April 19, 2014

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

Arguments Evolutionists Should Not Use

Arguments Evolutionists Should Not Use

We have a popular article titled, Arguments we think creationists should not use. Indeed, even many misotheistic evolutionists, including Richard Dawkins, have commended the existence of such a page. Well, as the saying goes, ‘What is good for the goose is also good for the gander.’

Here are 21 bad arguments that evolutionists should not use to help further their stance on evolution. Clearly, evolution is about keeping out God, not an open approach to the actual evidence.

The Myth of Science’s Neutrality

The Myth of Science’s Neutrality

There is no pursuit of knowledge that does not seek to affect the world. Science is made by people with interests, intentions and ambitions; and it’s funded by governments and companies with agendas. Scientific development is subject to funding rules, to expectations about outcomes, and to social forces and institutions that shape our research.

Mathematical Proof vs. Scientific Proof: Are They the Same?

Mathematical Proof vs. Scientific Proof: Are They the Same?

Absolute proof is strictly the domain of logicians. In mathematics, for example, once a theorem is proven it is proven for all time and all circumstances. Mathematical proof is absolute. Mathematics, however, is not science. This is a point about which many are confused. Mathematics is a language used by science, but is not itself a science. Mathematical proof and scientific proof are not the same thing at all.

Scientific proof is not really proof at all, in the mathematical sense, but is either verification or disproof. Since scientists deal with a universe that is not of their own creation, they cannot prove their laws absolutely as can mathematicians. Although scientists use the term “scientific proof,” what they really mean is that a particular hypothesis has been verified or disproved. They don’t mean “proof” in the mathematical sense.

I Can Do All Things Through Christ: Natural vs. Supernatural

I Can Do All Things Through Christ: Natural vs. Supernatural

What is better: natural or supernatural? Is the supernatural available to us today? How can one experience the supernatural life?

More Evidence of Scientism as Religion

More Evidence of Scientism as Religion

As shown in our recent documentary C.S. Lewis and the Case Against Scientism, C.S. Lewis compared science to magic in three ways: (1) Science as Religion, (2) Science as Credulity, and (3) Science as Power. In the film, Discovery Institute’s Dr. John West explains that for many people, science (or better, scientism) serves as a quasi-religion. It gives their lives meaning. Evolution in particular provides an overarching, cosmic vision that many find satisfying: a view of something larger than their experience: the birth and ultimate fate of the universe, with mankind struggling against natural odds in its rise to dominance.

To further illustrate, here are a few recent cases from science news of evolutionary thinking serving in the role of religious faith.

read more


Get the news right in your inbox!