channrl having fun we are!!!

[@BabyBugBug]

This is absolutely fascinating. How anyone can think this is a random accident is myopic (pun intended).

[@Professordowney]

great video. i have been waiting for this one in particular

[@stormythelowcountrykitty7147]

Thanks

[@ikemiracle4841]

I wish you guys would continue this In other areas of animal parts and also explain the evolutionary beliefs and why they don't work. And thank you so much for this video, it was truly indept.

[@cptrikester2671]

Great episode. Enjoyed the debunking of Dawkins' explanation of the eye's evolution.

[@1516guapoful]

all of the discovery institute members are on the list :)

[@danielsiebert5714]

My eyes have been going downhill since I passed 40. Great design!

[@Roescoe]

It's almost like there's decay in the world. I wonder how that happened?

[@ankyspon1701]

It's like blaming God's poor design of your liver because you drink, your lungs because you smoke, or your pancreas because you over eat etc etc. Human diet and lifestyle are responsible for 100% of crime and 90% of physical ailments. Eye muscle weakness idue to using phones or computers up close and watching too much television etc, is most often responsible for poor eyesight. Research Bates exercises, it could improve your eyesight!

[@michaelportaloo1981]

Your eyes have been going downhill because you only have a limited lifespan.

[@ImprobableWizard]

It's because human eyes are a terrible design. God must have done in on the last Friday of the month. Moluscs have the best eye design. I guess God had learned from his mistakes on the compound eye and vertibrate eye and finally got it right in the octopus.

[@DonswatchingtheTube]

Brilliant.

[@chrismessier7094]

insane amazing! ^_^

[@zach2980]

And yet eyes have evolved some 5 different ways on our planet over the past 500 million years.

[@stevenwiederholt7000]

Remember Now All This Just Happened By Random Chance. RIIIIGHT, Tell me another one.

[@richgetz]

If you thought showing the picture in picture as being advantageous, you are incorrect as we don't see the laser pointer.

[@truthisbeautiful7492]

The eyes are designed

[@dadsonworldwide3238]

If we was learning conprinoucous model today the current practice would be to adopt this explanation but still keep calling it the ptolemaic model act like it was always that way. Lol Physical prescriptions are subject to change without further notice. Hahaha We all wake up in the car ride of life and its allowed many arguments and movements to be proven wrong over and over unlike Christianity and the Bible thats fixed and already been used to structure and categorize every discipline and major theory is inspired by or guided by it. Successful social behaviors in place are proven. Biblical predictions like this church age unveiling of knowledge is undeniable..rocks are crying out. The human dashboard equations newton came up with was truly viewed as the math mapping evidence of the knowledge of good and evil and it was pivotal to the classical American founding population. But this drove all the anti biblical factions up the wall. They thought they beat it with statistical anylitics and wanted the qauntom scale fundamental building blocks to be the end all great debates but they didn't get the answers they wanted and now they love newton and lean into the biases. Id say qauntom scale confirmed newtons tools of approximation. Since we always want some natural example id argue God unveils one in the smallest scales ,a true garden of eden sample of a creation with infinite degree of Freedom yet uniformity, timelessness without liner direction no evil or chaos only perfection in everyway.

[@dadsonworldwide3238]

Even beyond fine tuning where we prescribe higherachy of value on objects with a premium on carbon based life in our current theory Darwins evolution falls apart. Darwin random still needs a linear deterministic evolutionary mechanism that can't be supported based on to much randomness nature itself doesn't allow for. 3 degree of motion on classical scale or on the smallest scales that prohibits us to ask or predict such linear direction is not sufficient.

[@cptrikester2671]

Quite the word salad there. Could you please use more sophisticated terms to express how amazing God's design is.

[@edcroteau3237]

Brian has helped me in detailing out the incredible top-down design in the human eye to evolutionists.... yet, they cannot explain this through evolutionary processes.

[@pitaco-0815]

They surely can!

[@roblangsdorf8758]

Utube is full of ads for ways to improve your eye sight. But all they seem to do is waste your time with counterproductive use of your eyes.

[@leeberry7703]

when i open the oven door with my glasses on , glasses sream up ,, my eyes are perfect ,, how can evolution know that ,, we would have ovens ,

[@andrewjohnson8232]

You actually posted that? There seems to be no bottom to the silliness of responses to the design model. What you would be discussing is sudden temprature and atmospheric changes, not the existence of ovens.

[@roblangsdorf8758]

Sometimes, I view a scene and then try to capture it with my camera only to discover that my camera can't handle the contrasts.

