Evolution Intelligent Design

Flies do vector math?

Spread the love

Well then…

Neurons in the fly brain appear to literally perform vector math in order to signal the direction in which their bodies are traveling, regardless of which way their heads are pointing. … “Not only do these neurons signal the fly’s direction of travel, but they do also so in a world-centered reference frame,” says Rockefeller neuroscientist Gaby Maimon. What’s remarkable, adds first author Cheng Lyu, a graduate student in the Maimon lab, is that these insects are transforming body-referenced sensory inputs into a world-referenced signal, allowing the fly to know that it is traveling, for instance, 90 degrees to the right of the sun or northward.

Rockefeller University, “How a fly’s brain calculates its position in space” at ScienceDaily (December 15, 2021) The paper is closed access.

When they are explaining stuff like this, you have to know that they are not talking about Darwinian evolution. Whatever they may claim.

36 Replies to “Flies do vector math?

  1. 1
    Seversky says:

    The researchers do not appear to take a position on whether this system in flies brains evolved or was designed.

    They article does note, however, that this research could assist in improving our understanding of what is happening in human brains affected by Alzheimer’s disease.

    That, in turn, highlights the incongruity of a designer who could put together the intricate neurological circuitry capable of performing vector math in a fly’s brain yet also design a human brain that is susceptible to Alzheimer’s and other neurological disorders.

  2. 2
    ET says:

    seversky:

    The researchers do not appear to take a position on whether this system in flies brains evolved or was designed.

    The only way it could have evolved is by design. The researchers know that evolution by means of blind and mindless processes is total nonsense.

    That, in turn, highlights the incongruity of a designer who could put together the intricate neurological circuitry capable of performing vector math in a fly’s brain yet also design a human brain that is susceptible to Alzheimer’s and other neurological disorders.

    In a universe designed for scientific discovery, it is all of the imperfections that are the impetus for that discovery.

    Flies won’t get Alzheimer’s because they don’t live long enough. Humans get it because we don’t take care of ourselves.

  3. 3
    es58 says:

    After the first quote the 2nd speaker says: what’s *really* remarkable… As if the first statement wasn’t.

  4. 4
    polistra says:

    Probably the same mechanism that bees use in translating the waggle dance.

    http://polistrasmill.blogspot......-down.html

  5. 5
    martin_r says:

    these insects are transforming body-referenced sensory inputs into a world-referenced signal, allowing the fly to know that it is traveling, for instance, 90 degrees to the right of the sun or northward.

    and human-made flying drones don’t ? :)))))

    The only problem is, who put all the sensors in to a fly and who taught flies how to use the sensors and how to do the math …. Blind unguided natural process ? :)))))))

    What is wrong with this world? What is wrong with all the well educated and smart teachers/scientists, how it is possible, that something so stupid/absurd as Darwinism is still being taught in high schools/universities across the world ?????

  6. 6
    martin_r says:

    and, let me remind you (Seversky, JVL and CO.),
    that, we sending probes to Mars, but to design a miniature, autonomous, self-navigating flying system in a size of a fly is even in 21st century an engineering SCI-FI … not to mention, that there are much smaller “flying systems” in nature e.g. fruit fly or a fairyfly …

    ever heard of fairyfly ?

  7. 7
    martin_r says:

    and, of course, Darwinists have no clue how flying insects evolved… after 150 years of Darwinism, NO CLUE… The reason is simple… flying systems DO NOT EVOLVE BY ITSELF, let alone such sophisticated flying systems … you need AN ENGINEER!!!

    PS: there are at least 4!! just-so-stories (pardon me, hypothesis) on how bird-wings evolved…

    from wikipedia:
    Pouncing Proavis model
    Cursorial model
    Wing-assisted incline running
    Arboreal model

    all models require some sort of limbs-flapping (before wings evolved)

    However, I would LOVE to understand, what kind of limbs-flapping is needed for hummingbird wings flapping frequency evolution … because, hummingbird wings are rotors, not wings (up to 200 flaps/second)… the same for insect wings … a mosquito wing-flapping frequency is up to 700 flaps/second !!!

