Cerebral Dendrites are Mini Computers!

[KCfromNC]

I agree! With abracadabra magic you can have life suddenly popping its head out of slime and smiling back at you and fish turning into people if you provide it with enough abracadabra time.

Hey look, creationist fabrications in place of discussion of actual viable scientific ideas about abiogenesis.

 

[Loudmouth]

I am not arguing pro evolution. I am merely explaining how your theory fits in with theistic evolution and therefore need not be atheistic. So your request for minute details is irrelevant and better asked of an evolutionist. Also, sorry but this idea that mindless nature produces biological machines and computerized dendrites seems like a Mother Goose Father Rooster story to me.

I do feel sorry for people who refuse to follow the evidence because of their religious beliefs.

 

[Loudmouth]

I agree! With abracadabra magic you can have life suddenly popping its head out of slime and smiling back at you and fish turning into people if you provide it with enough abracadabra time.

That's what creationists believe in.

 

[Radrook]

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...

From a human perspective perhaps. However from the ID's perspective it is very likely just be child's play.

 

[Radrook]

That's what creationists believe in.

False analogy.

 

[Radrook]

I do feel sorry for people who refuse to follow the evidence because of their religious beliefs.

Ours is more a caring concerned compassion for unbelievers than just a contemptuous pity as yours seems to be.

 

[Radrook]

The branch-like projections of neurons called dendrites are not just passive wiring, but act more like tiny computers, multiplying the brain’s processing power.

“Suddenly, it’s as if the processing power of the brain is much greater than we had originally thought,” says Spencer Smith, an assistant professor in the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill’s School of Medicine.

His team’s findings, published in the journal Nature, could change the way scientists think about long-standing scientific models of how neural circuitry functions in the brain, while also helping researchers better understand neurological disorders.

Dendrites are like mini-computers in your brain - Futurity

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I agree! With abracadabra magic you can have life suddenly popping its head out of slime and smiling back at you and fish turning into people if you provide it with enough abracadabra time.

There is no "abracadabra" in natural processes.

But there is a lot of "fail" in strawmen.

 

[Radrook]

There is no "abracadabra" in natural processes.

But there is a lot of "fail" in strawmen.

Natural? Surely you must be jesting!
If abiogenesis is natural how comes you can't see it happening in nature and you can't force nature to do it in a lab? That's why it passes the abracadabra test with flying colors. Which raises the serious doubt that you either really don't know what the term "natural "means or else do know but are trying to force abiogenesis into it anyway..

 

[Speedwell]

Natural? Surely you must be jesting!
If abiogenesis is natural how comes you can't see it happening in nature and you can't force nature to do it in a lab? That's why it passes the abracadabra test with flying colors. Which raises the serious doubt that you either really don't know what the term "natural "means or else do know but are trying to force abiogenesis into it anyway..

How come we can't see any sign of the petty tinkering your God has to do because he is incompetent to do it naturally?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Natural? Surely you must be jesting!
If abiogenesis is natural how comes you can't see it happening in nature and you can't force nature to do it in a lab? That's why it passes the abracadabra test with flying colors. Which raises the serious doubt that you either really don't know what the term "natural "means or else do know but are trying to force abiogenesis into it anyway..

There isn't a single abiogenesis hypothesis that says that "life just pops up from slime", nore does evolution state that "fish turn into humans".

Science looks for natural causes for natural phenomena. The very opposite of "abracadabra".

You wish to see a good example "abracadabra"?
Try an intelligent designer that "speaks" the universe into existance.

 

[Radrook]

How come we can't see any sign of the petty tinkering your God has to do because he is incompetent to do it naturally?

Your claim of inability to detect or even to reason properly doesn't nullify anything at all. It just demonstrates selective blindness when deemed convenient.

 

[Loudmouth]

False analogy.

How is it false?

How do you think life emerged?

 

[Loudmouth]

The branch-like projections of neurons called dendrites are not just passive wiring, but act more like tiny computers, multiplying the brain’s processing power.

“Suddenly, it’s as if the processing power of the brain is much greater than we had originally thought,” says Spencer Smith, an assistant professor in the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill’s School of Medicine.

His team’s findings, published in the journal Nature, could change the way scientists think about long-standing scientific models of how neural circuitry functions in the brain, while also helping researchers better understand neurological disorders.

Dendrites are like mini-computers in your brain - Futurity

And?

 

[Radrook]

There isn't a single abiogenesis hypothesis that says that "life just pops up from slime", nore does evolution state that "fish turn into humans".

