Megapixels, Digital Cameras, and the Supposed Evolution of the Eye
I read an interesting article on Gismodo.com about the new 8-megapixels iPhone camera and that “Canon is reportedly testing a new DSLR with 75-megapixels.” Adam Clark Estes, the author of the article, then asked these questions: “But how many megapixels is the human eye? That is, how many megapixels would an image the size of your field of vision need to be to look normal?”
Estes goes on to say that the better question is, “What is the resolution of the human eye?”
When comparisons are made with cameras, “the human eye is 576 megapixels — but really only about 7 megapixels matter.” So the supposedly “evolved” human eye has 7.68 times the number of pixels that a camera that is only now being tested has.
The next time you decide to purchase the next generation of digital cameras, ask the salesperson when it will evolve? He or she most likely will look at you a little funny and ask you what you mean by “evolve.”
Trending: What’s Happened to Ann Coulter?
I’ve read several articles over the years by evolutionists who try to explain how the eye evolved from nothing to something that can outperform anything that has been designed and built to this point in time.
There’s no science behind these explanations. They are theories, and not very good ones. Here’s a popular explanation from Evolution of the Eye:
“Biologists use the range of less complex light sensitive structures that exist in living species today to hypothesize the various evolutionary stages eyes may have gone through.
“Some scientists think some eyes may have evolved like this: The simple light-sensitive spot on the skin of some ancestral creature gave it some tiny survival advantage, perhaps allowing it to evade a predator. Random changes then created a depression in the light-sensitive patch, a deepening pit that made ‘vision’ a little sharper. At the same time, the pit’s opening gradually narrowed, so light entered through a small aperture, like a pinhole camera.”
This all sounds very scientific until you realize that there is nothing in the real world that such a hypothesis can be compared to or observable indicators demonstrating that such a thing has taken place or is now taking place.
Any attempt to demonstrate such a process would nullify the premise since an outside intelligence would be setting up the demonstration in attempt that no intelligence was behind the creation of the human eye and the human that it resides and functions in.
Simply put, no such process is happening today, and nothing we use follows this process. The camera is a perfect example. Cameras no more evolve than a Corvette does, the example that evolutionist Tim Berra has used to explain how he claims biological evolution works. Designed and manufactured change in the development of cameras and automobiles are not in any way analogous to molecule to man biological evolution.
Any first-year philosophy student should be able to detect how Berra and other evolutionists equivocate on the meaning of “evolve.”
Here’s a video by Vsauce, Michael Stevens (always interesting to watch and listen to), on the question of megapixels, resolution, and the unique structure and function of the human eye that no camera can duplicate, even it were left in an open field for a trillion years in an attempt to “evolve.”