Jump to content


Photo

How Did The Program For The Brain Evolve?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
196 replies to this topic

#181 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 28 August 2009 - 01:06 AM

Oh bad example there Ike.

We can tell you if it is a structure of the eye vs something wrong with the processing.  If their retina's contain rods vs cones then it would be a structure of eye.  If the retina's contained an proportion of rods and cones similar to our eye, then we can safely assume that it sees things like we do.

If the creature still only saw in Black and white, then we would need to test that species to see if it was common amung them to see in Black and White , or if it was the origional one we studied.  That would prove if it was an problem with the brain.

View Post


And what if the vision program in the brain could compensate for the difference between our vision and theirs even though the eye was very different?

Someone, I don't remember who, mde the comment earlier that our brain puts something into the blind spot so we don't notice it. Is that not compensating?

#182 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 28 August 2009 - 05:31 AM

Umm, Dee, you came here too buddy, we're both required to prove our cases. And considering you were the one making very large claims ("It’s dead in the water anyway") I think the requirement is more on you than me.

View Post


No Arch, you came to a Creationist site to attempt to disprove creation. Therefore you have to provide evidence to the contrary of this sites UP FRONT claim. If I were to go to an evolutionists web site, it would be incumbent upon me to provide the evidence of my claim. Because I went there to prove them wrong.

I can prove macro-evolution is dead in the water, because there is absolutely no evidence to support anything to the contrary. ALL the evidence we currently have supports creation. All the empirical evidence and all the logical evidence goes against one species evolving into another. And you have done nothing to refute that claim yet. Unless you have some miraculous you have to post here that will change all of the current evidence?

#183 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 28 August 2009 - 06:13 AM

No Arch, you came to a Creationist site to attempt to disprove creation. Therefore you have to provide evidence to the contrary of this sites UP FRONT claim. If I were to go to an evolutionists web site, it would be incumbent upon me to provide the evidence of my claim. Because I went there to prove them wrong. 

View Post


And you came to a creationist site to prove creation. We should both be required to provide for our stance. I don't see how the bias of the website's original creators changes that.

I can prove macro-evolution is dead in the water, because there is absolutely no evidence to support anything to the contrary. ALL the evidence we currently have supports creation. All the empirical evidence and all the logical evidence goes against one species evolving into another. And you have done nothing to refute that claim yet. Unless you have some miraculous you have to post here that will change all of the current evidence?

View Post


A few of the creationists here don't seem to understand the difference between there being no evidence, and there being evidence they disagree with.

There is stacks upon stacks of evidence out there that backs up macro-evolution. Just because you disagree with it does not make that evidence disappear. The same applies in reverse. I'm of the opinion that most creationist evidence is bogus. However that does not refute the fact that this evidence does exist. I hope you can understand the difference.

Regards,

Arch.

#184 Javabean

Javabean

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 950 posts
  • Location:Harrisburg Pa
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Harrisburg

Posted 28 August 2009 - 06:57 AM

And what if the vision program in the brain could compensate for the difference between our vision and theirs even though the eye was very different?

Someone, I don't remember who, mde the comment earlier that our brain puts something into the blind spot so we don't notice it. Is that not compensating?

View Post


Good question.

For our brains we already know we see in color, and we can make the proper assumption that certain species can only see in black in white by doing the correct experiments. (bear with me please)

We know that our eyes have blind spots in them, and we know that the brain fills them in. But what does it fill it in with? It will fill it with the surrounding environment. In other words it will fill it in with the available information.

If the eyes are unable to distinguish color then the brain will never know color, it just wont be available for it to "fill in". If the program is at fault then the brain is still unable to fill in color, seeing the information is unavailable for it to process.

Ah sorry I realize I didn't fully understand your question! ;)

If there was a difference between our eyes and theirs we could see if they reacted differently to different colors. that would let us know if they could still see in color or not. Although if they had more cones than rods then Scientifically speaking their eyes are more suited to low light situations than ours. And in lo-light situations colors are less important.

#185 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 28 August 2009 - 07:22 AM

And you came to a creationist site to prove creation.

