Bro myopia is the least stupid part of our eye design problems. Our retinas are built entirely backwards for no other reason besides evolution making a mistake and then duct taping over it too much to fix it later.
If your retina was the right way around (like cephalopod eyes) you would have:
No blind spots
Higher fidelity vision even with the same number of receptors since the nerves and blood vessels wouldn’t interfere like they do now
much lower likelihood of retinal detachment since you could attach it for real in the first place
possibility for better brightness/darkness resolution since blood supply could be greater without affecting light passage
possibility for better resolution because ganglion nerves can be packed more densely without affecting light passage
The ability to regenerate cones and rods because you could, again, ACTUALLY HAVE SUPPORT CELLS WITHOUT BLOCKING LIGHT TO THE RETINA
Our eyes are built in the stupidest way possible.
Another fun fact: retinol is regenerated by your liver. Not your eyes, not some part of your brain, not some organ near your head like your thalamus which could probably get the job done if it tried, your fucking liver. Your eyes taking a while to adjust to the dark has basically nothing to do with your eyes; it’s because of the delay in adjustment by your fucking liver to produce more retinal, dump it into your vascular system and wait for it to hopefully reach your eyes. Why are we built like this?!
Edit: A few comments asked for sources on the relation between dark adaptation and liver vitamin A. So I went looking for sources. It was honestly somewhat difficult to find information, but I was able to find two different case studies showing that night blindness in patients with damaged livers. Specifically these individuals had liver damage that affected their serum Vitamin A levels. And after raising their vitamin A levels, their symptoms improved.
This study details a patient with normal day vision and no other ocular problems besides being unable to see at night.
The patient had a medical history of stage 4 non-alcoholic liver cirrhosis, which led to a malabsorption of vitamin A, as confirmed by the very low vitamin A level in the serum analysis… …Subjective improvement in symptoms, along with better performance on visual field, were noted after initiating oral vitamin A supplementation for 6 months.
This study details a patient with night blindness caused by low levels of vitamin A presumably due to Hepatitis C.
Case description: This case describes a 64-year-old female patient with symptomatic VAD, likely secondary to liver cirrhosis in the setting of Hepatitis C. The patient presented with night blindness and blurry vision. She was successfully managed with direct replacement of Vita-min A.
These studies do show that dark adaptation is dependent on vitamin A produced by the liver, but I’ll be the first to admit it’s not exactly conclusive evidence of my initial claim that the liver must respond to dark conditions increasing retinol concentration in the blood in order for rod cells to function properly in low light conditions. That is a possible explanation for these case studies but not necessarily the only one, so take my last fun fact with a grain of salt.
Another fun fact: retinol is regenerated by your liver. Not your eyes, not some part of your brain, not some organ near your head like your thalamus which could probably get the job done if it tried, your fucking liver. Your eyes taking a while to adjust to the dark has basically nothing to do with your eyes; it’s because of the delay in adjustment by your fucking liver to produce more retinal, dump it into your vascular system and wait for it to hopefully reach your eyes.
This is fascinating, I had no idea that there was another mechanism at play to improve low light vision other than pupil dilation
Or that it got stuck in the figurative basement organ where a silly amount of bio-chemistry is stuck because evolution kinda shrugged a few million years ago.
I'm not OP and I'm not an expert, but I know that the production of rhodopsin requires retinal. Rhodopsin is a light-sensitive protein our eyes use to see in low-light conditions, and is essential for our night vision. Retinal and retinol are not the same thing, but they both come from Vitamin A, and convert into each other during the visual cycle. Which means that a deficiency in Vitamin A = a deficiency in retinol, retinal, and rhodopsin, which in effect leads to night blindness.
But I'd like to know more/get a source for OP's liver connection. I know most of our retinol is stored in the liver. However, I'm having difficulty verifying their claim that the delay in night vision onset is due to it traveling from the liver to the eyes. From what I can find, the retinol ligand that produces rhodopsin already exists in mammalian eyes (and persists there as part of the aforementioned visual cycle.) So the argument that night vision takes so long because retinol needs to transfer from the liver to the eyes is suspect.
Unfortunately, search engines absolutely suck these days, and almost every article I can find is behind a fucking paywall. So I'm struggling to find information that can either confirm or deny OP's claim.
OP, please provide a source! Inquiring minds want to know more!
Honestly, it was pretty hard for me to find a source which has made me a little skeptical of my own statements.
I was able to find two case studies in which patients with liver damage that caused them to have low levels of vitamin A exhibited night blindness. Both were treated for vitamin A deficiency and saw symptoms improve.
The strongest evidence of my original claim is the fact that one of the patients had otherwise healthy eyes and vision, only having extreme trouble seeing at night. After receiving treatment for vitamin A deficiency, her night vision improved. This suggests that dark adaptation is dependent on vitamin A in the blood which is regulated by the liver.
However, I’m now somewhat skeptical and curious myself considering these two studies were almost all I could find on this topic. If I have more time I’ll try digging deeper. For now though, I’ve edited my comment with links to the studies.
I was able to find two case studies showing direct links from vitamin A levels (and liver damage) to night blindness. I’ve edited my initial comment with the links to them.
We see that there is different sensory focuses. For instance many animals can smell and hear much better than humans do. Some animals have exceptionally better eyes than humans, but overall humans are very focused on vision.
Now when we look at modern inner city environments and the like. Would you think it to be actually better if our senses, particularly our eyes were that much better and delivering even more input to our brains? We already see many people that are overwhelmed in terms of their sensory input and frankly the ones that aren't still suffer slowly from living in cities. In terms of where we are now, i don't think it is too bad that we don't have hawk eyes.
I live with, work with, and am myself part of, the autistic population. So I gotta agree - sometimes, higher sensitivity is a real detriment.
It's not fun being light-sensitive. I've had days where I've worn sunglasses indoors, with the lights off and curtains closed. The vast majority of my days aren't that bad, thankfully, but it truly sucks when light causes physical eye pain and headaches. I've got a great eye for detail (and have been called "eagle eye" throughout my life), which benefits me in a number of ways, but unfortunately it also means I get distracted by things others don't notice. I can't just "ignore" a lot of things, and when those distractions impact me disproportionately, I'm left in the frustrating situation of guiding others to see (or hear, or feel) the things that are super obvious to me - it feels like leading a child by the hand.
