The description of the retina as a powerful "preprocessor" is common knowledge among anatomists/physiologists. In fact, making "millions of nerve cells interconnect in a fantastic number of ways" is what evolution is particularly good at; many animals are known to have such "secondary brains" in a variety of places and functions. Envious computer scientists design evolutionary algorithms to result in new better computer systems and networks.

Pete, being a Biblical literalist, has yet much weaker a claim to science than the more flexible "intelligent design creationists". Essentially he disagrees with the mainstream of almost all sciences, even including history and linguistics.

The really strange thing about this thread is that whenever one side seems to have lost, the other side comes to its aid with even more preposterous argumentats. I have to agree with Dave that this is basically an orgy of self-ridicule - if you enjoy it, so be it.