31. Muscles of the Eye and Blind Cave Dwellers
The page begins below.
Oculomotor Muscles that Move the Eyeballs, and Blind Cave Dwellers
The fact that there are blind cave dwellers is certainly fascinating. So I decided to write an analytical paper on the questions I discussed with my opponent; I mean didn’t discuss. At first glance, blind cave dwellers might seem to be tremendous evidence in favor of evolution. I had always thought they were. As an evolutionaut, blind cave dwellers were only one of several convincing pieces of evidence in favor of evolution. Really thinking about these blind organisms can bring some surprising conclusions. Blind cave dwellers and oculomotor muscle systems may seem like a strange combination to place in one chapter, but these have also been the most popular combination with my previous writing. Why tempt fate? So here goes my analysis of these two entities, the oculomotor (eye-movement) system, and blind cave dwellers. s own as I requested. He couldn’t play devil’s advocate with his belief system, not even for a moment. So I figured I had to do his thinking for him, as is always the case with evolutionauts. Evolutionauts accept. They don’t think skeptically, because doing so would damage their belief system. I really don’t like speaking in generalities like this, but that’s the way they are. They are in the box, and can’t look outside. They think everyone who doesn’t believe in their belief system are fuckwits, morons, or IDiots at best. I know this seems like a broad generalization, but this point is fact. I have discussed and debated evolution with hundreds of evolutionauts. I often ask them to think of why I might say they are wrong, even though I realize they would disagree with what I am trying to get them to think. I have never found one that could even consider or conjure up a point they think I might make. It’s simply too threatening to them.
Oculomotor Muscles That Move the Eye
A great challenge for evolution without intelligence is the vertebrate oculomotor system: the six muscles that rotate the eyeballs. Exactly how did those muscles arise and in what order? Exactly how were oculomotor nerves hooked up to just the exactly correct location in the brain and the exact corresponding eye muscles that they operate? How did the oculomotor nerves get there in the first place? Did the origin points of all six of the muscles attach first? Then did the muscles evolve and grow to reach the insertion points on the eyeballs? Or did all six begin their evolutionary growth somewhere between the origin and insertion points, then grow in each direction, attaching at the origin and insertion points at the same time? What mutations would program the brain and teach it to operate those six muscles, an incredibly complex task ignored by the ev-illusionists? There are so many more questions I have for evolution and the oculomotor system. But these are certainly sufficient. An evolutionaut’s one dimensional answer to these questions are almost always, “Natural Selection did it. Next question?” Or, “You don’t understand how evolution works!” I say, “But wait a minute”, which falls on deaf ears. They are usually on to some other subject for obvious reasons. Evolutionauts have to cover and protect their belief system. They cannot be good scientists; otherwise their immense belief system would come crashing down.
Evolution has no answers for the questions that arise about the formation of any bio-system. These questions pose an immense roadblock for evolution, only one of thousands of roadblocks that evolution must deal with for it to be considered a respected science; at least by humble little me. The conundrums I pose about the oculomotor system are sloughed off and ignored, just as all questions about all bio-systems that evolution must answer are. So, let’s take a thoughtful look at the vertebrate six-muscled eyeball movement system.
The oculomotor muscles are astounding in their design. The problem solving that these six muscles represent is nothing short of astounding. The superior rectus and inferior rectus pull the eyeball up and down. The lateral rectus and medial rectus pull it right and left. The superior oblique travels through a lubricated pulley (can you believe
a lubricated pulley?) so it can do its task properly. The pulley changes the direction of pull nearly 180 degrees. The oblique muscles are there to tilt the eyeball. As we humans walk, we tend to tilt our heads slightly right and left. If we were looking at a horizon when walking, we would see the horizon tilt right and left, which would be dizzying. The obliques tilt the eye right and left to compensate and keep the horizon completely level. Lucky for us we don’t notice at all the right and left tilt. We don’t get nauseated like we would be on a ship in heavy seas. When a ship tilts a bit too much for the obliques to compensate, sea sickness sets in. If it wasn’t for the obliques, we would be seasick all the time. Of course there is the old, “Which came first, the woodpecker or the egg?” question. The pulley? The superior oblique? I would love to see how just these two entities actually evolved, and in what order. about all bio-systems that evolution must answer are. So, let’s take a thoughtful look at the vertebrate six-muscled eyeball movement system.