View Post

No Arch, at a creationist site, that is already assumed. Plus, the evidence here has been posited over and over again.


We should both be required to provide for our stance. I don't see how the bias of the website's original creators changes that.

View Post


And when I go to atheistic sites, I know I have to have a proposal of evidence to counter their opinion because of their bias and preconceived religious stances. I cannot go there and say “you are all nuts”!!!

Where you are missing the boat, is the fact that you came here to refute what is already the view. You have to make your case against the case that is already here.

But, as usual, you come with a bag of equivocations instead of evidences.

A few of the creationists here don't seem to understand the difference between there being no evidence, and there being evidence they disagree with.

View Post


No Arch, there are a number of atheists (you-self included) who cannot accept they are taking the vast majority of their so-called totally on faith. And you have yet to provide a shred of evidence for your religion.


There is stacks upon stacks of evidence out there that backs up macro-evolution. Just because you disagree with it does not make that evidence disappear. The same applies in reverse. I'm of the opinion that most creationist evidence is bogus. However that does not refute the fact that this evidence does exist. I hope you can understand the difference.

View Post


If that’s the case, show these purported “stacks upon stacks of evidence” instead of equivocating, quibbling and praying they exist. Quit with the smoke and mirrors and produce some tangible and empirical evidence, and not just more hot air.

#186 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 02 September 2009 - 06:49 PM

Ah, finally. Lost this thread in the mix. Is there any way to tag threads so you can remember to come back and answer questions?

No Arch, at a creationist site, that is already assumed. Plus, the evidence here has been posited over and over again.

View Post


So what you're saying is that you have posted this evidence before? Great! Because that's what I'm saying too. You've posted evidence, and I post evidence. We both post evidence. What's the problem?

And when I go to atheistic sites, I know I have to have a proposal of evidence to counter their opinion because of their bias and preconceived religious stances. I cannot go there and say “you are all nuts”!!!

View Post


Of course not, that would just be rude :P But once you've posted some evidence, they'll try and contradict it with their evidence. You see, again, both parties post evidence.

Where you are missing the boat, is the fact that you came here to refute what is already the view. You have to make your case against the case that is already here.

View Post


No I get that. What you don't get is that for me to know what your view is you have to post stuff too. So again, we both post evidence. Really not a hard concept :D

If that’s the case, show these purported “stacks upon stacks of evidence” instead of equivocating, quibbling and praying they exist. Quit with the smoke and mirrors and produce  some tangible and empirical evidence, and not just more hot air.

View Post


:D I already did Dee, but since you asked so nicely (:rolleyes:) I'll post some additional resources.

Talk Origins: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution

I know how much you hate Talk Origins, but it really is the best compiled version of evidence I can find. I could link you heaps of sites that give you one or two reasons, or I can link you one that gives heaps. I went with the one that requires less bandwidth :P

Now, the point I'm making here has nothing to do with whether you agree with these examples. The point I'm making is that there is supporting evidence for macro evolution. You can feel free to interpret it differently, but to completely deny this evidence exists is terribly dishonest to those that have just started looking into this topic.

Regards,

Arch.

#187 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 07 September 2009 - 04:22 AM

Ah, finally. Lost this thread in the mix. Is there any way to tag threads so you can remember to come back and answer questions?


If you click on your own name. Then click on: Find members posts. And it will list every where you have posted from the latest to the oldest.

#188 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 07 September 2009 - 04:39 AM

If you click on your own name. Then click on: Find members posts. And it will list every where you have posted from the latest to the oldest.

View Post

Ah! Totally awesome. I think I've used that tool before but I didn't realise it had all your history. Cheers mate ;)

Regards,

Arch.

#189 Metatron

Metatron

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 1 posts
  • Age: 46
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Tampa, Fl

Posted 09 September 2009 - 07:42 PM

Ah, finally. Lost this thread in the mix. Is there any way to tag threads so you can remember to come back and answer questions?


Hey Arch - I don't know if this helps, but you can also use the Track feature located at the top of the thread. It let's you keep track of threads you are interested in as well as giving you different email options.

Again, hope this helps...

