Cerebral Dendrites are Mini Computers!

[Radrook]

Wow. One whole scientist converted to Christianity.

But it is strange, if he's so sure that his conversion is the result of a "straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them" where is his peer-reviewed publication showing this?

That's like Jesus submitting his ideas to the Pharisees for review.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

What's a dendrite?

 

[Jimmy D]

What's a dendrite?

It's like a computer in your brain..... we know computers are designed...... therefore your brain is designed...... it's obvious logic, don't pretend you can't see it, you are just trying to deny God.

 

[Radrook]

What's a dendrite?

Dendrites (from Greek δένδρον déndron, "tree") (also dendron) are the branched projections of a neuron that act to propagate the electrochemical stimulation received from other neural cells to the cell body, or soma, of the neuron from which the dendrites project. Electrical stimulation is transmitted onto dendrites by upstream neurons (usually their axons) via synapses which are located at various points throughout the dendritic tree. Dendrites play a critical role in integrating these synaptic inputs and in determining the extent to which action potentials are produced by the neuron.[1]

Dendrite - Wikipedia

dendrite

 

[KCfromNC]

That's like Jesus submitting his ideas to the Pharisees for review.

Or to put it more accurately, like someone who claims that science supports their view actually generating science which supports their view.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Cerebral dendrites are mini computers!

You missed the word "like".

Cerebral dendrites are like mini computers!

Review the quote again that you misrepresented:

Dendrites thus act as miniature computing devices for detecting and amplifying specific types of input

It says that they act as. It doesn't say that they are.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You mean Atheistic evolution? Well, umm, mindless processes would never mimic the brilliancy of a mind.

Indeed, they wouldn't.
Which is exactly why genomes are such a mess and why there is so much inefficient and "just good enough" design in anatomical structures.

An actual designer with a mind, for example, would
- never create a mouth that is to small to house all the teeth
- never create a bipedal creature with a spine that is a better fit for creatures that walk on all 4s
- never have a nerve travel from the cortex all the way down into the chest to loop around the aorta, only to go back up again and end up 1 inch from where it started out
- never put all the wires IN FRONT of the light sensitive cells, creating a blind spot in the eye and then "fix the image" with extra energy consuming mechanisms to fill in the blanks
- etc etc etc

But such things are exactly the kind of things we expect to see from a mindless process like evolution.

BTW
"I can't see!" isn't a rebuttal.

Misrepresenting quotes isn't an argument either.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Theists consider themselves surrounded by evidence as displayed in nature.
In fact, theists consider themselves as evidence of an ID.

Which is just ridiculous.

Observing the existance of anything is only evidence that those things exist.
If you wish to make claims about origination, you need to actually demonstrate the causal chain - not just assert it.

 

[Speedwell]

Theists consider themselves surrounded by evidence as displayed in nature.
In fact, theists consider themselves as evidence of an ID.

Theists (if one may generalize) view nature as a miracle of creation. Not very many of them are into irreducible complexity and the tinkering God of ID. Leading theistic evolutionists have rejected it, YECs have rejected it--and that is just the Protestants. Roman Catholics, the Eastern and other Traditional churches don't have issues with naturalistic evolution that ID can resolve.

 

[Radrook]

You missed the word "like".

Cerebral dendrites are like mini computers!

Review the quote again that you misrepresented:

Dendrites thus act as miniature computing devices for detecting and amplifying specific types of input

It says that they act as. It doesn't say that they are.

Biological machines are just as compelling as non-biological machines in providing evidence of an organizing mind.

Human brain may be even more powerful computer than thought - NBC News

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Biological machines are just as compelling as non-biological machines in providing evidence of an organizing mind.

Human brain may be even more powerful computer than thought - NBC News

No.

non-biological machines don't self-replicate with variation and thus aren't subject to the laws and processes of bio-chemistry. Or in other words: evolution.

 

[Radrook]

Which is just ridiculous.

Observing the existance of anything is only evidence that those things exist.
If you wish to make claims about origination, you need to actually demonstrate the causal chain - not just assert it.

Of course the word "demonstrate" is open to many and varied subjective interpretations modifications and sudden predictable nullifications as the desperate need arises. It is called moving the goal post fallacy.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Of course the word "demonstrate" is open to many and varied subjective interpretations modifications and sudden predictable nullifications as the desperate need arises. It is called moving the goal post fallacy.

No, it isn't. Because such demonstrations are independently testable.
If it is wrong, it could be shown to be wrong.

 

[Radrook]

Indeed, they wouldn't.
Which is exactly why genomes are such a mess and why there is so much inefficient and "just good enough" design in anatomical structures.

An actual designer with a mind, for example, would
- never create a mouth that is to small to house all the teeth
- never create a bipedal creature with a spine that is a better fit for creatures that walk on all 4s
- never have a nerve travel from the cortex all the way down into the chest to loop around the aorta, only to go back up again and end up 1 inch from where it started out
- never put all the wires IN FRONT of the light sensitive cells, creating a blind spot in the eye and then "fix the image" with extra energy consuming mechanisms to fill in the blanks
- etc etc etc

But such things are exactly the kind of things we expect to see from a mindless process like evolution.



Misrepresenting quotes isn't an argument either.

What quotes am I misrepresenting?


Let me address two of your objections, the RLN and the eye.


