This is one of the clear examples that shows that Bob is not above throwing out arguments that have been answered many times over by evolutionists. From Darwin on, the issue of the evolution of vision has been studied, and is one of the best examples of the stages of evolutionary development still being found in animals today. For those who are seeking for reasons to discredit evolution, this is one of the favorite dead issues to dig up again and again.When photons hit your eyes they get translated or encoded into symbols, and they go thru your optic nerve to your brain and your brain has to decode the symbolic logic. And the laws of physics have no symbolic logic functions so vision could not come about by evolution.
:up: :chuckle:Probabilties are useless to predicting things that have already happened. The probability for an event that has already occurred is always 100%.
And we all realize that ThePhy never actually addresses the point Bob makes?In the optic nerve, each nerve fiber serves a very small part of the retina, and carries what is basically a signal indicating how much light is hitting that spot on the retina. It could be considered as a simple number, with a value from 0 to some maximum, say 100. Each other spot on the retina likewise sends a “light level” number down its associated nerve fiber.
Maybe I missed it, so would you point out to me in Bob’s description where he talks about “each nerve fiber serving a small part of the retina”? It is very clear from his example of his image that he is considering the optical signals as a serial stream, with the entire data stream going down a single path. In fact the optic nerve is a relatively massive nerve, specifically because of the number of fibers it contains.Do we all realize that ThePhy is saying the same thing as Bob when he says this?
“In the optic nerve, each nerve fiber serves a very small part of the retina, and carries what is basically a signal indicating how much light is hitting that spot on the retina. It could be considered as a simple number, with a value from 0 to some maximum, say 100. Each other spot on the retina likewise sends a “light level” number down its associated nerve fiber.”
If you are sure, then rest secure in your delusion. I hope you never become an optic physician.And we all realize that ThePhy never actually addresses the point Bob makes?
So? Both creationists and scientists have known for a long time that the brain is an incredible parallel processor. Harder or not, that is the way it works.And one more thing. Does ThePhy realize that parallel processing is harder than serial processing?
Originally posted by Turbo
I know that song, but those aren't the words. :nono:
Originally posted by Zakath
Additionally, Enyart misuses probability. The probability for an event that has already occurred is always 100%.
Probability, as used in this context, is the likelihood that an event will occur or (to be official)Originally posted by jhodgeiii
Enyart did not seem to be discussing probability, but possibility. Furthermore, it appears that you are misusing probability yourself! Don't probabilities only pertain to predicting future events?
Originally posted by ThePhy
On the issue of the encoding of signals in the optic nerve, I have seldom seen a more distorted representation of the real way it works.
The probability for an event that has already occurred is always 100%
The fact that the organ under discussion exists is evidence that it is possible for such an organ to exist.
Originally posted by jeremiah
Those who believe in evolution must conclude that it did work "their way" and thus the probability is 100%. I think that was the point he was making?
Can anyone point out where serial communications is dictated in the above passage? It is actually ambiguous enough to be either. That is because serial/parallel is not the point.When photons hit your eyes they get translated or encoded into symbols, and they go thru your optic nerve to your brain and your brain has to decode the symbolic logic. And the laws of physics have no symbolic logic functions so vision could not come about by evolution.
I didn't say your quotes were copies of one another. But what I did mean was that Bob could take your quote verbatim and plug it into his statement without changing the meaning of what he said at all.Maybe I missed it, so would you point out to me in Bob’s description where he talks about “each nerve fiber serving a small part of the retina”?
Again, Bob's statement is too ambiguous on the subject of serial vs. parallel to dictate either one. And besides, even if he did dictate that he considered optical signals as serially transmitted, it wouldn't matter to the point he was making.It is very clear from his example of his image that he is considering the optical signals as a serial stream, with the entire data stream going down a single path. In fact the optic nerve is a relatively massive nerve, specifically because of the number of fibers it contains.
Sticks and stones. Can you tell us what Bob's point was? He bluntly stated it, so you don't have too much reading to do to find it. Until you can show you actually addressed the point, I'll have to hold off checking myself in.And we all realize that ThePhy never actually addresses the point Bob makes?If you are sure, then rest secure in your delusion.
Oh, but you'd love my bedside manner... “Hi, I'm doctor Yorzhik. If you're a Christian, raise your hand.”I hope you never become an optic physician.
Are you serious? You just say “So?” to that? Okay, now I'm really curious if you can even figure out the point to Bob's statement.And one more thing. Does ThePhy realize that parallel processing is harder than serial processing?So? Both creationists and scientists have known for a long time that the brain is an incredible parallel processor. Harder or not, that is the way it works.
True, in an absolutist sense. Enyart's and my discussion was regarding the model we each used to explain how the eye got there, not the plainly observable fact that it is there. His use of probability was incorrectly applied to the end result, not the method or model.Originally posted by jeremiah
I think that Bob was citing the probability that the eye organ could evolve by natural means using random trials. The fact that eyes exist does not make the probability 100%, that they evolved.
Probabilities are always based on assumptions. What assumptions to you use to derive this low (virtually zero) probability assessment?The point is, the "fact" that the eye organ and vision exists, means that it must have been by some other method than the evolutionary process. The probability that vision could have evolved slowly over billions of generations with billions of trial life forms is a virtual zero.
Both sides make assumptions. Laying out the assumptions is an important part of the argument that Enyart refused to participate in. He essentially claimed a "black box" labelled "goddidit" and merely ridicules any other belief without presenting anything more than another recitation of "god of the gaps".Those who believe in evolution must conclude that it did work "their way" and thus the probability is 100%. I think that was the point he was making?
Does anyone know how this was done? It seems the appropriate method would be to start with the genome of the non-eyed ancestor and randomly mutate the genes, look for the phenotypic effects and to have selection work on it. Of course, you'd need an estimate of the selection coefficient for vision at each particular stage..... that the eye organ could evolve by natural means using random trials...
I'll bet you $10 they did it the way Creationists usually do these things...Originally posted by Stratnerd
How else could someone calculate the probability that it happened?