    So, i as an engineer, would LOVE to understand, in what way should i flap with my limbs so one day i am able to flap at 200 flaps/second frequency …

  8. 8
    chuckdarwin says:

    Martin_r @7

    So, i as an engineer, would LOVE to understand, in what way should i flap with my limbs so one day i am able to flap at 200 flaps/second frequency …

    You might want to start out with some cardio….

  9. 9
    zweston says:

    classic Chuck. Nothing to do with actual post. But, it was funny, I’ll admit.

  10. 10
    martin_r says:

    Zweston, touche…. Darwinists are funny clowns …

  11. 11
    EDTA says:

    Sev @ 1,
    >”…the incongruity of a designer who could put together the intricate neurological circuitry capable of performing vector math in a fly’s brain yet also design a human brain that is susceptible to Alzheimer’s and other neurological disorders.”

    I think you probably already know where we’ll head with that:
    1) If such a brain as the fly’s required design, then design is inferred, regardless of pathologies that such brains acquire later.
    2) We don’t presume that susceptibility to disease was designed in from the start. It may have come along later.
    3) We don’t presume that finite creatures had to be designed to be perfect along every imaginable axis. We can have flaws, and still satisfy one design goal. I.e., not every design has to be perfect in every possible way to be useful.

    Problem avoided.

  12. 12
    martin_r says:

    Seversky: a designer who could put together the intricate neurological circuitry

    Seversky, not only that, the Designer/Engineer/Creator also HAD TO PUT TOGETHER another intricate system by which is that ‘intricate neurological circuitry’- self-assembled (AKA cell)

    I doubt that people like you are even able to appreciate the sophistication of God’s work …

    I can’t decide which DESIGN is more intricate – whether the design of the brain itself, or the design of a fully automated self-assembly process by which is the brain put together from scratch – fully automated process, no assembly workers nor material/parts-suppliers is needed … this is an engineering SCI-FI

  13. 13
    martin_r says:

    EDTA @11

    with Seversky it is always the same… he is concerned about so called bad design … after i asked him like 1000 times what is his education, what qualifies him to speak about good/bad design, he is still repeating the same ‘concerns’ like a 5 years old child … (and of course, he never answers my question about his education)

    Seversky, a Darwinist who would not be able to put together a simplest IKEA cabinet (without a guidebook), is complaining about God’s bad work :)))))))))))

    Of course, most lay people can’t appreciate God’s work … they are just not educated enough to comprehend /understand /appreciate the sophistication of e.g. human body or human self-replication process … This is something what lay persons will never understand / appreciate …they can’t … they just don’t have the needful mental capacity/ education …

    Darwinists are funny clowns … they are unable to replicate even the most simplest parts of cells or ANYTHING from biology (e.g. blood, bones, skin, teeth) but, we still hear from them that our Creator is a very poor designer, basically a looser, because DARWINISTS CAN DO IT BETTER :)))))))))))))))))) BUT THEY NEVER SHOW US :))))))))))))))))))

    PS: Look at this tiny corona-virus … the best Darwinian scientists are helpless, the whole world is up-side-down :))))) but DARWINISTS CAN DO IT BETTER :)))))

  14. 14
    kairosfocus says:

    This is astonishing and doubtless drone engineers are salivating. Regrettably, that includes a terrible species: missiles. Also, the required FSCO/I for this is ludicrously beyond blind stochastic-dynamic searches on gamut of the observed cosmos much less our planet. And maybe that’s why it is so hard to swot any but a truly bloated mosquito. Do we need to go into halteres? Ornithopters? KF

  15. 15
    chuckdarwin says:

    Kairofocus @14
    Could you please tell me what the FSCO/I acronym stands for? I’ve searched high and low and cannot figure it out. Thanks.

