Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Would you believe… that the brain-eye connection evolved 100 million years earlier than believed?


Yes, we thought maybe you would:

The network of nerves connecting our eyes to our brains is sophisticated and researchers have now shown that it evolved much earlier than previously thought, thanks to an unexpected source: the gar fish.

Michigan State University’s Ingo Braasch has helped an international research team show that this connection scheme was already present in ancient fish at least 450 million years ago. That makes it about 100 million years older than previously believed.

“It’s the first time for me that one of our publications literally changes the textbook that I am teaching with,” said Braasch, as assistant professor in the Department of Integrative Biology in the College of Natural Science.

This work, published in the journal Science on April 8, also means that this type of eye-brain connection predates animals living on land. The existing theory had been that this connection first evolved in terrestrial creatures and, from there, carried on into humans where scientists believe it helps with our depth perception and 3D vision.

Michigan State University, “A Discovery That “Literally Changes the Textbook”” at Neuroscience News

Isn’t this becoming a trend? Textbook Darwinism is surely a hindrance to the student who must learn and regurgitate the “narrative” while, if the interest is there, learning the facts by other means.

Researchers: Microbes have been “at an evolutionary standstill” for 175 million years? Researcher: “The best explanation we have at the moment is that these microbes did not change much since their physical locations separated during the breakup of supercontinent Pangaea, about 175 million years ago,” Stepanauskas said. “They appear to be living fossils from those days. That sounds quite crazy and goes against the contemporary understanding of microbial evolution.”


Günter Bechly: Paper says Cambrian Explosion took only 410,000 years From the paper’s media release: Moreover, the scientists’ data series reveal that the development of the fauna took place within a very short period. The transition from the “Ediacara biota” – multi-celled but very simply organisms – to the diverse Cambrian life forms occurred over less than 410,000 years.