The oculomotor muscles have another important job. The retina needs blood supply. In the front of the retina are tiny blood vessels that feed the upper layers; the ones that get hit by light first. These blood vessels are not nearly as numerous as the ones in the back of the retina. If they were, they would block most incoming light, and we would have no vision. But, as thin and spread out as these blood vessels are, they still block light coming into the retina. To compensate for this problem, the eye is in a constant jiggling mode. Ocular microtremor (OMT) is a constant, physiological, high frequency low amplitude eye tremor. It occurs even when the eye is seems completely still. Studies have shown that visual processes deteriorate rapidly in the absence of retinal image motion caused by microtremor.(3). It is thought that this slight tremor allows the retina (pictured left ) to “see” around the blood vessels that block the retina. The brain is able to read the difference between the parts of the image that are static (the blood vessels), and those that are moving, the images that are coming from outside of the eye. The brain can then construct an image without the spider-web-like blockage that it would have if there was no tremor. I really don’t think natural selection could think all of this amazing technology up. How can anyone think it could?
I have some questions for evolution regarding the oculomotor muscles:
1. Did all six muscles evolve at the same time? This would, of course, have required planning and intelligence. Nerves and programming would have had to arise at the same time as the six muscles; otherwise, the system of eye movement would have been useless and would not have been “selected for”. The fact that this scenario would require planning and intelligence eliminates this as an evolutionary possibility. With evolution there cannot be real intelligence or design. Only “apparent design”, whatever that is.
2. Did each part of the eyeball movement system evolve independently? On its own? For evolution to be true, this scenario would have to have been the selected modus operandi. But, sadly for evolution, this scenario is also not a choice. An evolved single eye muscle unconnected to a motor nerve would be useless. Further, it would have been initially uncontrollable, as there would be no program to operate the muscle. If the muscles that make the eye rotate upward were first to evolve, the eyes of the poor victim/owner would have been permanently stuck in an “up” position. Each eye muscle needs an opposer so the eyeball can be moved back to its original position. The “up” muscle needs a “down”. So, this isn’t really a choice either. Evolutionauts say that each evolutionary step has a use and purpose, and that supposedly gets them by the “one part at a time” problem. But trying to make up uses for ea
What other choices are there for evolution’s formation of the oculomotor system? “All at once”, and “one at a time” are all I can think of. Are there more?ch muscle and nerve of the oculomotor system is out of the range of rationality. Of course, intermediate uses would have to be thought up for each part of the body of vertebrates, each nerve, each bone, each……which doesn’t even qualify as an absurd notion.
3. Did the medial rectus eye muscles evolve at the same time as the lateral rectus? Could only the right eye move initially until the left eye evolved the same muscle used by the right? Imagine the awful situation species would be in with one movable eye. Vision would be horrible. Evolutionauts cite “bilateral symmetry” as their answer to this problem. Which is another non-answer. But they really don’t know the answer to this one. No one does. Two exact mirror image muscles forming on the right and left eyeballs should take a bit of planning. Of course evolutionauts are certain they have this problem covered. They don’t.
4. Of course we still have the conundrum of, did the eyeball movement system arise in a single species which then spread the device to all other eyed species? This isn’t a choice either because of the fact that organisms can only procreate with their own species. Eye movement systems would be rare. There should be a large number species with fixed eyes. It’s unthinkable that oculo-motor systems would show up in 100% of all vertebrates. But, unfortunately for evolution, that is the case. So, the problem is ignored. Just imagine how incredibly impossible it would be for an eyeball to randomly evolve in a species. Then the eyeball had to free itself up so it could be a rotating ball, as described in chapter 12. Then oculomotor system would have had to evolve. When ev-illusionists discuss how vision evolved, they only discuss eyeballs. They never discuss the optic nerve, visual cortex, code, or the oculomotor system. With each additional entity evolving through natural selection the miracles pile one on top of the other, and get more and more preposterous. Evolution says it has mountains of evidence. They should be honest and call it mountains of miracles. Because that is what it is.
5. If eyeball movement systems couldn’t have evolved in a single species, then spread to all eyed species, that leaves the only other possibility: they must have evolved in thousands of species at about the same time. What are the odds that identical eye movement systems could evolve in multiple species at the same time? I say zero. The same odds as that for the evolution of eyes, a visual cortex, optic nerve, and code. Zero.