  16. 16
    bornagain77 says:

    Darwinists: “Theology/Christianity has no place whatsoever in science, so shut up about God creating the universe and life”

    2 seconds later,,,

    Darwinists: “Although we have no scientific evidence that unguided process can produce even a single neuron, Darwinism must be true because God would never design the brain in such a way”.

    The ‘beyond belief’ Brain: “HUH?”

    The Human Brain Is ‘Beyond Belief’ by Jeffrey P. Tomkins, Ph.D. * – 2017
    Excerpt: The human brain,, is an engineering marvel that evokes comments from researchers like “beyond anything they’d imagined, almost to the point of being beyond belief”1 and “a world we had never imagined.”2,,,
    https://www.icr.org/article/10186

    Supplemental notes:

    “What a book a Devil’s chaplain might write on the clumsy, wasteful, blundering low & horridly cruel works of nature!”
    Charles Darwin to J. D. Hooker 13 July [1856]
    https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/DCP-LETT-1924.xml

    Devil’s Chaplain: Evolution as a “Theological Research Program”
    Michael Flannery – September 10, 2021
    Excerpt: this research program’s principal investigator was Charles Darwin, and the epithet he chose for himself, “a Devil’s chaplain” — which he shared in a letter on July 13, 1856, to his close friend and confidant Joseph Dalton Hooker — is revealing:
    “What a book a Devil’s chaplain might write on the clumsy, wasteful, blundering low & horridly cruel works of nature!”,,,
    Hunter answers claims of Darwinian orthodoxy. They are as follows: Darwin’s religious views preceded (not followed) his transmutation ideas; Darwin’s theological premises are essential (not peripheral) to his argument; Darwin’s references to theology attach direct significance to the theory itself — he is not practicing reductio theology, employing it merely for its contrastive heuristic effect — the theology and the theory are inextricably intertwined; the epistemic assistance received from theology is central to the theory itself (the “scientific” evidence marshalled on its behalf is pretty thin); and finally, Darwin’s theological claims persisted well into the period of the neo-Darwinian synthesis (1930s and ’40s) and after. Readers should examine the article itself to see how Hunter establishes each point, all supported with extensive references.
    https://evolutionnews.org/2021/09/devils-chaplain-evolution-as-a-theological-research-program/

    Evolution as a Theological Research Program – by Cornelius Hunter – August 2021
    Introduction Excerpt:,,, theological claims are common in Darwin’s On the Origin of Species (Darwin 1859), where they are essential to his science. The religion is not a tangential message, and one need not read between the lines to see it. In the Origin, it would not be an exaggeration to say the religion drives the science. Darwin’s religion is not merely present, it is prominent and has primacy over the science. The religion is foundational.
    The importance of religion in Darwin’s theory is also apparent in the science he presented. As Section 5 shows, Darwin did not have sufficient scientific arguments and evidence to advance his theory. Finally, as Section 6 and Section 7 demonstrate, these roles and relationships between religion and science persisted after Darwin. This religious foundation was by no means peculiar to Darwin’s thought. It has remained foundational since Darwin in motivating and justifying the theory. What we find in Darwin continued in later evolutionary thought. Therefore, the thesis of this paper is that evolution is best understood as a theological research program.
    https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/12/9/694/htm

  17. 17
    ET says:

    Earth to chuckdarwin- Focus on the asinine claims from your position! That means forget about ID and get to work.

  18. 18
    chuckdarwin says:

    Martin_r @10
    Better a funny clown than just a clown…. 🙂

  19. 19
    jerry says:

    FSCI – “functionally specified complex information”

    Kf makes up his own shortcuts for variations of things.

