Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
He could phone or email to let them know they're "lending out their brain" instead of thinking for themselves.
Boy are they going to look silly when John publishes his stuff on (creationism) evolution.
Anyone who has shares in companies that invest heavily in medical research based on the fact of evolution and shared ancestry should sell them pronto, before John makes their research worthless when he publishes his ideas. I still don't understand why he's dithering and wasting time on here though?
Awards are cool, why would I want to take one away from anyone?
"Awards are cool, why would I want to take one away from anyone?"
Sarcasm
noun
the use of irony to mock or convey contempt.
Since you clearly missed it...
Neural Competition Problem
The higher one goes up the visual hierarchy, the more you encounter neurons with receptive fields large enough to fit multiple objects or multiple parts of an object. That's a problem, because neurons essentially speak morse code; for example, a red vertical bar might elicit a strong response, and a green horizontal bar a weak response. Thus, when both the green and red bars are present, the neuron fires an intermediate response that doesn't correspond to either of its preferences and won't be understood.
Of course, I've already been taught possible theories of how the brain resolves such neural competition for representation. But the question isn't how psychologists think we resolve the problem, the question is how do you think evolution solved the problem.
Obviously the process stalls, and the creature that can process the information and have a better chance of survival lives to propagate. The creature that does not process the information with the correct priorities dies.
Survival drives evolution.
What exactly are the correct priorities?
Edit: Keep in mind that real world situations have cluttered visual scenes and animals that interact with them. What is a priority changes from day to day or moment to moment.
"What exactly are the correct priorities?"
It doesn't matter, why would it? Whatever they are those species that are best suited to them survive, and those attributes that best match the priorities required by their environment are passed on.
I guess I should just mention, for anyone interested, that the proposed model of how the competition is resolved is, once again, attention. Selective attention biases the neuron to fire "as if" only the red bar was present, or "as if" only the green bar was.
"Reference:"
Reynolds, J. H., Chelazzi, L., & Desimone, R. (1999). Competitive mechanisms subserve attention in macaque areas V2 and V4. Journal of Neuroscience, 19, 1736– 1753.
Does your citation agree with your denial of species evolution through natural selection? There's nothing on any news channel about the entire field of biology being set back to zero? Not to mention medical science.
The problem is not the citation John it's your creationist conclusion that denies a scientific fact without any scientific validation.
Turn off the TV, find the paper and read it.
Does your citation agree with your denial of species evolution through natural selection? I already know the answer John, the question is designed to determine if you are aware of the answer, and if so why you keep posting citations that don't agree with your core conclusion, as if they do?
News is not exclusive to the television John, did you not know this?
No the question is why you think this is a problem, and why you think it is best addressed by unqualified strangers in an internet forum who just happen to be atheists.
I know you think us idiots John, you tell us often enough, and it is after all the only time you can be trusted to speak candidly. However I doubt anyone here is so foolish as to not understand your motives. Anymore than we're foolish enough not to see that over the last 160 years, all the scientific experts in evolution and biology globally don't see these "problems" you keep claiming exist. Darwin himself seems to have missed it, yet John Breezy has found it, what risible nonsense John, and I won't ever tire of pointing it out either.
To review, people tend to have a fairytale notion of how eyes evolved, in part because they hold a fairytale notion of how vision works. For every degree of tilt in the orientation of a straight bar, every direction of movement, every speed of motion, there are neurons present that selectively perceive that stimulus.
Detection of Biological Motion
Animals need the ability to distinguish between the movement of objects and the movement of living beings, and regions in the temporal lobe are tuned for this specific purpose in humans (Frith & Frith, 2012). There are cells tuned for whole body locomotion in a forward direction, and cells tuned for backwards movement in the opposite direction of where an animal is facing (Puce & Perrett, 2013). For example, baby chicks are intrinsically able to recognize biological movement and seek it out for imprinting (Vallortigara et al., 2005); chicks reared in darkness and then presented with two displays, one with dot animations of the joints of a moving hen, and another showing rigid or random motion of the dots; the chicks preferred approaching the biological movement. So again, having eyes and photoreceptors, does not imply that you can see. There needs to be mechanisms capable of parsing apart what you are supposed to be seeing.
