October 20, 2014

Eyes Work Without Connection to Brain – Demonstrates Plasticity Problem for Darwinism

pin it button Eyes Work Without Connection to Brain   Demonstrates Plasticity Problem for Darwinism

Common Frog Tadpole 236x300 Eyes Work Without Connection to Brain   Demonstrates Plasticity Problem for Darwinism

Eyes Work Without Connection to Brain: Ectopic Eyes Function Without Natural Connection to Brain

ScienceDaily

Excerpts:

For the first time, scientists have shown that transplanted eyes located far outside the head in a vertebrate animal model can confer vision without a direct neural connection to the brain. Biologists at Tufts University School of Arts and Sciences used a frog model to shed new light — literally — on one of the major questions in regenerative medicine, bioengineering, and sensory augmentation research.

“One of the big challenges is to understand how the brain and body adapt to large changes in organization,” says Douglas J. Blackiston, Ph.D., first author of the paper “Ectopic Eyes Outside the Head in Xenopus Tadpoles Provide Sensory Data For Light-Mediated Learning,” in the February 27 issue of the Journal of Experimental Biology. “Here, our research reveals the brain’s remarkable ability, or plasticity, to process visual data coming from misplaced eyes, even when they are located far from the head.”

Read the Full Article Here: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/02/130227183311.htm

In a Tadpole’s Eye: Another Case of Darwinism’s Plasticity Problem

by David Klinghoffer
Evolution News and Views

Excerpts:

Once you get over the slightly disturbing aspects of some recent experiments at Tufts University, you realize it’s just another fine demonstration of Darwinism’s plasticity problem that James Barham has repeatedly emphasized. Plasticity refers to the ability of animal bodies to remarkably adapt themselves to challenges that otherwise you might expect to be catastrophic. Tufts biologists have now succeeded in granting something close to vision to tadpoles by planting an ectopic eye in their tail. The eye has no connection to the brain, only to the spinal cord, yet somehow visual data is being effectively gathered and analyzed.

Here and at his own blog, Barham has pointed out that such plasticity cannot be accounted for in Darwinian terms: no animal in the history of life was previously rewarded by natural selection for being able to survive with visual information being somehow assimilated via the spinal cord (a serious enigma in itself) after its were eyes extracted and a friend’s eye surgically emplaced in its tail.

This is one of many amazing instances of similar phenomena. Barham has written:

Organisms of all sorts are capable of intelligent, goal-directed, adaptive behavior that cannot possibly be accounted for on the basis of the theory of natural selection.

Never in the evolutionary history of human beings was there selection for “seeing” with the tongue.

Never in the evolutionary history of fruit flies was there selection for adaptation to an inverted visual field.

Never in the evolutionary history of ferrets was there selection for the brain reorganization necessary to see with the auditory cortex.

And never in the evolutionary history of the slime mold was there selection for solving mazes.

Of course, the Darwinist will say that there is no need to posit past selection for plasticity. Instead, we will be invited to view plasticity as a “spandrel” — an accidental side effect of other abilities that were selected for.

But that would be entirely ad hoc. There is absolutely no evidence to support such a claim.

Moreover, it would be absurd, in terms of the relative significance of cause and effect.

To say that the massive reorganization exhibited by the brain in the first three experiments is a side effect of selection for some specific neural trait like vision would be like saying that binocular vision in all its complexity is a side effect of selection for the retina or selection for the lens. It would be to confuse the tail with the dog.

Another strategy that the desperate Darwinist might adopt would be to posit selection for an entirely general capacity for intelligent, goal-directed plasticity.

That is certainly a more promising way to go. However, such a strategy would still be tantamount to admitting defeat.

Why? Because it would be to acknowledge the existence of a fundamental, inherent, and quite general biological principle of what we might call “adaptivity.”

Why would that matter? Because the main task of Darwinian theory is to “reduce” teleology and normativity to mechanism.

Therefore, as soon as the Darwinist admits the reality of a general capacity for adaptivity extending throughout all of the living world, he has already given away the whole ballgame.

Read the Full Article here: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/03/in_a_tadpoles_e069691.html

 

umcbookcover Eyes Work Without Connection to Brain   Demonstrates Plasticity Problem for Darwinism

Free Shipping Available!

0 commentsback to post

Other articlesgo to homepage

Does Modern Science Hinder Skepticism? The Eugenics Example

Does Modern Science Hinder Skepticism? The Eugenics Example

Pin It

One of the important and counterintuitive insights that C.S. Lewis offered was his observation that far from encouraging skepticism, the mention of “science” can call forth a perilous gullibility, not least from educated, intelligent people who should know better.