I'm also sensitive to touch (I can't stand light touch, but I can detect ticks on my skin before they bite) and have the ability to hear novel speech sounds that modern science claims I should've lost the ability to detect decades ago (which, okay, is a cool feature to have. But it contributes to being easily-distracted.) All in all, I've never known any other way of experiencing the world, but I do know that most people have difficulty understanding my atypical point of view. Which leads to me preferring the company of fellow spectrumites, and others who understand and accept sensory differences.
The eyes of mammals are designed in a way that they "see less" than for instance certain birds or reptiles.
You call this "fuck up some weird convulted way", when it is doing exactly what it is supposed to do. Thereby it is consistent with the way the visual nerve cells are designed and work together with the rest of physics and chemistry. The design is intelligent as it factors in all aspects as part of a coherent complete design. A design far too complex for any human mind to grasp in full.
Basically your question is like asking, why there is no "magic solution" that directly breaks the observable laws of physics. The genius of the design is in not requiring to break the observable laws of physics to achieve the desired outcome.
You say this is "unscientific garbage" when your only alternative explanation is "everything just happened randomly and here we are." Neither approach, "intelligent design" nor "extremely long chain of random occurrences" can be empirically observed and only argued logically. I find it unscientific to denounce a hypothesis as "unscientific garbage" when it cannot be falsified, while the counter hypothesis cannot be proven.
your only alternative explanation is “everything just happened randomly and here we are.”
Evolution is definitely not random. The mutations that show up are random, but the selection for them is very directed. If the traits give an organism the attributes to survive, it does and will pass those traits on. If not, it doesn't. Your argument that it's all random is typical creationist nonsense.
Neither approach, “intelligent design” nor “extremely long chain of random occurrences” can be empirically observed
We've observed evolution many many times. From the peppered moth to COVID and the flu, we observe evolution all the time. It's the underlying science for all biology and none of it makes sense with out it.
Evolution is a theory that has thousands of proven data points to support it being true. And not one of those experiments has come back showing "goddidit". Intelligent design is unscientific garbage pulled from a book of fairy tales.
You say this is "unscientific garbage" when your only alternative explanation is "everything just happened randomly and here we are
What an absolutely absurd misstatement about what evolution is. If you actually believe this, then you're doing yourself a massive disservice, and you really need to learn what evolution actually is before attempting to defend something that claims to be an alternative (it's not). It's almost insultingly incorrect.
Intelligent Design, literally does not fit the criteria to be considered a scientific theory. That's not even a biased take, it's just fact.
and so... the "intelligent designer" is, for some reason, restricted from being able to make human brains capable of withstanding the stress from having improved senses
TIL,Thank you for dumping obscure biological knowledge!
I felt the same when I found out roughly 90-99 % of serotonin (predecessor) is produced by a certain type of gut bacteria. For some reason, finding the research was (is? Haven't checked for a few years) for some reason non-obvious and difficult.
Now that I think about it, is there a wiki or something where we can share this knowledge? Your artefact would have helped a friend a few years ago...
Did you just see that other post about Cephalopod eye anatomy and write this?
I ask because you have a poor grasp over what evolution actually is when you say things like "evolution made a mistake". The truth is that our eyes are one of many, many layouts in the animal kingdom, it's not some binary thing like you're making it out to be.
I actually came across this for the first time when I was doing research into the visual pathway for the purpose of trying to structure a spiking neural net more closely to human visual processing.
The Wikipedia page mentions cephalopod eyes specifically when talking about the inverted retina of vertebrates.
The vertebrate retina is inverted in the sense that the light-sensing cells are in the back of the retina, so that light has to pass through layers of neurons and capillaries before it reaches the photosensitive sections of the rods and cones.[5] The ganglion cells, whose axons form the optic nerve, are at the front of the retina; therefore, the optic nerve must cross through the retina en route to the brain. No photoreceptors are in this region, giving rise to the blind spot.[6] In contrast, in the cephalopod retina, the photoreceptors are in front, with processing neurons and capillaries behind them. Because of this, cephalopods do not have a blind spot.
The Wikipedia page goes on to explain that our inverted retinas could be the result of evolution trying to protect color receptors by limiting their light intake, as it does appear that our glial cells do facilitate concentrating light.
However, the “positive” effects of the glial cells coming before the receptors could almost certainly be implemented in a non-inverted retina. So that’s the evolutionary duct tape I was mentioning.
It would be difficult to flip the retina back around (in fact since it originates as part of the brain we’d kind of have to grow completely different eyes), so that’s not an option for evolution.
However, slight changes to the glial cells and vasculature of the eyes is definitely more possible. So those mutations happen and evolution optimizes them as best it can.
Evolution did well to optimize a poorly structured organ but it’s still a poorly structured organ.
SNNs more closely resemble the function of biological neurons and are perfect for temporally changing inputs. I decided to teach myself rust at the same time I learned about these so I built one from scratch trying to mimic the results of this paper (or rather a follow up paper in which they change the inhibition pattern leading to behavior similar to a self organizing map; I can’t find the link to said paper right now…).
After building that net I had some ideas about how to improve symbol recognition. This lead me down a massive rabbit hole about how vision is processed in the brain and eventually spiraled out to the function and structure of the hippocampus and now back to the neocortex where I’m currently focusing now on mimicking the behavior and structure of cortical minicolumns.
The main benefit of SNNs over ANNs is also a detriment: the neurons are meant to run in parallel. This means it’s blazing fast if you have neuromorphic hardware, but it’s incredibly slow and computationally intense if you try to simulate it on a typical machine with von Neumann architecture.
I’m an engineering student researcher with a CS minor and ADHD; this kind of research is what I do with my freetime lol.
To be fair this is kind of a shared hobby project/topic between me and my friend (who is a biophysics major now in med school).
Anyway, point is that you don’t need to have a real “purpose” in order to be curious. I work in a robotics/medical lab at my university and my friends is trying to be a surgeon, yet we’re constantly in debates about astro and quantum physics to the point we’ve gotten career physicists to weigh in on our arguments.
No relevance to our majors or our work, but super fucking interesting and full of gaps where there are more theories than facts. Plenty of room for new perspectives.