[@DavidEdwinHall]

Top-Down Engineering! Awesome! I am finding that BIOPHYSICS is opening the door to present the Gospel as the great Engineer is unmistakably the Lord Jesus Christ! (John 1:3)

[@downenout8705]

The human eye is a sh*t design. The image is inverted and requires additional processing to switch it and the position of the optic nerve makes a blind spot which again requires considerable additional processing to hide the holes from our conscious perception.

[@dsplodge86]

When you put it like that, it’s actually even more ingenious

[@michaelportaloo1981]

Both eyes evolved the same sh*t design simultaneously. What were the chances of that?

[@tedgrant2]

As we all know, Stevie Wonder is blind. Yet he knows how to fine-tune a piano !

[@spinnettdesigns]

Design needs a designer. Thank you for caring about advancing science through evidence, rather than coming from agendas. Love engineering and biology, epigenetics and physics, they are all part and parcel of everything around us. “The eyes are poorly designed”!? They say as they are using their perfectly functioning eyes to perform the experiment. Go ahead and get a good replacement and let me know where you find those. 😉 “Every house is constructed by someone, he that created all things, is God” I’m so curious as to why it feels threatening to so many to believe in a designer and a creator? Why is it such a problem when design is so obvious? Not one material thing was ever produced out of air. Evolutionists cannot make even one blade of grass (living thing) from any form of “original” material, because even dirt is not made by humans, therefore cannot be said to be “original” material. No one can produce anything that was not already here for man to use. How did it get here? Who cares, right? You do, because you benefit from ALL of it. Your use of the word “purpose” is the fulcrum for anyone that has an open mind and can admit that things do not arise from nowhere, without a reason, even if is some aberration from an accident, it happened for a reason. Incredible to think that body parts were ever thought of as useless or sub-optimal 😂 I grew up in the 60’s and 70’s and when I heard someone say “you don’t need your tonsils…” even as a little girl I thought that was ridiculous. Why is it there, then? As I got older, that same statement stirred up rage from the utter disrespect for the body and everything in the known (and unknown) universe, I find it so intellectually insulting. I have a sibling that is a top engineer and avers evolution…stupefying. THANK YOU for all of your curiosity and meaningful work.

[@raffiahmadfamili]

❤❤❤❤❤ manusia yang percaya tuhan dengan pikirannya

[@tarp-grommet]

Yo Brian - how do we assert that Biology and Physics must be proof of god without actually saying so?

[@ImprobableWizard]

Dude! You're wearing glasses! Doesn't that suggest to you that human eyes are simply terrible 'design'?

[@johnwaldmann5222]

God did an amazing job of designing evolution to deliver the desired end results.

[@franzpaul6244]

as the presenter of this lecture did an amazing job disputing theistic evolution...

[@zbigniewbecker5080]

What's the big fuss about? If evolution was capable of producing the likes of Dr Dawkings et al., an eye is clearly a piece of cake! (sarcasm) Astonishing presentation, huge kudos!

[@AbrarManzoor]

After watching this video i got convinced that darwin was an amateur and his followers too

[@tarp-grommet]

None of this speaks to faith. Nothing said here means the bible is the true word of a living god. There may indeed be an intelligence underlying the universe but nothing said here supports the notion that I am a damned sinner who must beg a god for forgiveness or be punished for eternity. Make that connection and you just might stem the advancing tide of young people choosing to ignore their parent's religion.

[@jasonlambert2226]

You haven't brought any argument to the table that convinces anyone. People fall away from because of our sinful nature. By the way, his aim was to speak of the amazing design of the eye and to tell you the assumptions behind evolution that from an engineers perspective don't make sense. By the way Jesus loves you, even if you hate him. God Bless

[@pitaco-0815]

What a shame this channel is named "discovery science"

[@zakmatew]

Who are the engineers of the biological systems...

[@petersage5157]

I have no idea why DI popped up in my recommended video feed, but I just wanted to point out that Brian is wearing a *spectacular* refutation of his argument on his face.

[@neilenglish7433]

You’ll have to do a hell of a lot better than that😂😂

[@iiddrrii6051]

lol 😂 but to be fair he’s making decent points, but they are flawed. He acts as if these structures and functions just appeared fully formed. Then he appeals to irreducible complexity, which as already been debunked for flagella.

[@joelebert9767]

​@neilenglish7433 Seriously, bad design arguments are just ignorant.

[@boxelder9167]

Those are the result of a very peculiar car accident and fire. The crash dislodged some glass, wire and plastic from the car and the heat from the fire caused the object you are seeing on his face to fuse together over time. Matter, energy, time and chance are all the explanation that we need. No reason to invoke an optometrist of the gaps or to suggest that his spectacles require a designer. Everything is explained by physics and chemistry, as it should be done, because science.