Professor Erich Blechschmidt wrote that the recurrent laryngeal nerve's seemingly poor design in adults is due to the "necessary consequences of developmental dynamics," not historical carryovers from evolution.3

Blechschmidt, E. 2004. The Ontogenetic Basis of Human Anatomy: A Biodynamic Approach to Development from Conception to Birth. B. Freeman, transl. New York: North Atlantic Books, 188.


Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve Is Not Evidence of Poor Design | The Institute for Creation Research



About the eyes

The Findings of Research

Research by ophthalmologists has clearly shown why the human retina must employ what is called the "inverted" design. An inverted retina is where the photoreceptors face away from the light, forcing the incoming light to travel through the front of the retina to reach the photoreceptors. The opposite placement (where the photoreceptors face the front of the eye) is called a "verted" design.

One of the many reasons for the inverted design is, behind the photoreceptors lies a multifunctional and indispensable structure, the retinal pigment epithelium (Martínez-Morales 2004, p. 766). This monolayered tissue contains the black pigment melanin that absorbs most of the light not captured by the retina. This design has the very beneficial effect of preventing light from being reflected off the back of the eye onto the retina, which would degrade the visual image.

The photoreceptors (rods and cones) must also face away from the front of the eye in order to be in close contact with the pigment epithelium on the choroid, which supplies the photoreceptors with blood. This arrangement allows a "steady stream of the vital molecule retinal" to flow to the rods and cones without which vision would be impossible (Kolb 2003, p. 28

Bergman, Jerry. 2000. "Is the Inverted Human Eye a Poor Design?" Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation. 52(1):18-30, March.



Kolb, Helga. 2003. "How the Retina Works." American Scientist. 91:28-35

Is the Backwards Human Retina Evidence of Poor Design? | The Institute for Creation Research



BTW
Instead of complaining about where the articles that disagree with your views appear, you need to objectively evaluate what the article is saying and the sources that it cites to back up the information.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What quotes am I misrepresenting?

I think I was pretty clear about that.
The quote said "x acts as y".
You then changed that into "x is y".

Professor Erich Blechschmidt wrote that the recurrent laryngeal nerve's seemingly poor design in adults is due to the "necessary consequences of developmental dynamics," not historical carryovers from evolution.3

Blechschmidt, E. 2004. The Ontogenetic Basis of Human Anatomy: A Biodynamic Approach to Development from Conception to Birth. B. Freeman, transl. New York: North Atlantic Books, 188.

The reason it is necessary, is because of its evolutionary history. Necks can become longer or shorter over time. But a complete reroute of certain nerves cannot. Not without breaking stuff.

Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve Is Not Evidence of Poor Design | The Institute for Creation Research

Try a science source, instead of creationist nonsense.

Bergman, Jerry. 2000. "Is the Inverted Human Eye a Poor Design?" Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation. 52(1):18-30, March.

Kolb, Helga. 2003. "How the Retina Works." American Scientist. 91:28-35

Is the Backwards Human Retina Evidence of Poor Design? | The Institute for Creation Research

Please paraphrase your arguments instead of just posting a bunch of links. And when you post sources as a reference, please make it scientific source instead of creationist nonsense.

The fact of the matter is that putting the wiring in front of the lens is stupid design. The fact is that the brain needs to spend additional energy to "fill in the blanks" in order to accomodate for a blind spot.

The fact of the matter is that if an engeineer at Sony or Panasonic would design a camera this way, he'ld get fired instantly for being incompetent. Regardless of how "brilliant" the additional software might be to "fill in the blanks". The fact of the matter is that those blanks shouldn't be there to begin with.

And clearly these blanks don't need to be there, as there are plenty of species with eyes without blind spots.

BTW
Instead of complaining about where the articles that disagree with your views appear, you need to objectively evaluate what the article is saying and the sources that it cites to back up the information.

No. When discussing scientific subjects, you use scientific sources. Otherwise, you're not discussing the science, but laymen's opinions.

 

[Radrook]

No.

non-biological machines don't self-replicate with variation and thus aren't subject to the laws and processes of bio-chemistry. Or in other words: evolution.

That fact doesn't cancel out the criteria for determining intelligent design.

 

[bhsmte]

That fact doesn't cancel out the criteria for determining intelligent design.

Still have not seen you provide the scientific definition of ID. Also waiting on the falsifiable test one can use, to identify when ID is present.

 

[Radrook]

Theists (if one may generalize) view nature as a miracle of creation. Not very many of them are into irreducible complexity and the tinkering God of ID. Leading theistic evolutionists have rejected it, YECs have rejected it--and that is just the Protestants. Roman Catholics, the Eastern and other Traditional churches don't have issues with naturalistic evolution that ID can resolve.

ID isn't involved in striving to prove theistic evolution false.

 

[Speedwell]

ID isn't involved in striving to prove theistic evolution false.

It is, in the sense that it proposes specific periodic acts of Efficient causal intervention by the "designer" which theistic evolution does not require. In essence, it asserts that divinely conceived and supervised natural forces are incapable of accounting for all biological phenomena, a de facto denial of God's immanence in His creation.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

So all that talk about billions of cells having soooo many inter-connections, has to be updated, yet again? Not only do we have DNA computation (epigenetics) but we have dendrite computation too.

When is someone going to ague: this is actually too complex for God to create?

See below...