Normalize doing research for fun!
Edit: changed “engineer” to “engineering student researcher” because a certain person thought I was purposefully misrepresenting the fact I was a student (despite referencing the fact I’m in school in my other comments).
Jsyk in America only “Professional Engineer” is a protected title requiring a certification. You can work as an engineer and have the title of engineer without getting a degree.
I knew several civil engineers in my hometown who were called engineers without having a degree. I think one of them did eventually get his PE certification too after working under a certified PE long enough and taking the tests. (Infrastructure needs a PE sign off before getting built in my state)
In other fields like software engineering you’ll find a lot more people with the title of “engineer” and no certification or degree.
Anyway, point is that I’m sorry if I mislead anyone. I thought it was obvious I’m in school; in the future I’ll try to avoid calling myself an engineer without a qualifier mentioning I’m a student. I think this is the only comment I’ve needed to update for that, hopefully it will stay that way.
Edit: Listen, it's pretty clear you're talking out of your ass. You're an undergrad who has never performed graduate-level research. You're not an engineer. You don't understand ocular biology. You just write a lot of bullshit and expect the people you're talking with to be dazzled by the academic tone.
Graduate, get a job, put in work, then claim to be an engineer. Your behavior is embarrassing.
It's so weird thinking about how we're just copying DNA. That's pretty much the purpose of life; replicate these strange molecules as much as possible. Consciousness is some unintended byproduct of the 'copy forever' algorithm.
And the contents of the information being copied is basically a recepie for building a machine that can make copies of the information needed to build that machine...
It's so weird thinking about how we're just copying DNA.
What's more interesting to me is that we're not just copying it. We're taking two strands of DNA and randomly choosing some from each strand. Some animals are clones of their parent, but most are a randomized mix from each parent. The strands are 99% the same, so to a certain extent it's just copying that molecule, but it's also trying to perfect that remaining 1%.
Instead of being a way to copy a molecule forever, it's a way to optimize that molecule. But, what is an optimal molecule? It's a molecule that contains instructions to generate a creature that has 2 legs, 2 hands, a brain, etc.
no but honestly, periods are great. The feeling when all that extra blood leaves your body is amazing. Guys will never know what it's like being somewhere and sudenly feeling warmth blood running down your legs out of nowhere. Amazing. 10/10 would ome back as a woman again
I cannot describe how much I hate this feeling. It’s probably honestly been protective because I have another reason to always use condoms, and even when I’m drunk, I’m still autistic.
I forget who but a comedian said it well. If we were intelligently designed it was the first design. Why would they ever put the amusement park right next to the sewage system?
Same reason they mixed the vestibular system with the vision system. Do you want a different body part for every single body function? That’d be a lot of extra weight and things to take care of.
Isn't that just a way to average latency to match up with the other limbs? Nerve connections aren't instantaneous like electrical wires or fiber optics.
Your larynx isn't really a limb... But nah, its an evolutionary artefact. In primordial fish it's a straight line, but then the head moves, a neck forms, etc etc. and the nerve can't detach and move over, so it gets longer wnd weirder.
I used to argue this stuff online. I had to quit for my sanity. If anyone wants a sample of the absolute insane beliefs and the staggering amount of handwaving these people are capable of, I suggest checking out evolutionfairytale.com. They will unironically claim to be objective, then a sentence later tell you that "proper science literature" is to be discredited because it has a pro-evolution bias. 🤣
I just took a very brief tour of that website. Apparently symbiotic relationships in nature prove evolution isn't real.... sheesh. I couldn't get past the giraffe claim that proves there was an intelligent design based on how much blood gets pumped up a giraffe neck.
I'm sorry gotta go on a tangent rant
I was recently talking to a friend about pregnancy and it is fucking mind boggling. Organs shift, skeleton changes, and then all the crazy chemical stuff going on too.
The fact that millions of women want this and many experience it more than once is just mind boggling to me.
Eta: sorry my tangent was inspired by "childbirth is fun" but only showing the pelvis.
....you're not wrong but you're also comparing an insect to a human woman who has the cognition to experience all the discomfort and the high mortality rates even in first world countries.
The point of the meme, is to show nature sucks. The point in this case is the crazy morphological changes animals in general (which includes humans) can go through via an extreme example of the caterpillar, not to equate a person to a caterpillar. It was poking a little fun at the fascination you and assumably many other men (and even some women) have at the changes women go through for pregnancy despite knowing about the extreme changes a caterpillar goes through usually during elementary school. Knowing that, it shouldn't be surprising that anything could go through drastic changes for the sake of reproduction. Just because it's an insect does not mean it's not complex. It's probably a good time to mention a tomato has more genes than a human.
But now you're starting to turn it into not only a suffering contest, but a human superiority contest: Hyenas have cognition too and they basically give birth through a penis, along with basically having second puberty for the females. Elephants are extremely cognizant and have to go through extremely long pregnancies, on top of humans also nearly making them go extinct because of something stupid like ivory.
And since you want to make it a suffering competition, the animals win because humanity has screwed them over so badly many are going extinct on a mass scale, including the cognizant ones going through pregnancy themselves.
Instead of just making pointless suffering games on what is meme post where you can expect jokes based off the memes to occur, you can instead at least link to organizations that help women (and in my case, animals as well).
Oh, but you forgot that all the problems are because the first woman ate the wrong fruit. The bible says that is why pregnancy hurts. The rest of those problems? Well creation scientists have determined that sin caused those too even though the bible didn't specify it. They know this because they need it to be the case to keep believing in their mythology.
"See color better" is because 30+ million years ago one of our ancestors was born with a chromosomal mutation that duplicated the DNA sequence for the red/green cone cells in the retina. That individual had the same color perception as everybody else, but over millions of years the duplicated sequences were able to diverge their peak wavelength receptivities into red and green respectively, allowing better discrimination of colors in that range.
Interestingly, that individual 30+ million years ago would likely have shown characteristics similar to today's Down's Syndrome people, due to the chromosomal duplication. It's a prime example of why eugenics is so horrifically misguided.
The nerve going down around the heart artery also applies to the giraffe. It does the exact same thing from brain to heart and around that artery the back up to the throat.