[@franzpaul6244]

it was for an open mouth insert foot moment for the rest of us...

[@HuFlungDung2]

What isn't covered here is that the concept of an image is completely inconceivable to a blind universe. Images are not real, they don't exist 'out there' . An image is actually a remodeling concept to create a virtual model of 'what's out there' inside the mind of the witness. The independent laws of refraction of light through a lens have to exist before an image is possible. A lens must exist BEFORE vision can exist. Blind evolution is preposterous as the agent of the creation of what isn't even known to exist (sight).

[@TomasPböckerlyftningschack]

Ignorance is bad, outright lying is worse. Cutting out one line from Darwin and present it as if Darwin had not continued by explaining the way the eye evolved in small steps.

[@zach2980]

Quote mining.

[@CarlMCole]

Darwin was just a storyteller. A good story teller (and a pretty good naturalist), but that's all.

[@raymondswenson1268]

Darwin assembled a notional progression of eye complexity, but did not show even a seriously proposed succession of ancestral eyes. He did not show examples of transitions from one eye version to another. Hand waving at maximum.

[@zach2980]

Is this designer the same being responsible for 5 mass extinction events over the past 3.5 billion years on our planet? Praised be the great asteroid slinger who wiped out the non avian dinosaurs so as to allow a small mammal to give rise to us. Curious methods. ;)

[@UniteAgainstEvil]

You have a serious case of dunning Kruger if you believe you actually know what happened that long ago.. fairy tales for you idiots, yet you can't even see the pink elephant in the room = God!!

[@raymoss706]

again with the eye proves design thing? Have you not seen the human body? No engineer worth his salt would create such a flawed system; in that, it cannot possibly come from a more intelligent being than your average engineer.

[@anaccount8474]

"There are things that exist that I can't imagine having any other explanation than God did it therefore there's a God"

[@joelebert9767]

These are arguments from evidence, not ignorance. Why fill in gaps with Darwinism when the evidence points another way?

[@andrewjohnson8232]

Even that disingenuous caricature of what is being said provides sound argument: "I come to the only conclusion possible for me". What conclusion would you have him come to?

[@GreatBehoover]

The ACCIDENT OF THE GAPS fallacy and TIME OF THE GAPS fallacy have both played out! DNA CODE CAN'T SELF-CREATE and SELF-ASSEMBLE into cells ACCIDENTALLY. This above TESTABLY TRUE AND FACTUAL STATEMENT could be disproven by naturalists if their MYTHOLOGY were true. But...they CAN'T. Naturalism = MYTHOLOGY We now KNOW that THOUSANDS of novel proteins CAN'T ACCIDENTALLY "emerge" in the BILLIONS of potential offspring of humans and any chimp-like creatures. The SILLINESS of BELIEVERS in the MYTHOLOGY of naturalism is that their OWN EVOLUTIONARY STUDY...the largest and longest on earth... has already DISPROVEN that ANY NOVEL PROTEINS "emerge" in TRILLIONS of testable offspring in THEIR OWN STUDIES!🤣🤣🤣😉 Even more hilarious is the MYTHOLOGY that Chromosomes "can" and "did" combine AUTOMAGICALLY to form new species...despite the FACT that this has NEVER EVER EVER been observed to be able to occur... let alone to have occurred as they FAITHFULLY BELIEVE!🤣🤣🤣 Any naturalists feel free to try to disprove anything I've said here! But let's try UNASSUMED OBSERVATIONAL SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE...instead of more of the usual vitriolic banter... proving that you CAN'T support your MYTHOLOGY!😉

[@ogmakefirefiregood]

More like, "I hate God, so I refuse any evidence because I hate the conclusion."

[@CarlMCole]

It's not a matter of imagination, it's a matter of logic. Nature itself has no mind, therefore it can't design complex functional systems, period.

[@channelnoraa]

Interesting. Humans looked at the eye to make the camera. Now, they are looking at the camera to explain the eye.

[@UniteAgainstEvil]

And then they deny the eye had a designer. Based logic.

[@danielsiebert5714]

It’s too complicated for my mind to grasp, therefore God did it. At least some sort of god. Maybe a consortium of gods.

[@ankyspon1701]

It's too complicated therefore it had to evolve is as Darwin said 'equally absurd'. The eye evolving by mutation, chance or progressive change, is as stated, mathematically and statistically impossible. And that's just the eye, what about the heart, liver, lungs and the other 75 organs (and 200 specialist cell types) in the human body! Without scientific evidence, saying it must have 'evolved' over time, requires more faith than saying it was intelligently designed.