Evolution has a "chicken or the egg" problem.
References:
Frith, C. D., & Frith, U. (2012). Mechanisms of Social Cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 287-313.
Puce, A., & Perrett, D. (2003). Electrophysiology and brain imaging of biological motion. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 358(1431), 435–445.
Vallortigara, G., Regolin, L., & Marconato, F. (2005). Visually Inexperienced Chicks Exhibit Spontaneous Preference for Biological Motion Patterns. PLoS Biology, 3(7), e208.
To review, species evolution remains a scientific fact, and unevidenced hearsay from creationists, in internet chatrooms to troll atheists won't change this.
Science is not changed by subjective claims, it's changed by objective empirical evidence.
How old is the earth / universe John?
How many scientific facts do you deny john, that don't in any way refute any part of your religious beliefs?
Are you a young earth creationist John?
Your faux scientific pretensions are made transparent by your refusal to show any integrity and answer questions about your motives, and of course by the risible idea you can falsify scientific facts in an atheist chatroom.
These are all strawman-producing questions; repetition won't make them pertinent.
Their pertinence has been established, and is manifest, it's your subjective creationist denials of evolution that are irrelevant John. Evolution remains a scientific fact, creationism remains a superstitious myth, and the atheists you're preaching to remain atheists who accept scientific facts, and reject creationism.
If I answer that the earth is five minutes old, or infinitely old, will that information alter what I've written on this thread? If I deny one scientific fact, or one billion, does that affect what I have argued? If I'm a young earth creationist, old earth creationist, or theistic evolutionist, does that in any way invalidate my claims?
If the answer to any of these is no, then your questions are not pertinent.
Now those are straw man arguments, well done.
The questions are pertinent, as I have repeatedly pointed out, because they indicate motive. Also If you think the earth is a few thousand years old then who cares what you think about scientific facts, you'd be nuts. Your arguments are naught but hearsay in an internet chatroom, aimed at people with no expertise on the subject matter, and you have no expertise on the subject matter. Only a creationist could genuinely think this is offering a paradigm shifting perspective to science.
Have any of your claims been published in a worthy peer reviewed scientific journal? Oh and not the faux ones creationists have now set up, because no scientific journal worthy of the name will ever publish their pseudo scientific guff.
The point since you missed it, or ignored it, is that evolution remains an established scientific fact, and creationism remains unevidenced superstitious nonsense. If you want to change this you won't ever do it here, that's not part of the scientific method.
How do motives affect the truth of my arguments? If you agree with my motives do they become facts, and if you disagree do they become falsehoods?
Hilarious you accuse me of repetition then repeat the same straw man argument. I questioned your motives, you refused to answer questions that would clarify them. What invalidates your arguments is science, and that is axiomatic. It's odd you still think you can ignore questions when you know an honest answer will refute your position.
Have you had your creationist claims published in a peer reviewed journal?
If so how come science still considers species evolution a scientific fact?
Scientific facts are not overturned by amateurs on the internet John. So your motives are based on religious belief, and your claims for scientific evidence axiomatically are untrue, as they don't come close to being scientifically validated.
If you are unable to demonstrate the importance of motives to the validity of my claims, then I've made the right choice in avoiding your strawman-inducing questions.
Luckily we can all see I have demonstrated the significance.
Have you had your creationist claims published in a peer reviewed journal?
If so how come science still considers species evolution a scientific fact?
"Scientific facts are not overturned by amateurs on the internet John. So your motives are based on religious belief, and your claims for scientific evidence axiomatically are untrue, as they don't come close to being scientifically validated."
Pages