I have seen creationists holding bananas and declaring that they are the perfect size for human hands and proof of intelligent design. DUH ... that banana took centuries to design and the fruit company has a patent for designing it.
I remember it being related to gills as well. The nerve just passed by a gill artery, it was all basically neck, but when the body changed the nerve was still looped around the artery which was located near the heart.
Take your thumb and gently push the eye back into shape from its elongated form. Push a bit and then check if your vision improved. Repeat until the focus point is correct. Be careful not to overshoot the sweet spot.
The periods one is actually addressed by most creationists. In the book of Genesis, Eve (and consequently, all other women) is punished with the pain of childbirth for falling for the lies of the Serpent, and so most creationists view periods as part of that curse. Pretty messed up but that's how they see it. The vagus nerve is completely nonsensical under intelligent design but makes complete sense under evolution. The biggest issue I see is why TF God made everything in the universe look exactly like it's way older than it is. The best argument I can come up with is that it was an epic prank to totally own the libs who find all of this stuff 6,000 years later. Like God is like "Hah you just got pranked you stupid nerd! That'll teach you to be curious about all the cool shit I made!" To believe in creationism is to believe that a huge swath of scientists across an incredibly broad set of fields are part of the largest conspiracy ever conceived of to try to discredit the Bible, or that God is an evil trickster who intentionally laid this giant trap to damn countless souls to Hell.
It might be intelligent design but not perfect design. I mean we build stuff with flaws too and consider ourselves intelligent.
If God or some space alien was really good with biotech and had these parts laying around the result is pretty good. Most humans function for several decades before stuff breaks. The earth is also a pretty stable ecosystem.
Also, anyone believing in goat herder fairytales from the year 0 should not be allowed to raise children as you don't have the intellectual capacity to do so
119 Comments
AnarchoEngineer@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 150 pts · 346d
Bro myopia is the least stupid part of our eye design problems. Our retinas are built entirely backwards for no other reason besides evolution making a mistake and then duct taping over it too much to fix it later.
If your retina was the right way around (like cephalopod eyes) you would have:
Our eyes are built in the stupidest way possible.
Another fun fact: retinol is regenerated by your liver. Not your eyes, not some part of your brain, not some organ near your head like your thalamus which could probably get the job done if it tried, your fucking liver. Your eyes taking a while to adjust to the dark has basically nothing to do with your eyes; it’s because of the delay in adjustment by your fucking liver to produce more retinal, dump it into your vascular system and wait for it to hopefully reach your eyes. Why are we built like this?!
Edit: A few comments asked for sources on the relation between dark adaptation and liver vitamin A. So I went looking for sources. It was honestly somewhat difficult to find information, but I was able to find two different case studies showing that night blindness in patients with damaged livers. Specifically these individuals had liver damage that affected their serum Vitamin A levels. And after raising their vitamin A levels, their symptoms improved.
This study details a patient with normal day vision and no other ocular problems besides being unable to see at night.
This study details a patient with night blindness caused by low levels of vitamin A presumably due to Hepatitis C.
These studies do show that dark adaptation is dependent on vitamin A produced by the liver, but I’ll be the first to admit it’s not exactly conclusive evidence of my initial claim that the liver must respond to dark conditions increasing retinol concentration in the blood in order for rod cells to function properly in low light conditions. That is a possible explanation for these case studies but not necessarily the only one, so take my last fun fact with a grain of salt.
scarilog@lemmy.world · 52 pts · 346d
This is fascinating, I had no idea that there was another mechanism at play to improve low light vision other than pupil dilation
lordbritishbusiness@lemmy.world · 24 pts · 346d
Or that it got stuck in the figurative basement organ where a silly amount of bio-chemistry is stuck because evolution kinda shrugged a few million years ago.
frezik@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 18 pts · 346d
Just one more reaction, bro, I promise, I'm not just making up new organic compounds for fun.
hansolo@lemmy.today · 22 pts · 346d
Maybe if we eat more cephalopods, our eyes will turn into their good eyes?
That's how that works, right?
Onyxonblack@lemmy.zip · 13 pts · 346d
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 346d
honestly that seems like the good end of the scenario we're playing out right now
Rolder@reddthat.com · 19 pts · 346d
I’m reading this with my poorly designed eyes right now!
somerandomperson@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 5 pts · 346d
I wish we could use genetics or some interest8ng science to fix this.
Rolder@reddthat.com · 4 pts · 346d
I’d be down for some cybernetic eyes with better resolution and a zoom option and shit
somerandomperson@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 4 pts · 346d
Not just eyes.
Also, i wouldn't consider them "cybernetic", i'd consider them "improved" or "upgraded".
Saeveo@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 346d
Maybe "augmented"?
lordbritishbusiness@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 346d
Who needs augmentation? Let's just get the organ printer out and update to Mk2 Eyeball.
WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 346d
oh and built in wireless connection so that MaxiEyes Inc. can recommend you products based on what you see at any moment.
RickAstleyfounddead@lemy.lol · 1 pts · 344d
Does eye excercises fix myopia?
dragonfucker@lemmy.nz · 10 pts · 346d
Source that retinal concentration is related to dark adaptation?
Whats_your_reasoning@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 346d
I'm not OP and I'm not an expert, but I know that the production of rhodopsin requires retinal. Rhodopsin is a light-sensitive protein our eyes use to see in low-light conditions, and is essential for our night vision. Retinal and retinol are not the same thing, but they both come from Vitamin A, and convert into each other during the visual cycle. Which means that a deficiency in Vitamin A = a deficiency in retinol, retinal, and rhodopsin, which in effect leads to night blindness.
But I'd like to know more/get a source for OP's liver connection. I know most of our retinol is stored in the liver. However, I'm having difficulty verifying their claim that the delay in night vision onset is due to it traveling from the liver to the eyes. From what I can find, the retinol ligand that produces rhodopsin already exists in mammalian eyes (and persists there as part of the aforementioned visual cycle.) So the argument that night vision takes so long because retinol needs to transfer from the liver to the eyes is suspect.
Unfortunately, search engines absolutely suck these days, and almost every article I can find is behind a fucking paywall. So I'm struggling to find information that can either confirm or deny OP's claim.
OP, please provide a source! Inquiring minds want to know more!