[@ikemiracle4841]

It's too complicated for my mind to grasp therefore because I see no one, random coincidences did it even if it makes no sense.

[@mistikmckk29]

Say, ˹O Prophet,˺ “He is the One Who brought you into being and gave you hearing, sight, and intellect. ˹Yet˺ you hardly give any thanks.” Holy Quran, 67:23

[@joeschmoe1794]

Atheists crack me up 😂

[@stevenwiederholt7000]

Its a mile wide and an inch deep.

[@steveharrison3007]

Stefonic is a globe denier

[@michaeljubara9397]

I was hopeful that this talk would be enlightening but was disappointed. The basic argument was that because something is complex and well adapted, it must have been designed. Opposing points were reduced to the most simplistic and refutable forms.

[@andrewjohnson8232]

At no point did he describe the eye as an adapation. So what do you mean by "well adapted"? Adapted from what, for what?

[@boxelder9167]

This was likely aimed at the layman audience which is generally considered to be an 8th grade level. It would have been good for him to get into the details at the molecular level of what is needed to have light enter the eye, turn on a switch that sends the chemical signal, which is converted to an electrical signal, which is then converted back into a chemical signal at the synapse and then back into an electrical signal, which then becomes a chemical signal that activates the pathways of the brain to interpret the signals. If any of these fail then you don’t have some sight, you have blindness. Then he should have talked about the number of genes and regulatory genes that are required to manufacture each part of the chain. This could easily be an entire course of lectures explaining how each gene produces a specific part, that then relies upon another gene that makes the enzyme that folds the protein, that then relies on another gene that builds the machinery that transports the protein to where it is needed, which then has to have additional genes making the other parts of those molecular machinery, which then relies upon other regulatory genes for the timing of production and assembly. After all that, we don’t have an eye yet. We only have one tiny part that has to be able to seamlessly function with all of the other parts that themselves all have to be assembled together at the molecular level using numerous different genes, steps, processes and regulations. Oh I forgot about all of the genes required to get the raw materials to be at the right location for assembly but let’s ignore that for now. So Darwinian evolution relies on advances that are produced by random mutations in preexisting genetic information. It doesn’t tell us how the original information was produced but only that it needs the database in order to start monkeying with it, at random, without a purpose or goal in mind. It has to muck up the code, wait for the next generation to muck it up some more, another muck here and another muck up over there. Until finally all of that mucking, like stirring up a bowl of alphabet soup and randomly producing a poem, becomes more advanced information! Tah Duh! Ish fishxed meor gewder now ish pewfectar! Oh crappy crap. I forgot to mention all of the assembly and instructions for the parts that maintain and repair all of the parts we just built. Maybe random solar radiation making holes in my computer’s hard drive will do it for me. Oh, stupid me. All we have talked about so far is the information that produces the molecules that produce the machines. We haven’t even talked about what makes the machines that make those machines. But we also haven’t talked about how the cells become specialized and produce tissues that organize to make organs. That’s a whole other level of complexity and a whole other challenge. See we can’t just randomly make a super awesome molecular machine but then that machine has to function in the right context of the larger organ system which then has to function in the larger organism as a whole. It has to do this within a goal in mind and without any other intelligent guidance. What we know about biology makes Darwinian theory laughable. Unfortunately people are trying to make serious out of what is a joke of a theory.

[@fithunlulu]

his main point is not about the complexity of the eye but the irreducible complex of each system within the eye. for example he argues that there is so many parts to the lens from its specific proteins to many other parts . so if one part of the lens is not fully developed it won't be functional at all and it doesn't have any use at all . this means that a non functional system or organ in our body is not 'beneficial' for evolution so it won't be selected by the natural selection to be passed to the next generation.. so evolution has to get the whole system within the lens at the first try . The probability of that happening it astronomical . if the system has irreducible complexity with so every part essential to its function it very likely designed than it is happening by chance.

[@CarlMCole]

Wow, I'm impressed ! Somebody who really does get both some of the details and the bigger picture. I don't come across that very often. I love your little essay or commentary here. It's excellent ! And I especially admire the way you recognize the hierarchical LEVELS of order embedded in living systems, and how completely inconceivable it is that such things could 'arise' as the result of random mutations. It is, as you rightly say, a laughable theory. ....Thanks for your comments. I thoroughly enjoyed reading them ! @@boxelder9167

[@seekingtruth4175]

What I’ve gathered from this is that Spider-Man’s “Spidey Tingle” is scientifically accurate. That predictive element is both obvious and mind blowing at the same time. I cannot fathom how atheists can believe in evolution as an unguided blind process. Yahweh be praised!