6. Further, why are there not multiple designs in multiple species? Why are there not some vertebrate species with nine oculomotor muscles? Why not some with three? Why not some with none? Why not deer with fixed eyes because the muscle system that would move them didn’t reach deer? That is what evolution should show. But it fails again and again.
7. Early in the evolution of eyes, were there lots of vertebrate species or their ancestors with eyeballs that were fixed, then the muscles came along allowing eye movement? Of course the notion that the oculomotor muscles and the eyeballs evolved at the same time, woul
d involve intelligence and planning; so that can’t even be considered in the light of evolution. According to the method evolution says eyes evolved, if we could go back to the time vision supposedly evolved, we should see an immense number of animals with fixed staring eyes. There
are species with partially evolved visual systems, but none with fully formed but fixed eyeballs. Why not? Evolution happily cites the partial visual systems of the nautilus for example, but they are dead silent about the lack of fully formed fixed eyeballs that would help prove the evolution of the oculomotor system. This is the science of cherry picking.
8. Why are there no vertebrate species with fixed eyes, and extremely movable necks? Since necks can certainly change the targets of vision, one would scientifically think that would be an evolutionary choice. It isn’t. The varieties that should be present if evolution were the way nature came about are non existent. Of course there is always an exception. Owl eyes are fixed, and owls can move their heads in a huge arc. But this exception makes things even worse for evolution.
An Owl’s eyes are large which improves their ability to take in light, especially under low light conditions. In fact owl’s eyes are not eyeballs at all. They’re more like elongated tubes. They are held in place by bony structures in the skull called Sclerotic rings. For this reason, an Owl cannot “roll” or move its eyes – that is, it can only look straight ahead! The Owl more than makes up for its fixed eye problem by being able to turn its head all the way around, and almost upside-down. It is able to achieve this by having a long and very flexible neck. The neck only looks short, as it is hidden by feathers and the Owl’s posture. An owl’s neck has 14 vertebrae, which is twice as many as humans. This allows the owl to turn its head through a range of 270 degrees measured from a forward facing position.
The problem remains for evolution that chordates, which are the precursors to vertebrates, according to evolution, evolved their vision in a 250,000 year time span some 500 million years ago. Owls didn’t show up in the fossil record until 38 to 54 million years ago. So, trying to tie the fixed eyes of owls to the original evolution of vision would be a tough call for evolutionauts. All modern birds had to have evolved before owls evolved fixed eyes. If fixed eyes came from a common ancestor, there would be multiple examples
of fixed eyes and highly movable necks. This feature is exclusive to owls, who who must have independently and completely gotten rid of their full oculomotor muscle systems and evolved the fixed eyes and highly movable neck. They HAD to have had full oculomotor muscle systems as the common ancestor of birds certainly did. Is it imaginable that all owls initially had a full oculomotor system, and then one by one dis-evolved each and every part until all were gone? Then at some time during the dis-evolution, they evolved a fully rotating neck? Evolution’s “evidence” here is nothing but another failure. What fun!e large which improves their ability to take in light, especially under low light conditions. In fact owl’s eyes are not eyeballs at all. They’re more like elongated tubes. They are held in place by bony structures in the skull called Sclerotic rings. For this reason, an Owl cannot “roll” or move its eyes – that is, it can only look straight ahead! The Owl more than makes up for its fixed eye problem by being able to turn its head all the way around, and almost upside-down. It is able to achieve this by having a long and very flexible neck. The neck only looks short, as it is hidden by feathers and the Owl’s posture. An owl’s neck has 14 vertebrae, which is twice as many as humans. This allows the owl to turn its head through a range of 270 degrees measured from a forward facing position.
I would love it if any evolutionaut can give me some sort of answers to the questions posed above. Actually, that’s a silly question on my part. There are no answers. If I do get answers, they will range from, “Natural selection did it”, to “You have falsified what evolution says about the formation of eyes” to “You are a moron”. That’s the best they will or ever can do. Evolutionauts can’t get past the questions I pose above, so they ignore them. Or they will always do the famed evo-bypass, and try to challenge me with some other question, such as the question about blind cave dwellers. I am sorry to say that never have I found an evolutionaut that will at least recognize that evolution is missing an answer, no matter what the subject. A true thinking scientists or fan of science should at least communicate that these certainly are problems for evolution. I have yet to see even one evolutionaut admit that fact. Not one.
