An evolutionist posted the following: "In mollusc eyes, the blood supply to the light sensitive retina is behind the retina, where it is out of the way of light. In mammals, supposed by "intelligent designers" to be the highest form of life, the blood supply is between the lens and the retina thus blocking some of the light and making more work for the brain to process the image. Would an intelligent designer get it right in molluscs and wrong in mammals, including humans? "
I have said that a belief in an intelligent design prompts an individual to investigate until an answer is found, where an evolutionist would be quick to discard it as a vestige of an evolutionary past.
Here is something to think about. Start reading about the human eye and you will see that the vitreous humour contain phagocytes that remove unwanted cellular debris. Than inquire about how the phagocytes migrate and you will see they come from the blood, through the blood vessels, and back out that way again. Did that start connecting, genius?
Now I would not make that effort to inquire had I been content and did not believe that the particular design has a purpose and that its structure has been made with inteligence. The obvious thing is that a human eye is more sophisticated than a mollusc and given the human longevity, it would make sense to make eyes that can last a 120 years.
Added (1). I also said to him: Light is radiation right? How do you know duration testing will not reveal that the retina needs protective layering in the front? Maybe putting the blood supply in the front accomplishes more than one task. How do you know the algorithm to filter the image from the specs is more burdened? Did you ever write an image processing algorithm?
Read more: Do evolutionists make bad scientists?