AnarchoEngineer@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 6 pts · 345d
Honestly, it was pretty hard for me to find a source which has made me a little skeptical of my own statements.
I was able to find two case studies in which patients with liver damage that caused them to have low levels of vitamin A exhibited night blindness. Both were treated for vitamin A deficiency and saw symptoms improve.
The strongest evidence of my original claim is the fact that one of the patients had otherwise healthy eyes and vision, only having extreme trouble seeing at night. After receiving treatment for vitamin A deficiency, her night vision improved. This suggests that dark adaptation is dependent on vitamin A in the blood which is regulated by the liver.
However, I’m now somewhat skeptical and curious myself considering these two studies were almost all I could find on this topic. If I have more time I’ll try digging deeper. For now though, I’ve edited my comment with links to the studies.
AnarchoEngineer@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 345d
I was able to find two case studies showing direct links from vitamin A levels (and liver damage) to night blindness. I’ve edited my initial comment with the links to them.
Saleh@feddit.org · 9 pts · 346d
From the point of intelligent design:
We see that there is different sensory focuses. For instance many animals can smell and hear much better than humans do. Some animals have exceptionally better eyes than humans, but overall humans are very focused on vision.
Now when we look at modern inner city environments and the like. Would you think it to be actually better if our senses, particularly our eyes were that much better and delivering even more input to our brains? We already see many people that are overwhelmed in terms of their sensory input and frankly the ones that aren't still suffer slowly from living in cities. In terms of where we are now, i don't think it is too bad that we don't have hawk eyes.
Whats_your_reasoning@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 346d
I live with, work with, and am myself part of, the autistic population. So I gotta agree - sometimes, higher sensitivity is a real detriment.
It's not fun being light-sensitive. I've had days where I've worn sunglasses indoors, with the lights off and curtains closed. The vast majority of my days aren't that bad, thankfully, but it truly sucks when light causes physical eye pain and headaches. I've got a great eye for detail (and have been called "eagle eye" throughout my life), which benefits me in a number of ways, but unfortunately it also means I get distracted by things others don't notice. I can't just "ignore" a lot of things, and when those distractions impact me disproportionately, I'm left in the frustrating situation of guiding others to see (or hear, or feel) the things that are super obvious to me - it feels like leading a child by the hand.
I'm also sensitive to touch (I can't stand light touch, but I can detect ticks on my skin before they bite) and have the ability to hear novel speech sounds that modern science claims I should've lost the ability to detect decades ago (which, okay, is a cool feature to have. But it contributes to being easily-distracted.) All in all, I've never known any other way of experiencing the world, but I do know that most people have difficulty understanding my atypical point of view. Which leads to me preferring the company of fellow spectrumites, and others who understand and accept sensory differences.
prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 4 pts · 346d
So this intelligent designer decided to fuck our eyes up some weird convoluted way instead of just... making us see less?
I honestly hope you don't subscribe to this unscientific garbage.
Saleh@feddit.org · -3 pts · 346d
The eyes of mammals are designed in a way that they "see less" than for instance certain birds or reptiles.
You call this "fuck up some weird convulted way", when it is doing exactly what it is supposed to do. Thereby it is consistent with the way the visual nerve cells are designed and work together with the rest of physics and chemistry. The design is intelligent as it factors in all aspects as part of a coherent complete design. A design far too complex for any human mind to grasp in full.
Basically your question is like asking, why there is no "magic solution" that directly breaks the observable laws of physics. The genius of the design is in not requiring to break the observable laws of physics to achieve the desired outcome.
You say this is "unscientific garbage" when your only alternative explanation is "everything just happened randomly and here we are." Neither approach, "intelligent design" nor "extremely long chain of random occurrences" can be empirically observed and only argued logically. I find it unscientific to denounce a hypothesis as "unscientific garbage" when it cannot be falsified, while the counter hypothesis cannot be proven.
Typhoon@lemmy.ca · 7 pts · 345d
Evolution is definitely not random. The mutations that show up are random, but the selection for them is very directed. If the traits give an organism the attributes to survive, it does and will pass those traits on. If not, it doesn't. Your argument that it's all random is typical creationist nonsense.
We've observed evolution many many times. From the peppered moth to COVID and the flu, we observe evolution all the time. It's the underlying science for all biology and none of it makes sense with out it.
Evolution is a theory that has thousands of proven data points to support it being true. And not one of those experiments has come back showing "goddidit". Intelligent design is unscientific garbage pulled from a book of fairy tales.
Saleh@feddit.org · -2 pts · 345d
We can observe evolution. We cannot observe if the steps are purely random.
E.g. if you mix eggs and butter and flour in a specified ratio and put it in an oven, it is not random that a cake evolves in the oven.
prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 3 pts · 344d
What an absolutely absurd misstatement about what evolution is. If you actually believe this, then you're doing yourself a massive disservice, and you really need to learn what evolution actually is before attempting to defend something that claims to be an alternative (it's not). It's almost insultingly incorrect.
Intelligent Design, literally does not fit the criteria to be considered a scientific theory. That's not even a biased take, it's just fact.
chronotron@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 345d
and so... the "intelligent designer" is, for some reason, restricted from being able to make human brains capable of withstanding the stress from having improved senses
Saleh@feddit.org · 0 pts · 345d
I think you are missing the point that the limits are intended.
SL3wvmnas@discuss.tchncs.de · 4 pts · 345d
TIL,Thank you for dumping obscure biological knowledge!
I felt the same when I found out roughly 90-99 % of serotonin (predecessor) is produced by a certain type of gut bacteria. For some reason, finding the research was (is? Haven't checked for a few years) for some reason non-obvious and difficult.
Now that I think about it, is there a wiki or something where we can share this knowledge? Your artefact would have helped a friend a few years ago...
ignoble_stigmas@sh.itjust.works · 4 pts · 346d
Can we have an eye transplant from an octopus please? And while we are at it, can we have a couple of tentacles too?
muzzle@lemmy.zip · 7 pts · 346d
Nope
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 346d
what if i promise to use the tentacles for music and not sex? i need at least four more arms to play my instrument properly by myself
muzzle@lemmy.zip · 4 pts · 345d
NikkiDimes@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 345d
Your "instrument," eh? 😏
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 345d
It it requires 13 to play properly
edit: 13 people not 13 tentacles
muzzle@lemmy.zip · 2 pts · 346d
Nope
iveseenthat@reddthat.com · 3 pts · 345d
Dear internet stranger, you are awesome. Thanks for your comment and time :)
chloroken@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 345d
Did you just see that other post about Cephalopod eye anatomy and write this?