#190 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 09 September 2009 - 11:59 PM

And what if the vision program in the brain could compensate for the difference between our vision and theirs even though the eye was very different?

Someone, I don't remember who, mde the comment earlier that our brain puts something into the blind spot so we don't notice it. Is that not compensating?

View Post


Your brain will fill in the blind spot, but not always correctly unless it has the correct information from the other eye.

If anyone is interested in seeing what your brain does you can go here to check it out.

#191 Bruce V.

Bruce V.

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,153 posts
  • Age: 54
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Northern Califiornia

Posted 10 September 2009 - 08:36 AM

Your brain will fill in the blind spot, but not always correctly unless it has the correct information from the other eye.

If anyone is interested in seeing what your brain does you can go here to check it out.

View Post


That is great find. Thanks for sharing it.

#192 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 10 September 2009 - 12:09 PM

In keeping with the theme of this thread "How Did The Program For The Brain Evolve?” there is no evidence that the brain did evolve. No one has posited any evidence here supporting the hypothesis that the brain evolved, so I wonder what these ten pages have really been about?

I guess that’s another question for another day (or another ten pages :) ).

#193 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 10 September 2009 - 07:50 PM

Hey Arch - I don't know if this helps, but you can also use the Track feature located at the top of the thread.  It let's you keep track of threads you are interested in as well as giving you different email options.

Again, hope this helps...

View Post


*Facepalm* Yeah, that sounds like exactly what I was looking for...:huh:

#194 Javabean

Javabean

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 950 posts
  • Location:Harrisburg Pa
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Harrisburg

Posted 10 September 2009 - 09:13 PM

In keeping with the theme of this thread "How Did The Program For The Brain Evolve?” there is no evidence that the brain did evolve. No one has posited any evidence here supporting the hypothesis that the brain evolved,  so I wonder what these ten pages have really been about?

I guess that’s another question for another day (or another ten pages  :huh:  ).

View Post



Well the thread was discussing how the program for the brain evolved, not how the brain evolved :lol: (but yes the 2 would be connected very closely)

#195 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 11 September 2009 - 02:16 AM

Well the thread was discussing how the program for the brain evolved, not how the brain evolved :P  (but yes the 2 would be connected very closely)

View Post


Pssst! Java, if there is no proof the brain evolved, then it stand to reason there is no proof it programming evolved either. The connection is closer then you think :lol:
.

#196 Javabean

Javabean

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 950 posts
  • Location:Harrisburg Pa
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Harrisburg

Posted 18 September 2009 - 06:14 AM

Pssst! Java, if there is no proof the brain evolved, then it stand to reason there is no proof it programming evolved either. The connection is closer then you think :P
.

View Post



:D

Now Ron I know you don't believe in Evolution, so you statement makes perfect sense to you. But to others just starting their research into this need to come to their own conclusions.

There is homology between the brains of all species. We can tell what parts of the brain are for what. Yes this also speaks volumes for the creationist. God created this goopy gray stuff for processing information and then used various combinations of it for different animals including humans.

To me the idea of the brain evolving only makes sense.

-------this is me just thinking about it...no actual research yet-----

The brain would had to have evolved a long time ago. Starting off with some sort of prebrain that made it easier for said species to survive.

The species with this prebrain will pass on their genetic traits to more and more generations. As new sensations would interact with this pre-brain it would react as well with new growths that would be used to process this new information and all the creature to survive better, by making better use of the new sensation. Such as when sight first developed. when the first creature could see the food that it wanted to eat, as opposed to blindly flopping about and hoping something landed in its mouth!

Well anyways I've rambled on enough about this, I need to run off to work!

#197 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 19 September 2009 - 03:44 AM

-------this is me just thinking about it...no actual research yet-----

View Post



Which proves my point that any discussion of brain evolution being nothing more that supposition with NO factual or evidential backing. The only evidence we do have is that same brain we have today.

The brain would had to have evolved a long time ago.  Starting off with some sort of prebrain that made it easier for said species to survive. 

View Post


Or it was "created" fully formed and ready to learn. Which is more likely than nothing growing "into some sort of prebrain" of which we have absolutely no evidence.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users