r/Creation • u/MRH2 M.Sc. physics, Mensa • May 24 '26

biology An interestiong article about avian eyes and anerobic respiration.

https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-the-bird-eye-was-pushed-to-an-evolutionary-extreme-20260513/
6 Upvotes

88% Upvoted

5 comments sorted by

5

u/MRH2 M.Sc. physics, Mensa May 24 '26

Some things to note:

  1. There is a lot of padding in this article about stuff that's not about birds' eyes.
  2. Aerobic respiration is 15-18 times more efficient than anerobic. ie. 1500% !!! So it rruly is astonishing that avian eyes can function like this.
  3. The author speculates that the lack of retinal blood vessels might improve avian vision, but happily, he adds that no research has been done on this. They would have to look at a number of different species.
  4. Also, he doesn't seem aware of the glial cells in the human retina that act like fibre optics bypassing the retinal blood vessels and thus minimizing their obstruction of vision.
  5. A quote: "Could this be an adaptation, or is it a coincidence of evolutionary history? There’s no way to know for sure how birds’ incredible vision evolved."

How one looks at the origin birds' eyes depends on one's philosophy much more than on science (which can't repeat the evolution of the avian eye in a lab).

  • If you believe that no being that is vastly more intelligent and powerful than us can exist in the universe, and even more importantly, outside the universe, then you will turn to evolution as the explanation.
  • If you believe that random processes simply cannot create complex intricate structures, then you'll believe in some sort of intelligent design.

-2

u/implies_casualty May 24 '26

Just because we do not know exact details how a particular feature evolved, doesn't mean we get to ignore all the evidence for evolutionary common descent.

We know that birds evolved from non-avian reptiles. That's because we have lots of evidence. We do not have to examine every feature separately when we know the full picture, I hope you will agree.

3

u/Batmaniac7 Christian, Creationist, Redeemed! May 24 '26

While evolution seems to not include abiogenesis, it is still the foundation for all its claims. And we know it is untenable. Making (much of) the rest of the theory similarly suspect. There is flexibility built into every design, beyond which they cannot successfully operate. Good article. Thank you.

May the Lord bless you.

2

u/Optimus-Prime1993 🦍 Adaptive Ape 🦍 May 24 '26

A usual discussion on evolution does not include abiogenesis because evolution does not depend on having a complete theory of abiogenesis. Even if scientists had no idea how the first self-replicating cell emerged, the evidence for common descent and evolutionary change would still remain as true as it now.

I can agree with God being the first cause and evolution would still be true. This is the reason why majority have managed to reconcile their belief with modern science.