I ask because you have a poor grasp over what evolution actually is when you say things like "evolution made a mistake". The truth is that our eyes are one of many, many layouts in the animal kingdom, it's not some binary thing like you're making it out to be.
AnarchoEngineer@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 7 pts · 345d
I actually came across this for the first time when I was doing research into the visual pathway for the purpose of trying to structure a spiking neural net more closely to human visual processing.
The Wikipedia page mentions cephalopod eyes specifically when talking about the inverted retina of vertebrates.
The Wikipedia page goes on to explain that our inverted retinas could be the result of evolution trying to protect color receptors by limiting their light intake, as it does appear that our glial cells do facilitate concentrating light.
However, the “positive” effects of the glial cells coming before the receptors could almost certainly be implemented in a non-inverted retina. So that’s the evolutionary duct tape I was mentioning.
It would be difficult to flip the retina back around (in fact since it originates as part of the brain we’d kind of have to grow completely different eyes), so that’s not an option for evolution.
However, slight changes to the glial cells and vasculature of the eyes is definitely more possible. So those mutations happen and evolution optimizes them as best it can.
Evolution did well to optimize a poorly structured organ but it’s still a poorly structured organ.
chloroken@lemmy.ml · -2 pts · 345d
Can you elaborate on that first paragraph? I'm interested.
AnarchoEngineer@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 345d
SNNs more closely resemble the function of biological neurons and are perfect for temporally changing inputs. I decided to teach myself rust at the same time I learned about these so I built one from scratch trying to mimic the results of this paper (or rather a follow up paper in which they change the inhibition pattern leading to behavior similar to a self organizing map; I can’t find the link to said paper right now…).
After building that net I had some ideas about how to improve symbol recognition. This lead me down a massive rabbit hole about how vision is processed in the brain and eventually spiraled out to the function and structure of the hippocampus and now back to the neocortex where I’m currently focusing now on mimicking the behavior and structure of cortical minicolumns.
The main benefit of SNNs over ANNs is also a detriment: the neurons are meant to run in parallel. This means it’s blazing fast if you have neuromorphic hardware, but it’s incredibly slow and computationally intense if you try to simulate it on a typical machine with von Neumann architecture.
chloroken@lemmy.ml · -2 pts · 345d
What's the purpose of this research?
AnarchoEngineer@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 344d
I’m an engineering student researcher with a CS minor and ADHD; this kind of research is what I do with my freetime lol.
To be fair this is kind of a shared hobby project/topic between me and my friend (who is a biophysics major now in med school).
Anyway, point is that you don’t need to have a real “purpose” in order to be curious. I work in a robotics/medical lab at my university and my friends is trying to be a surgeon, yet we’re constantly in debates about astro and quantum physics to the point we’ve gotten career physicists to weigh in on our arguments.
No relevance to our majors or our work, but super fucking interesting and full of gaps where there are more theories than facts. Plenty of room for new perspectives.
Normalize doing research for fun!
Edit: changed “engineer” to “engineering student researcher” because a certain person thought I was purposefully misrepresenting the fact I was a student (despite referencing the fact I’m in school in my other comments).
Jsyk in America only “Professional Engineer” is a protected title requiring a certification. You can work as an engineer and have the title of engineer without getting a degree.
I knew several civil engineers in my hometown who were called engineers without having a degree. I think one of them did eventually get his PE certification too after working under a certified PE long enough and taking the tests. (Infrastructure needs a PE sign off before getting built in my state)
In other fields like software engineering you’ll find a lot more people with the title of “engineer” and no certification or degree.
Anyway, point is that I’m sorry if I mislead anyone. I thought it was obvious I’m in school; in the future I’ll try to avoid calling myself an engineer without a qualifier mentioning I’m a student. I think this is the only comment I’ve needed to update for that, hopefully it will stay that way.
chloroken@lemmy.ml · -2 pts · 344d
Are you doing a postdoc? Masters?
Edit: Listen, it's pretty clear you're talking out of your ass. You're an undergrad who has never performed graduate-level research. You're not an engineer. You don't understand ocular biology. You just write a lot of bullshit and expect the people you're talking with to be dazzled by the academic tone.
Graduate, get a job, put in work, then claim to be an engineer. Your behavior is embarrassing.
Nico_198X@europe.pub · 1 pts · 345d
TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world · 71 pts · 346d
Evolution: bruh all that matters is that you are a horndog.
ryedaft@sh.itjust.works · 23 pts · 346d
dat pelvis 🫦
Yondoza@sh.itjust.works · 18 pts · 346d
It's so weird thinking about how we're just copying DNA. That's pretty much the purpose of life; replicate these strange molecules as much as possible. Consciousness is some unintended byproduct of the 'copy forever' algorithm.
kureta@lemmy.ml · 7 pts · 346d
And the contents of the information being copied is basically a recepie for building a machine that can make copies of the information needed to build that machine...
merc@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 345d
What's more interesting to me is that we're not just copying it. We're taking two strands of DNA and randomly choosing some from each strand. Some animals are clones of their parent, but most are a randomized mix from each parent. The strands are 99% the same, so to a certain extent it's just copying that molecule, but it's also trying to perfect that remaining 1%.
Instead of being a way to copy a molecule forever, it's a way to optimize that molecule. But, what is an optimal molecule? It's a molecule that contains instructions to generate a creature that has 2 legs, 2 hands, a brain, etc.
MissJinx@lemmy.world · 53 pts · 346d
no but honestly, periods are great. The feeling when all that extra blood leaves your body is amazing. Guys will never know what it's like being somewhere and sudenly feeling warmth blood running down your legs out of nowhere. Amazing. 10/10 would ome back as a woman again
Salvo@aussie.zone · 25 pts · 346d
I honestly don’t know any proponents of “intelligent design” who are female.
