In Your Eyes.

There is a theoretical limit to how good a camera can be. This is due to the fact that heat is nothing more than the presence of particles vibrating. As a result every image has an intrinsic amount of "noise" in it. Obviously you can play with this limit by cooling down the camera's components, but ignoring that, a camera at room temperature can only be so good. The human eye by comparison is within a factor of ten of this limit. This means your eyes are almost as good as is physically possible at room temperature.

Anyone who thinks their eyes are due to evolution alone is a moron. Don't get me wrong, I don't believe it was molded by the hand of the all mighty on day six or anything. However, the Intelligent Design argument does have merit to it. Unfortunately, the religious fanatics see Intelligent Design and think god, completely missing the much more obvious influence; one much closer to home. You.

The brain of a two year old has about twice as many neurons as the brain of a twenty year old. The eyes of a newborn have one and a half again as many. So who picks which stay and which go? It isn't some complicated process like separating introns and exons in a chromosome, but rather its much simpler. You do. Crazy as that sounds, its true. The way you use your brain in those early years determines what it will look like later on. In short, your thoughts shape your mind. This seems terribly backwards as your thoughts are generally considered to be a subsection of your mind, however it is easy to prove, but either applying or depriving newborns of certain stimulus. This kind of experiment would be terribly barbaric, so lets pick a much more human proof. Everyone knows children learn new languages faster. In fact, after about the age of six to eight, it is next to impossible for someone to develop a new accent. There are of course exceptions (remember people mold their own brains), but as a general rule, that area of the brain becomes set in a given accent.

Gestalt is another proof. People who disagree with Evolution often talk about gestalt, however their arguments often miss the mark. Lets consider for a second three dots equally spaced on a page. Each dot alone doesn't mean anything, and even looking at two of the dots doesn't do anything for you. But look at all three and suddenly you see a triangle. This is the essence of gestalt. None of the individual parts are suggestive of the whole shape, but when considered together a different image appears. But how does this apply to human visual perception (a subject I'm a published author in)? Well lets look at faces for a second.

The way the human brain interprets a human face is unique; and what's more, it is subject to gestalt. Show someone individual features of a face, and they won't be able to tell who's it is. Even giving them multiple features seems to some how foil the recognition process. The whole face is needed. There is a specific neurological condition in which the affected is no longer able to recognize objects (unless of course they are told what it is). People with this disorder cannot for example recognize a pair of glasses shown to them previously. These people are still able to recognize faces. There are also people affected with this disorder who are able to recognize objects readily, but completely fail when it comes to faces. This clearly indicates that these two actions happen in separate parts of the brain. What's more, children who grow up without looking at faces do not have these unique characteristics. There is no gestalt for them when it comes to faces.

Given all this I begin to wonder how people would treat Intelligent Design if it was backed by Neurologists and not Fanatics.
take from a lecture on vision given by Jim Tzenes