    From glossary

    FSCI — “functionally specified complex information” (or, “function-specifying complex information” or — rarely — “functionally complex, specified information” [FCSI])) is a commonplace in engineered systems: complex functional entities that are based on specific target-zone configurations and operations of multiple parts with large configuration spaces equivalent to at least 500 – 1,000 bits; i.e. well beyond the Dembski-type universal probability bound. In the UD context, it is often seen as a descriptive term for a useful subset of CSI first identified by origin of life researchers in the 1970s – 80’s. As Thaxton et al summed up in their 1984 technical work that launched the design theory movement, The Mystery of Life’s Origin:
    “. . . “order” is a statistical concept referring to regularity such as could might characterize a series of digits in a number, or the ions of an inorganic crystal. On the other hand, “organization” refers to physical systems and the specific set of spatio-temporal and functional relationships among their parts.Yockey and Wickens note that informational macromolecules have a low degree of order but a high degree of specified complexity.” [TMLO (FTE, 1984), Ch 8, p. 130.]

    So, since in the cases of known origin such are invariably the result of design, it is confidently but provisionally inferred that FSCI is a reliable sign of intelligent design.

  20. 20
    chuckdarwin says:

    Thanks

  21. 21
    JVL says:

    Martin_r:

    I’m sure there is no point at all responding to one of your insulting and biased messages but at least it will make me feel better.

    Of course, most lay people can’t appreciate God’s work … they are just not educated enough to comprehend /understand /appreciate the sophistication of e.g. human body or human self-replication process … This is something what lay persons will never understand / appreciate …they can’t … they just don’t have the needful mental capacity/ education …

    And you are the one who can judge another person’s mental capacity? Based on whether or not they agree with you?

    Darwinists are funny clowns … they are unable to replicate even the most simplest parts of cells or ANYTHING from biology (e.g. blood, bones, skin, teeth) but, we still hear from them that our Creator is a very poor designer, basically a looser, because DARWINISTS CAN DO IT BETTER :)))))))))))))))))) BUT THEY NEVER SHOW US :))))))))))))))))))

    Some of the claims for ‘bad design’ aren’t because the scientists are saying they can do it better; it’s because they’ve seen better designs in other creatures! Wouldn’t you love to have the visual acuity of a hawk? I know I would. But we don’t. Why is that? You think some designer (God in your case) made that decision but you don’t know why but you know it must be part of some plan which you also don’t know. So, essentially, your explanation explains nothing because it dead-ends after you say it was designed.

    PS: Look at this tiny corona-virus … the best Darwinian scientists are helpless, the whole world is up-side-down :))))) but DARWINISTS CAN DO IT BETTER :)))))

    Who said that? Would you have preferred that all those scientists had just thrown up their hands and said: gosh, vaccines are really, really hard and we should probably just trust in God to look after us?

    If I made comments about you and your ilk the same way you insult and belittle those you disagree with I would have been bounced off this site a long time ago. But you are allowed to sling your barbs as often and as broad as you like.

  22. 22
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    Wouldn’t you love to have the visual acuity of a hawk?

    :)) What in the world… You graduated liberal arts ,right?

    gosh, vaccines are really, really hard

    Yep for level on intelligence of scientists that can’t do a simple task but they know what good design is. . They do vaccines against flu for ages and flu is thriving .
    They do vaccines against flu or to help flu ?

  23. 23
    jerry says:

    Wouldn’t you love to have the visual acuity of a hawk? I know I would. But we don’t. Why is that?

    This has been explained several times. And I believe to you.

    Super characteristics will destroy the ecology and thus the entity with the super characteristics will die off as the ecology disappears. An ecology can only exist as long as all the members are limited and in equilibrium.

  24. 24
    Belfast says:

    Seversky – the Johnny One-Note of the Darwin Apologists Choir.

  25. 25
    chuckdarwin says:

    JVK @27
    Martin_r can evaluate other folk’s “needful mental capacities” because he’s an engineer…. 🙂

  26. 26
    OldArmy94 says:

    Seversky — “Airplanes must be randomly created because they aren’t made of rubber so they can bounce if they crash.”

