When does design become intelligent? Crashfrog claims the eye would be an intelligent design if the Retina face the light-sensing layer out towards the front, where the light comes in; not backwards, towards the inside of the scull, with two layers of light-insensitive cells between the iris and the incoming light. I have a solid rebuttal to that argument if anyone would like to hear why its actually a more sound design they way it is rather than the design regurgitated by Crashfrog.
If the inverted retina is the intelligent way to do it then cephalopods (e.g. octopi and squid) have an unintelligently designed forward facing retina. Cephalopods even share the same environment and niches with vertebrate fish that, like us, have an inverted retina. This can't be a matter of different environments needing different retinas given that both fish and squid share the same environments and niches while having different arrangements for their retinas. Even more, the cephalopod eye is better at light capturing because the light does not have to go through any nerves in order to reach the photoreceptors.
On top of all of this, the inverted and forward facing retinas stay within lineages just as the theory of evolution predicts. This is the opposite of what we expect from intelligently designed things where good ideas are shared across designs regardless of their intellectual heritage. Someone else mentioned design features of cars that were spread across all lineages. With life we see a very unintelligent way of putting design units together. Afterall, if feathers are good for flight then why don't bats have them? If gills are good for trout why don't whales have them?
™ Version 4.2
(1)