Except the Sycophantic Patriarchal TERFs who do everything their husbands tell them to do.
fossilesque@mander.xyz · 16 pts · 346d
idiomaddict@lemmy.world · 15 pts · 346d
I cannot describe how much I hate this feeling. It’s probably honestly been protective because I have another reason to always use condoms, and even when I’m drunk, I’m still autistic.
pipe01@programming.dev · 3 pts · 345d
Ha, nice try. There are no women in Lemmy
razorcandy@discuss.tchncs.de · 44 pts · 346d
EditsHisComments@lemmy.world · 33 pts · 346d
Literally the evolutionary equivalent of "eh, good enough"
amotio@lemmy.world · 36 pts · 346d
witty_username@feddit.nl · 24 pts · 346d
shneancy@lemmy.world · 18 pts · 346d
evolution is the epitome of "good enough, ship it!"
scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech · 38 pts · 346d
I forget who but a comedian said it well. If we were intelligently designed it was the first design. Why would they ever put the amusement park right next to the sewage system?
cornshark@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 346d
I feel like if there ever was an advertisement park it would be perfectly placed right next to the sewage system.
scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech · 6 pts · 346d
Ha, fair. Fixed now
SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de · 5 pts · 346d
looks at Disney world
Fedizen@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 346d
Looks at that one carnival cruise ship
ronigami@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 346d
Same reason they mixed the vestibular system with the vision system. Do you want a different body part for every single body function? That’d be a lot of extra weight and things to take care of.
Saleh@feddit.org · 2 pts · 346d
Plenty of animals have their excretion outlet and their food inlet in the same place.
For birds the cloaca is both for excretion and sex.
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 346d
ah, the orifice of kings
General_Effort@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 346d
George Carlin, I think.
ouRKaoS@lemmy.today · 33 pts · 346d
This D&D alignment chart is weird...
Nelots@lemmy.zip · 10 pts · 346d
Yeah, I don't think I'd put wisdom teeth in lawful good personally.
thejoker954@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 345d
Yeah, best case scenario it would be chaotic neutral
Nelots@lemmy.zip · 2 pts · 345d
I was thinking chaotic good, because at least they try to help in a way.
scytale@piefed.zip · 29 pts · 346d
What’s the smart nerve taking a detour one?
PunnyName@lemmy.world · 23 pts · 346d
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recurrent_laryngeal_nerve
Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works · 21 pts · 346d
And it does that for both humans... And giraffes. Going from the brain, several meters down to the heart, then all the way back up to the larynx.
Blaster_M@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 346d
Isn't that just a way to average latency to match up with the other limbs? Nerve connections aren't instantaneous like electrical wires or fiber optics.
Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works · 32 pts · 346d
Your larynx isn't really a limb... But nah, its an evolutionary artefact. In primordial fish it's a straight line, but then the head moves, a neck forms, etc etc. and the nerve can't detach and move over, so it gets longer wnd weirder.
rockerface@lemmy.cafe · 13 pts · 346d
Brain usually does that kind of sync on its own. Your conscious experience of reality is actually very slightly in the past because of that.
NikkiDimes@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 345d
This is why it's so jarring when what happens in real life doesn't line up with the predicted reality your brain expects! I hate that feeling :D
finitebanjo@lemmy.world · 29 pts · 345d
Also, Appendicitis is when your Appendix, a vestigial organ which produces small amounts of Vitamin C, randomly explodes and kills you.
AdrianTheFrog@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 345d
I heard it's actually fairly useful for your gut bacteria or smth like that
Kolanaki@pawb.social · 14 pts · 346d
Thought that knee diagram was a pelvis at first glance and was wondering how that was related to sports.
hakunawazo@lemmy.world · 14 pts · 346d
Mmh, pelvis sports.
napkin2020@sh.itjust.works · 14 pts · 346d
Human body is worse than all the JS npm drama shit
Underwaterbob@sh.itjust.works · 12 pts · 345d
I used to argue this stuff online. I had to quit for my sanity. If anyone wants a sample of the absolute insane beliefs and the staggering amount of handwaving these people are capable of, I suggest checking out evolutionfairytale.com. They will unironically claim to be objective, then a sentence later tell you that "proper science literature" is to be discredited because it has a pro-evolution bias. 🤣
Notyou@sopuli.xyz · 3 pts · 345d
I just took a very brief tour of that website. Apparently symbiotic relationships in nature prove evolution isn't real.... sheesh. I couldn't get past the giraffe claim that proves there was an intelligent design based on how much blood gets pumped up a giraffe neck.
Iceman@lemmy.world · 12 pts · 346d
Who the fuck would design ingrown nails??
SuperSpruce@lemmy.zip · 11 pts · 345d
You forgot the nose when sleeping! It produces snoring, giving your location and sleep status away to nearby predators!
Flagstaff@programming.dev · 1 pts · 344d
That's only the fatties with sleep apnea. Survival of the fittest, nerd! /s
asteriskeverything@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 346d
I'm sorry gotta go on a tangent rant I was recently talking to a friend about pregnancy and it is fucking mind boggling. Organs shift, skeleton changes, and then all the crazy chemical stuff going on too.
The fact that millions of women want this and many experience it more than once is just mind boggling to me.
Eta: sorry my tangent was inspired by "childbirth is fun" but only showing the pelvis.
Lumisal@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 346d
Wait till you hear about caterpillars.
Evolution is one hell of a drug
asteriskeverything@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 345d
....you're not wrong but you're also comparing an insect to a human woman who has the cognition to experience all the discomfort and the high mortality rates even in first world countries.
Lumisal@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 345d
The point of the meme, is to show nature sucks. The point in this case is the crazy morphological changes animals in general (which includes humans) can go through via an extreme example of the caterpillar, not to equate a person to a caterpillar. It was poking a little fun at the fascination you and assumably many other men (and even some women) have at the changes women go through for pregnancy despite knowing about the extreme changes a caterpillar goes through usually during elementary school. Knowing that, it shouldn't be surprising that anything could go through drastic changes for the sake of reproduction. Just because it's an insect does not mean it's not complex. It's probably a good time to mention a tomato has more genes than a human.
But now you're starting to turn it into not only a suffering contest, but a human superiority contest: Hyenas have cognition too and they basically give birth through a penis, along with basically having second puberty for the females. Elephants are extremely cognizant and have to go through extremely long pregnancies, on top of humans also nearly making them go extinct because of something stupid like ivory.