  27. 27
    Joe Schooner says:

    They do vaccines against flu for ages and flu is thriving .
    They do vaccines against flu or to help flu ?

    Flu viruses mutate. The vaccine that is offered each year is based on the strain they think will be most prevalent.

  28. 28
    kairosfocus says:

    CD, the one time I decided by now folks will know. Oh well, a phrase: functionally specific, complex organisation and/or associated information. Threshold of complexity per blind search challenge 500 – 1,000 bits. KF

  29. 29
    martin_r says:

    JVL
    just one comment:

    If i were you – an atheist posting on ID/Creationists forum – and read a Darwinian paper on “Flies Do Vector Math”, i would feel soooooo embarrassed …

  30. 30
    chuckdarwin says:

    Kairofocus @28
    Jerry was gracious enough to let me know, but I appreciate your follow up…

  31. 31
    martin_r says:

    Chuckdarwin @18

    you think ?

  32. 32
    martin_r says:

    OldArmy94 @26

    Seversky concerns are as follows:

    God is God, and God creates only 100% perfect, error-free things, that can’t be destroyed nor damaged in any way …never … everlasting things (actually he did, i will explain later) …. this is Seversky’s main argument and the reason why he believes in Darwin and not in e.g. Christian God …

    So, we, rational people, appreciate God’s engineering masterpiece (we engineers even much more), but those few errors ARE ENOUGH for Seversky to believe in some absurd claims /theory developed by natural science graduates …

    PS: one note regarding the errors, i mentioned it before … HOW MANY ERRORS DID DARWINISTS ACTUALLY FIND ? There are like 10,000,000 of species on Earth (at this moment), each species is made of thousands of parts, thousands of materials…

    10,000,000 x 1000 = 10,000,000,000 parts working in concert … HOW MANY ERRORS DID DARWINISTS FIND????? 5 or 10 ???? of out 10,000,000,000

    And one more note … According to Darwinists, there are species on Earth 500,000,000 years old and still here … EVERLASTING SPECIES … where is the error ? When will humans develop anything which will last to work for 500,000,000 years ? Like i said, most lay people have not the needful mental capacity/education/skills/experience to understand what technology they are looking at … (Seversky, JVL and Chuckdarwin counted in)

  33. 33
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    Joe Schooner
    Flu viruses mutate. The vaccine that is offered each year is based on the strain they think will be most prevalent.

    🙂 It’s not about viruses ,it’s about incompetence and ignorance of scientists regarding all mechanisms of functioning of viruses.
    Let’s not forget on one side is the virus a bug without intelligence and on the other side brain power of scientists. Who win? The Bug. It’s not about viruses it’s about ignorance of the same people who know better than God what a good design is. Hahahaha!
    PS: WHY scientists study viruses in different experiments if they would have known all about mechanisms of viruses? Answer: because they have no clue about ALL inner mechanisms . They know few mechanisms but is not enough to “understand” the inner esence that’s why they need to run experiments after experiments and still have no clue.

  34. 34
    martin_r says:

    LCD
    Just one note …
    a virus is not a bug… it does not eat, it does not live… also Darwinists still argue how to classify a virus… actually, a virus falsifies the idea of universal common descent, because a virus is not made of cells… actually Darwinists dont know where viruses came from…. Darwin had no idea that something like viruses exists… too small for 19th century

  35. 35
    jerry says:

    God is God, and God creates only 100% perfect, error-free things

    Leibniz claimed this was the best of all possible worlds. But everything is imperfect.

    We might ponder why a world full of imperfect things is perfect? Is it a world of perfect imperfects? Is everything some form of trade off to get the perfect result?

  36. 36
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    Leibniz claimed this was the best of all possible worlds. But everything is imperfect.

    We might ponder why a world full of imperfect things is perfect? Is it a world of perfect imperfects? Is everything some form of trade off to get the perfect result?

    This is the best of all possible world for the purpose of God not for our dumb imagination about “perfection”.

Leave a Reply