As a computer programmer, Tsiaras was amazed at the complexity of the information we find in the human body:
[A]s you can see, when you start working on this data, it’s pretty spectacular. And as we kept on scanning more and more, working on this project, looking at these two simple cells that have this kind of unbelievable machinery that will become the magic of you … building this incredible trilinear fetus, that becomes within 44 days something that you can recognize, and then at 9 weeks, is really like a little human being. The marvel of this information, how do we actually have this biological mechanism inside the our body, to actually see this information?
His comments, as a mathematician, on the complexity of human development are noteworthy:
The magic of the mechanisms inside each genetic structure saying exactly where that nerve cell should go, the complexity of these, the mathematical models on how these things are indeed done, are beyond human comprehension. Even though I am a mathematician, I look at this with the marvel of how do these instruction sets not make these mistakes as they build what is us. It’s a mystery, it’s magic, it’s divinity.
[T]he basic building blocks of human eyesight turn out to be practically perfect. Scientists have learned that the fundamental units of vision, the photoreceptor cells that carpet the retinal tissue of the eye and respond to light, are not just good or great or phabulous at their job. They are not merely exceptionally impressive by the standards of biology, with whatever slop and wiggle room the animate category implies. Photoreceptors operate at the outermost boundary allowed by the laws of physics, which means they are as good as they can be, period. Each one is designed to detect and respond to single photons of light — the smallest possible packages in which light comes wrapped.
“Light is quantized, and you can’t count half a photon,” said William Bialek, a professor of physics and integrative genomics at Princeton University. “This is as far as it goes.”
The reader points out the difficulty for Darwinian explanations:
If the eye is indeed perfect by design (it can detect one photon), it has to be impossible to evolve, since the closer one gets to perfection, the lower the advantage to the being and the more impossible it becomes to fix the mutations that might advance the efficiency in the population. Is there any selective advantage to having an eye that detects a single photon over one that detects, for example, two photons? 5 photons? 50 photons, 100 photons? 1000 photons? Here again, the Hardy-Weinberg equation makes it clear that the enhancement cannot be fixed, and the perfection of the eye or other body parts is only explicable if there is a Designer of perfect skill.