March 2, 2009

"A sea-change / Into something rich and strange:" Macropinna microstoma

Researchers solve mystery of deep-sea fish with tubular eyes and transparent head

"Full fathom five thy father lies;/ Of his bones are coral made;/ Those are pearls that were his eyes..."


O day and night, but this is wondrous strange!


And therefore as a stranger give it welcome.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

A stunning video of an amazing and mysterious creature:

"Researchers at the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute recently solved the half-century-old mystery of a fish with tubular eyes and a transparent head. Ever since the "barreleye" fish Macropinna microstoma was first described in 1939, marine biologists have known that its tubular eyes are very good at collecting light. However, the eyes were believed to be fixed in place and seemed to provide only a "tunnel-vision" view of whatever was directly above the fish's head. A new paper by Bruce Robison and Kim Reisenbichler shows that these unusual eyes can rotate within a transparent shield that covers the fish's head. This allows the barreleye to peer up at potential prey or focus forward to see what it is eating."

All of which, for no particular reason, brought to mind this question posed by Cobb in December, "Imagine if God existed but was sufficiently advanced such that we couldn't identify him for another 1000 years. Where does that leave the scientific atheist?"

I don't know about you, but I'd say it leaves the "scientific atheist" full fathom five, deep in the dark, and without the benefit of a transparent head that will help him descry the food floating in front of his face.

Posted by Vanderleun at March 2, 2009 9:15 AM
Bookmark and Share



"It is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood." -- Karl Popper N.B.: Comments are moderated and may not appear immediately. Comments that exceed the obscenity or stupidity limits will be either edited or expunged.

OK, I am slow. I know. But the first time I read that Cobb question I said the same thing as this time: Huh? Somebody want to explain to this idiot why that's an interesting question? I mean, I think it leaves the scientific atheist saying "Talk to me in 1000 years."

Posted by: Andy at March 2, 2009 9:51 AM

I'm not that literal about it. I simply take it to mean that, for all the carping about how smart we are and how much we know, we are still very dumb and know only about an inch of the million mile road of what there is to know.

As for the capability of "detecting God" with instruments, I think we're still trying to get a clear view of quarks and the far side of the universe and the moments before the Big Bang... so I think it will take awhile for those who cannot see the hand of creation infused into the world dimensional.

Posted by: vanderleun at March 2, 2009 10:39 AM

I'll accept that.

Posted by: Andy at March 2, 2009 11:39 AM

unless I missed something, since when does "detecting God" have anything to do with science? To me the God vs. science thing is apples and oranges; they have nothing to do with each other.

Posted by: Barnabus at March 2, 2009 6:59 PM

Really? Who do you think created science? Or the thought that thought of science? Or the science of thought? Hamsters?

Posted by: vanderleun at March 2, 2009 10:46 PM

Shit. I'll have to rush the publication of my book now. I thought the hamster thing was going to surprise everybody.

Posted by: Andy at March 3, 2009 8:14 AM