Blind Cave Dwellers
And, as I said, evolutionauts never think about the possible problems for evolution associated with blind partially eyed cave dwellers. So I will do their thinking for them. Interestingly, evolution focuses only certain cave dwellers, and not all. For example, bats are either in caves in the daytime, or out searching for insects at night. Contrary to popular myths, most bats have very good eyesight. They also have excellent echolocation; like the best Navy sonar. They do not become entangled in human hair due to their good eyesight and “sonar”. Of course the question arises, why aren’t bats “blind as a bat” like other blind cave dwellers? In considering blind cave dwellers, good science must question the possible scenarios for the evolution all cave dwellers. And ev-illusionists should wonder why only certain cave dwellers are blind. Evolution is not good science, and does not question. Here are the scenarios I can come up with for existence of blind cave dwellers:
Possibility #1: The ancestors of the blind cave dwellers species evolved fully formed and operational visual systems. Then they went into the caves and lost their visual systems. They initially inhabited areas that were not dark twenty four hours per day. They were able to be better predators, and avoid being prey because of their fully formed visual systems. For some reason, possibly avoidance of predation or for self protection, they moved their habitat to dark caves where eyes would not be beneficial. A very puzzling move, since their entry into the caves would initially cause them to be at an immense disadvantage. The species that entered the caves first, of course, would have a huge advantage in predation over the later ones. The newly entered species would be great fodder for more experienced cave dwellers. According to this scenario, the visual systems of species that changed their habitat to living in caves gradually dis-evolved their visual systems, after their ancestors spent hundreds of thousands of years evolving them. They did a complete one-eighty.
The information in their genomes had to have been deleted or shut down. So instead of evolution adding information to the system, it was removed. Of course this is scientifically absurd. If I didn’t use my right arm during my lifetime, and I had a son who didn’t as well, would my grandson be born with a withered arm? Or some descendant down the road? Disuse doesn’t change genomes, any more than extra use increases it. Cave dwellers evolving blindness is completely opposite of what evolution teaches. Evolution teaches things should get more complex, and better. One would think that cave dwellers might want to make forays out of the caves in hopes of finding prey, then return back into their caves for protection. But that is not the case. The 100% blind cave dwellers are 100% blind. With this scenario, evolution had to do a complete reversal. Richard Dawkins says evolution cannot go down Mt. Improbable. If this scenario is how blind cave dwellers formed, they did go down.
Possibility #2: Cave dwellers who newly entered caves, and who still had complete visual systems could certainly have evolved the ability to see infrared. This would have given them immense advantage over their co-inhabitants in the caves. Infra-red waves are not currently in our visual spectrum, for some unknown reason. But our soldiers certainly make good use of infra-red in the dark of night. They use infra-red sensitive “night vision “ goggles, binoculars, and gun sights. The body heat from living organisms gives off infra-red radiation that can be picked up by these devices. Could not the visual systems of cave dwellers that were more sensitive to the infra-red part of the spectrum been selected for? And, over time, shouldn’t there be a large number of cave dwellers that can see in the infra-red part of the spectrum? At least some infra-red vision seems much more likely than what we do have: totally blind species. Some mix of infra-red vision species mixed with blind species might make evolution look a bit better here. But, alas, it’s not to be. Maybe these blind cave dwellers are on their way to evolving infra-red vision. We just don’t realize it. We may be looking at a step in evolution going on right now. I doubt it.
Some evolutionauts that read this page may challenge me with, “Why didn’t the Big Intelligence form infra-red vision?” The answer, from my point of view, is I have no idea how or why vision or any other bio-system formed. Or didn’t. I have no idea what form the immense intelligence that was certainly necessary to form the incredibly devised systems of nature took. I am not defending any religious notion, or mysterious god-like creature. My purpose for this book is only to show that Evolution cannot possibly have formed all of nature; that it is a major mistake of science. Period. If mankind is ever to find an answer to the origin of species and bio-systems, evolution needs to be trashed. We need to reload.