Healthy skepticism is a cornerstone of the scientific process. Knowledge is advanced and new discoveries are made by challenging scientific results and testing alternative hypotheses.

Lewis recognized, though, that science can also promote an uncritical acceptance of views that are said to be backed by science or wrapped in science-y language. In Lewis’s time, most scientists supported eugenics, or the belief that the gene pool of humans should be improved, and they argued that their views were supported by science. These views led to policies such as forced sterilization of those deemed to be of less worth, such as criminals and the handicapped. These policies were not only popular in authoritarian regimes like Nazi Germany, but in democracies such as the United States and England. Anyone who opposed what the vast majority of scientists were saying must be “anti-science,” it was argued.

So what has changed since then? Are we supposed to believe that just a century ago, elite opinion in science and in the culture at large was so terribly fallible and vulnerable to being misled by prejudice — yet today, it cannot err?

Dr. Offit Wants to Eliminate Religious and Philosophical Vaccine Exemptions

Dr. Offit Wants to Eliminate Religious and Philosophical Vaccine Exemptions

Pin It

We have previously reported how Dr. Paul Offit, the mainstream media’s go-to doctor to support vaccines, has huge conflicts of interest, and is a very dangerous man. We mentioned how Paul Offit wants mandatory vaccines for every single child in the United States, and he feels his voice in the matter should over-rule parental choice.

So with the mainstream media giving him basically a free pass to preach his message, Offit has attacked anyone who dares to question his view on vaccines. Earlier this year, he publicly stated at the Health Journalism 2014 meeting that journalists should NOT be balanced in their reporting about vaccines. He wants only one side reported, his side, and he stated publicly that journalists who publish the other side should go to “journalism jail.”

Offit thinks that only medical exemptions should be issued for vaccines, and has campaigned for ending religious and philosophical exemptions. Allowing only medical exemptions would give complete control of America’s school-age children to the medical system in regards to vaccines.

So should doctors like Offit be considered authorities on religious and philosophical exemptions to vaccines? He claims science trumps philosophy or religion. So if you object to things in vaccines such as cells from aborted human embryos, monkey kidneys, aborted calf fetus blood, mouse brains, etc. – too bad. According to Offit, only doctors should make those decisions.

For a response to Dr. Offit by another doctor, Dr. Suzanne Humphries, we republish with her consent a previous rebuttal she wrote to Dr. Offit below. Turns out that not all doctors agree with Offit after all…

When Biologists Think Like Engineers: How the Burgeoning Field of Systems Biology Supports Intelligent Design

When Biologists Think Like Engineers: How the Burgeoning Field of Systems Biology Supports Intelligent Design

Pin It

Opponents of the intelligent design (ID) approach to biology have sometimes argued that the ID perspective discourages scientific investigation. To the contrary, it can be argued that the most productive new paradigm in systems biology is actually much more compatible with a belief in the intelligent design of life than with a belief in neo-Darwinian evolution. This new paradigm in system biology, which has arisen in the past ten years or so, analyzes living systems in terms of systems engineering concepts such as design, information processing, optimization, and other explicitly teleological concepts. This new paradigm offers a successful, quantitative, predictive theory for biology. Although the main practitioners of the field attribute the presence of such things to the outworking of natural selection, they cannot avoid using design language and design concepts in their research, and a straightforward look at the field indicates it is really a design approach altogether.

Researchers Ran a Massive Yearlong Experiment to Get Bacteria to Evolve. Guess What Happened?

Researchers Ran a Massive Yearlong Experiment to Get Bacteria to Evolve. Guess What Happened?

Pin It

It’s a struggle out there. You have to be fit to survive. When the pressure is on, nature favors the ones who can take the heat.

It’s a theme that has been drummed into our heads since school. It’s a cultural meme. Social Darwinists used it to justify atrocities. Today’s kinder, gentler Darwinists downplay the violence in the struggle for existence, yet the fact as they see it is inescapable: environmental circumstances select random genetic mutations that confer fitness, i.e., survival, by allowing organisms to adapt.

That in a nutshell explains the development of complex life forms. We’re assured there are gobs of evidence for it, too.

Looking into a recent paper in PNAS about evolutionary fitness tradeoffs, you have to feel sorry for a team of five evolutionists from UC Irvine who did their level best to produce clear evidence for the favored story.

What Can We Responsibly Believe About Human Evolution?

What Can We Responsibly Believe About Human Evolution?

Pin It

The evolution of consciousness is presently inexplicable: Can we really understand a transition from the excrement-throwing ape to the early cave paintings as a long, slow series?

read more


Get the news right in your inbox!