Science looks for natural causes for natural phenomena. The very opposite of "abracadabra".

You wish to see a good example "abracadabra"?
Try an intelligent designer that "speaks" the universe into existance.

I never mentioned slime nor believe that your idea involves slime.
I am aware that science looks for natural causes. However, there is NOTHINMG natural about abiogenesis since it has never been observed to happen in nature and can't be forced to happen in a lab. If indeed you are looking for natural causes it makes far more sense to make the inductive leap of assuming that life comes ONLY from previous life since the evidence for that conclusion via billions of examples is overwhelmingly compelling.

BTW
I never claimed that the ID merely speaks things into existence. That is your idea not mine.

About fish turning eventually into people:

Walking fish reveal how our ancestors evolved onto land
Date:
August 27, 2014
Source:
McGill University
Summary:
About 400 million years ago a group of fish began exploring land and evolved into tetrapods – today's amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals. But just how these ancient fish used their fishy bodies and fins in a terrestrial environment and what evolutionary processes were at play remain scientific mysteries.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/08/140827131547.htm

 

[Radrook]

And?

Things must be followed to their logical conclusion.

 

[Radrook]

How come we can't see any sign of the petty tinkering your God has to do because he is incompetent to do it naturally?

This is an excellent example of how God is brought into the subject despite my efforts to keep the subject on a purely ID basis.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I never mentioned slime nor believe that your idea involves slime.

Liar, liar, pants on fire:

I agree! With abracadabra magic you can have life suddenly popping its head out of slime and smiling back at you and fish turning into people if you provide it with enough abracadabra time.

I am aware that science looks for natural causes. However, there is NOTHINMG natural about abiogenesis since it has never been observed to happen in nature and can't be forced to happen in a lab

That only shows that how life arose is unknown. It doesn't show that it was an unnatural process.

Surely, you're not going to say that "because it is unknown, it must be supernatural"?

As I said: science looks for natural causes.

If indeed you are looking for natural causes it makes far more sense to make the inductive leap of assuming that life comes ONLY from previous life since the evidence for that conclusion via billions of examples is overwhelmingly compelling.

First life, by definition, can't come from previous life.
And the question asked is how first life arose. Not how already existing life reproduces.

You should pay more attention.

BTW
I never claimed that the ID merely speaks things into existence. That is your idea not mine.

Ow, are we back to pretending that this "designer" might not be your biblical god?

About fish turning eventually into people:

Walking fish reveal how our ancestors evolved onto land
Date:
August 27, 2014
Source:
McGill University
Summary:
About 400 million years ago a group of fish began exploring land and evolved into tetrapods – today's amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals. But just how these ancient fish used their fishy bodies and fins in a terrestrial environment and what evolutionary processes were at play remain scientific mysteries.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/08/140827131547.htm

Ok. Perhaps it is a language thingy.
In my native language, "fish" refers to modern creatures like salmon etc.

Still though, "fish turning into humans" kind of misrepresents the 400 million years of evolution.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

This is an excellent example of how God is brought into the subject despite my efforts to keep the subject on a purely ID basis.

You mean, like by posting videos of church sermons, or videos entitled "x proves god" sponsored by the Most holy monastry and stuff?

 

[Radrook]

Liar, liar, pants on fire:





That only shows that how life arose is unknown. It doesn't show that it was an unnatural process.

Surely, you're not going to say that "because it is unknown, it must be supernatural"?

As I said: science looks for natural causes.



First life, by definition, can't come from previous life.
And the question asked is how first life arose. Not how already existing life reproduces.

You should pay more attention.



Ow, are we back to pretending that this "designer" might not be your biblical god?



Ok. Perhaps it is a language thingy.
In my native language, "fish" refers to modern creatures like salmon etc.

Still though, "fish turning into humans" kind of misrepresents the 400 million years of evolution.

Nope! It ain't no language thingy. It is a firm belief and part and parcel of the evo tale you tell.

Here is what your fellow evolutionists are saying:

Anatomical clues to human evolution from fish
Anatomical clues to human evolution from fish - BBC News

-------------------------------------------------------
About a process never observed in nature an unable to be forced to occur in alab being natural? "Thanks but that just doesn't fit the bill. Sounds more like wishful thinking to me.

BTW
If life can't come from previous life, then your parents were not alive? Ah you mean that we are composed of minerals, chemicals, and other such material derived from our environment. True. However, you cannot take those components and create life by swishing them around in a test-tube. You need life in order to assemble them into living matter. So life comes only from lite.