Possibility #3: Eyeless species began using caves for their habitat before they began evolving eyes and visual systems. Weak and partial visual systems evolved, leaving the cave dwellers blind. According to this scenario, eyeless species in caves made a partial effort to evolve a visual system, but just didn’t make it because vision was never “selected for”. Caves were pitch black. Vision just wasn’t necessary. So species that entered caves completely eyeless had only partially evolved eyes because of their feeble and unnecessary attempt. Of course this scenario goes down the drain immediately. If cave dwelling species entered the caves without even the start of a visual system, they would not have ever started evolving one. They would have been completely eyeless today. There would be no vestigial remnants whatsoever of any kind of visual system. There simply was no advantage to be “selected for”. Eyes could not have evolved in darkness, according to evolution. Since that is the case, this scenario fails quickly.
Possibility #4: Species had partially evolved visual systems, then moved their habitat into caves, so the evolutionary completion of the systems ceased. This supposedly explains the partial visual systems of blind cave dwellers. This one is also a killer for evolution. I wonder how blind species found caves in the first place. Ev-illusionists cite this scenario as proof that visual systems evolved. Here we have perfect evidence for the evolution of eyes because these cave dwellers show an intermediate stage of eye evolution. The huge problem here is these visual systems are completely blind and useless. They are no advantage to the user organism. In fact, they may be a disadvantage. The cup shaped partial eyeballs may be susceptible to infection and injury. So rather than being an advantage, they would be, if anything, a hindrance to the survival of these cave dwellers. Further, these partially evolved visual systems rendered the organisms carrying them completely blind from the point of inception to the partially evolved stage they are now in. Under this scenario the evolution of all visual systems of all species in mid-evolution would also be blind and useless. These systems would not have the 5% vision that Richard Dawkins says would be so useful for species who were in the mid-stages of the evolution of vision.(2) The notion that 5% vision would be provided by partially evolved visual systems is certainly challenged under this scenario. Visual systems from start-up to the stage of the blind cave dwellers would be useless, and would not get “selected for”. Sorry Eugenie.
If the eyes of a species were partially evolved when they entered the cave, these facts should be considered. Multi-celled organisms have existed for over 550 million years. According to ev-illusionists like Richard Dawkins, D.-E. Nilsson and S. Pelger (1) it took about 250,000 years for eyes to fully evolve. That figure represents 1:2,200 chances that during the period of time the species began using caves for their habitat, they had only partially evolved eyes. Actually, the chance would be more like 1:4,000, since the eyeballs wouldn’t have been completely evolved, and it wouldn’t have needed the full 250,000 year time period because a species eye evolution would have ceased. The odds of a species starting the use of cave habitats when their eyes were say, 50% evolved is miniscule.
The blind fish and salamanders that make up blind cave dwellers have some puzzling characteristics. Experiments have been run where one population of blind fish, the Astyanax, has been mated with a different blind population of the same species. The result was that some progeny have full visual systems, and are sighted. This is explained because the mutations that cause the blindness of one group is different than the mutations that blinds another. Together they are able to build on each other genetically and make up a complete visual system. Again, this goes against the tenets of evolution. Eliminating a big chunk of DNA code because you don’t use some entity does not happen under evolution Advantages are “selected for”.
Evolutionauts proudly brag that the loss of vision must have taken millions of years to occur, of course, without the slightest proof. Our only experience with loss of sight due to genetic malfeasance shows that blindness and partially formed visual systems can occur in one generation. And, unfortunately for evolution, the generation that follows the blind progeny will almost invariably have full visual systems and be sighted. The genetic makeup formed by combining the genetic information from a second parent with the blind parent usually results in a genetic correction. If the thousands/millions of mutations that formed blindness in cave dwellers truly did occur over millions of years as evolution claims, the species would have become a biological wrecking yard. It would have destroyed itself.
Well, these are my challenges for the evolutionauts that keep bringing up blind cave dwellers as proof of eye evolution. As I see it, they themselves have been blinded, just as the cave dwellers have been. They exist in a world of blindness, but their cave is evolution itself. They have dis-evolved the ability be skeptical, think rationally and reason that they were born with. The source of their blindness is the ev-illusionists that taught them. They are part of a belief system; not a science. The best thing evolutionauts can do is shut up about blind cave dwellers.
- A Pessimistic Estimate Of The Time Required For An Eye To Evolve, D.-E. Nilsson and S. Pelger, Proceedings of the Royal Society London B, 1994, 256, pp. 53-58.
- The Blind Watchmaker, Richard Dawkins, p.81, W.W. Norton Co. London 1987
art of a belief system; not a science.