And since you want to make it a suffering competition, the animals win because humanity has screwed them over so badly many are going extinct on a mass scale, including the cognizant ones going through pregnancy themselves.
Instead of just making pointless suffering games on what is meme post where you can expect jokes based off the memes to occur, you can instead at least link to organizations that help women (and in my case, animals as well).
amikulo@slrpnk.net · 7 pts · 345d
Oh, but you forgot that all the problems are because the first woman ate the wrong fruit. The bible says that is why pregnancy hurts. The rest of those problems? Well creation scientists have determined that sin caused those too even though the bible didn't specify it. They know this because they need it to be the case to keep believing in their mythology.
Harbinger01173430@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 345d
I thought pregnancy hurts because woman number zero decides to go on top, which in return caused woman number one to eat the fruit.
Checkmate, abrahamlcturds.
scathliath@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 7 pts · 345d
It's intelligent design; the divine is also just sadistic and a dick.
IndustryStandard@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 345d
Someone recently pointed out the bottom left one is because we can see color better with our eye design.
Are the other ones still valid?
ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world · 21 pts · 345d
"See color better" is because 30+ million years ago one of our ancestors was born with a chromosomal mutation that duplicated the DNA sequence for the red/green cone cells in the retina. That individual had the same color perception as everybody else, but over millions of years the duplicated sequences were able to diverge their peak wavelength receptivities into red and green respectively, allowing better discrimination of colors in that range.
Interestingly, that individual 30+ million years ago would likely have shown characteristics similar to today's Down's Syndrome people, due to the chromosomal duplication. It's a prime example of why eugenics is so horrifically misguided.
Rachelhazideas@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 345d
Wisdom teeth were amazing to have back when dental care didn't exist and our teeth fell out from decay or injuries.
Shamber@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 346d
And amazingly 7 billion of us still breathing and at least half of us think they can do better 😂
Elgenzay@lemmy.ml · 5 pts · 346d
The nerve thing bothers me. I wish to learn nothing more of it
Wilco@lemmy.zip · 4 pts · 344d
The nerve going down around the heart artery also applies to the giraffe. It does the exact same thing from brain to heart and around that artery the back up to the throat.
I have seen creationists holding bananas and declaring that they are the perfect size for human hands and proof of intelligent design. DUH ... that banana took centuries to design and the fruit company has a patent for designing it.
Smeagol666@mander.xyz · 2 pts · 343d
I loved learning about the laryngeal nerve in giraffes from the video by Richard Dawkins. I think the PBS show Your Inner Fish covered it too.
Edit: I may be wrong about Your Inner Fish referencing the laryngeal nerve, but I'm currently re-watching it anyway.
Wilco@lemmy.zip · 2 pts · 341d
I remember it being related to gills as well. The nerve just passed by a gill artery, it was all basically neck, but when the body changed the nerve was still looped around the artery which was located near the heart.
ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 346d
Don't forget "the bush that tells theocratic ephebophiles that it's no longer pedophilia"!
RickAstleyfounddead@lemy.lol · 3 pts · 344d
Hey, is myopia reversible without surgery? Anyone knows?
raldone01@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 344d
Take your thumb and gently push the eye back into shape from its elongated form. Push a bit and then check if your vision improved. Repeat until the focus point is correct. Be careful not to overshoot the sweet spot.
RickAstleyfounddead@lemy.lol · 3 pts · 343d
Wow it worked! But now the lights went off..
joshchandra@midwest.social · 2 pts · 344d
Hey AI, you rock!
raldone01@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 344d
Done now edit your comment too. ;) I was thinking some personal experience.
witty_username@feddit.nl · 3 pts · 346d
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today · 2 pts · 346d
also the eye development, Cephalapods dont have this weakness, the blindpsot, because of different evolutionary mechanism.
magic_lobster_party@fedia.io · 2 pts · 346d
Also hiccups
General_Effort@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 346d
Where is Doctor Pangloss when you need him?
NigelFrobisher@aussie.zone · 2 pts · 345d
My patella tracking is off and I’m furious about it.
markovs_gun@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 344d
The periods one is actually addressed by most creationists. In the book of Genesis, Eve (and consequently, all other women) is punished with the pain of childbirth for falling for the lies of the Serpent, and so most creationists view periods as part of that curse. Pretty messed up but that's how they see it. The vagus nerve is completely nonsensical under intelligent design but makes complete sense under evolution. The biggest issue I see is why TF God made everything in the universe look exactly like it's way older than it is. The best argument I can come up with is that it was an epic prank to totally own the libs who find all of this stuff 6,000 years later. Like God is like "Hah you just got pranked you stupid nerd! That'll teach you to be curious about all the cool shit I made!" To believe in creationism is to believe that a huge swath of scientists across an incredibly broad set of fields are part of the largest conspiracy ever conceived of to try to discredit the Bible, or that God is an evil trickster who intentionally laid this giant trap to damn countless souls to Hell.
pjwestin@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 344d
Rabbits' digestive systems are so inefficient they have to eat their own shit to get enough nutrients.
dechnically@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 344d
no loving god could create the shoulder joint
affenlehrer@feddit.org · -2 pts · 346d
It might be intelligent design but not perfect design. I mean we build stuff with flaws too and consider ourselves intelligent.
If God or some space alien was really good with biotech and had these parts laying around the result is pretty good. Most humans function for several decades before stuff breaks. The earth is also a pretty stable ecosystem.
Both much better than we could build.
Phegan@lemmy.world · 24 pts · 346d
phoenixz@lemmy.ca · 7 pts · 345d
Christian doctrine breaks Christian doctrine
Also, anyone believing in goat herder fairytales from the year 0 should not be allowed to raise children as you don't have the intellectual capacity to do so
finitebanjo@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 345d
I also subscribe to this ideology. If there is a god, he was never on our side.
justme@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 345d
He might be infallible, maybe just sadist. You know... Mysterious way and other stuff when one runs out of arguments
phoenixz@lemmy.ca · 0 pts · 345d
No, it is not intelligent design.
Please stop as I'm unsure if you're joking or not and my patience with idiots is gone.