However, it is not clear why this discovery comes as such a shock to the ID community
It's not clear because none of the ID supporters here are shocked by it. An evolutionary claim is overturned by more evidence, and evolutionists claim that there's nothing of real interest here, ("it's old news - happened last week") in spite of having to "literally change their textbooks". Now evolution has less time to produce it's magic and the new findings make the case for ID stronger. Again, nobody who seriously follows what evolutionists have to say could possibly by shocked by this. Silver Asiatic
chuckdarwin: That it may have originally evolved in aquatic vs. terrestrial fauna is more significant. However, it is not clear why this discovery comes as such a shock to the ID community insofar as it merely illustrates the self-correcting nature of scientific research….. As an engineer, show me how that could have worked at the protein level and what systems could have been involved. Let's get specific. Thanks. Karen McMannus
In science, a strong theory is able to anticipate findings in future research, a poor theory has lousy predictive ability and is continually surprised at new findings. The only reason that Darwinists cling to the egregiously racist theory of the "favoured races" is that they complacently ascribe everything to "it musta evolved over billions of years." So why is there something rather than nothing? How can you get space-time and mass-energy from non-existence? How does consciousness "evolve" from chunks of matter? Is a rock conscious? How about a mechanical clock? What about a really really big clock with lots of gears or a really big computer? Have any of these been observed to collapse the wave function? -Q Querius
. Seversky, An unknown source of intelligence organized a set of symbols, referents, and constraints in order to be able to specify something among alternatives, and have it persist over time. You see, there was a guy named John von Neumann that predicted all this in a series of lectures back in the 1940’s. He built his thinking on the framework of another guy named Alan Turing who published a paper about a programmable symbol system in the 1930’s. Then in the 1950’s another guy named Francis Crick was trying to figure out how the living cell specifies itself, and saw some X-ray diffraction images from a gal named Rosalind Franklin. This led him to find the symbols system, and he predicted there would also be a set of interpretive constraints working in the system as well.. A couple years later another guy named Paul Zamecnik and his buddy Mahland Hoagland found that set of constraints, along with the complex proteins that change them. Then in the 1960’s, yet another guy named Marshall Nirenberg figured out what the first symbol-constraint-referent relationship was, which set off a race among a whole bunch of other folks to figure them all out, which they did. Then about the time they did all that, another guy named Howard Pattee started describing the coherent material requirements of the system from the perspective of a physicist, and found that they were unique among all other physical systems known to science (except human language and mathematics). So the “what happened?” question is answered by what was first predicted in logic and then confirmed by experiment. If you are needing to know the designer’s hair color and favorite boy band, then I’m sorry, that just hasn’t come up yet. While you are here, can you explain to us why you require a logical impossibility before you’ll accept documented science and history? Upright BiPed
While Upright BiPed forever waits for a honest Darwinist to come along and engage him in a forthright manner, and in regards to Chuck Darwin asking us to 'do the math', perhaps ANY Darwinist would like to take a stab at trying to spin a 'just-so story' as to how the following is even remotely possible on his Darwinian materialistic view of things. To quote the article, "The aforementioned student of mathematics had a global IQ of 130 and a verbal IQ of 140 at the age of 25 (Lorber, 1983), but had “virtually no brain” (Lewin 1980, p. 1232).,,,"
Discrepancy Between Cerebral Structure and Cognitive Functioning: A Review - 2017 Excerpt: The aforementioned student of mathematics had a global IQ of 130 and a verbal IQ of 140 at the age of 25 (Lorber, 1983), but had “virtually no brain” (Lewin 1980, p. 1232).,,, This student belonged to the group of patients that Lorber classified as having “extreme hydrocephalus,” meaning that more than 90% of their cranium appeared to be filled with cerebrospinal fluid (Lorber, 1983).,,, Apart from the above-mentioned student of mathematics, he described a woman with an extreme degree of hydrocephalus showing “virtually no cerebral mantle” who had an IQ of 118, a girl aged 5 who had an IQ of 123 despite extreme hydrocephalus, a 7-year-old boy with gross hydrocephalus and an IQ of 128, another young adult with gross hydrocephalus and a verbal IQ of 144, and a nurse and an English teacher who both led normal lives despite gross hydrocephalus.,,, Another interesting case is that of a 44-year-old woman with very gross hydrocephalus described by Masdeu (2008) and Masdeu et al. (2009). She had a global IQ of 98, worked as an administrator for a government agency, and spoke seven languages.,,, https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-studies/wp-content/uploads/sites/360/2017/12/Discrepancy-between-cerebral-structure-and-cognitive-functioning-JNMD.pdf
Shoot, besides that Darwinian dilemma, I would also like to know how Darwinists, via their materialistic theory, try to explain how even 'normal' people with normal brains are capable of doing 'immaterial' math in the first place,
What Does It Mean to Say That Science & Religion Conflict? – M. Anthony Mills – April 16, 2018 Excerpt: In fact, more problematic for the materialist than the non-existence of persons is the existence of mathematics. Why? Although a committed materialist might be perfectly willing to accept that you do not really exist, he will have a harder time accepting that numbers do not exist. The trouble is that numbers — along with other mathematical entities such as classes, sets, and functions — are indispensable for modern science. And yet — here’s the rub — these “abstract objects” are not material. Thus, one cannot take science as the only sure guide to reality and at the same time discount disbelief in all immaterial realities. https://www.realclearreligion.org/articles/2018/04/16/what_does_it_mean_to_say_that_science_and_religion_conflict.html
Quote and verse:
“Nothing in evolution can account for the soul of man. The difference between man and the other animals is unbridgeable. Mathematics is alone sufficient to prove in man the possession of a faculty unexistent in other creatures. Then you have music and the artistic faculty. No, the soul was a separate creation.” Alfred Russel Wallace – 1910 2 Corinthians 4:18 So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen, since what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal.
Earth to seversky: Just because INTELLIGENT DESIGN is NOT about the Designer(s) doesn't prevent anyone from trying to determine who the Designer(s) was/ were. Reality dictates that in the absence of direct observation or designer input the ONLY way to make any scientific determination about the designer or specific processes used, is by studying the design and all relevant evidence. ID is about the detection and study of the INTELLIGENT DESIGN of and in nature. And how can evos not become complacent? All they have is a made up story. They can easily change the narrative. They are comforted by the fact they know it was all just contingent serendipity. They are just looking to fill in the blanks. It's like an evolving comic book. ET
The paper Waiting for TWO Mutations, was a misguided attempt to refute something that Michael Behe had said. However, what it does show is the alleged evolution of the vision system could not have happened via natural selection and other materialistic processes. But even that is moot as no one even knows if genetic changes can produce vision systems! No one knows what determines the development of vision systems. We know what controls and influences its development. And that brings us to the absolute killer (leaving aside the OoL)- developmental biology. In light of Waiting LONGER for Two Mutations the production of the HOX regulatory networks is impossible via blind and mindless processes such as natural selection and drift. ET
Being surprised about new discoveries is a good thing. It keeps us on out toes, prevents us from getting complacent. What's so appealing about ID/Cism is that there is no need to define the designer or explain how it accomplished the alleged designs, just saying the Gdesignerod did it is good enough. Seversky
Good points . . . Darwinists always seem to be shocked and surprised at the latest findings. And then they return to their dogmatism. After all, what's plus or minus 100 million years between friends and fellow ideologues? What so appealing about Darwinian evolution is that, while its prediction power is near zero, it can easily rationalize any finding! Plus there are magical things that "musta" happened. Anyone care to take a shot at Upright Biped's question? Wait . . . let me get some popcorn first. -Q Querius
. Chuck, instead of coming here to bark at the fence, why don’t you tell us how many aaRS had to be in place the first time an aaRS was synthesized from memory? Upright BiPed
A Darwinist suggesting that other people should "do the math"? I think he just broke my irony meter :) https://tenor.com/view/irony-meter-silver-high-gif-12598382 bornagain77
If you actually do the math, you are talking about a less than 3% adjustment in evolutionarily time line applicable to appearance of the "brain-eye connection." That it may have originally evolved in aquatic vs. terrestrial fauna is more significant. However, it is not clear why this discovery comes as such a shock to the ID community insofar as it merely illustrates the self-correcting nature of scientific research..... chuckdarwin
a quote from the original article: "The existing theory had been that this connection first evolved in terrestrial creatures and, from there, carried on into humans where scientists believe it helps with our depth perception and 3D vision." depth perception, 3D vision ... color vision... i like the way Darwinian biologists talk about these things... it sounds like it would be something trivial... the opposite is true... these things are as so complex as it gets... lay public has no idea which is good for Darwinian-biologists, so lay public can buy almost everything ... A Darwinian biologist tells you an absurd just-so story about how these complex things MAY HAVE evolved and everybody is happy... martin_r
in my previous post i mentioned camcorders.... i think that most of you heard of image stabilization, steady-cam systems and so on - in other words, various systems to prevent shaky images. Guess what... human visual system also has an image stabilization - it is called the vestibulo-ocular reflex From wikipedia: "The vestibulo-ocular reflex (VOR) is a reflex acting to stabilize gaze during head movement, with eye movement due to activation of the vestibular system. The reflex acts to stabilize images on the retinas of the eye during head movement, holding gaze is held steadily on a location, by producing eye movements in the direction opposite to head movement" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestibulo%E2%80%93ocular_reflex#:~:text=The%20vestibulo%2Docular%20reflex%20(VOR,activation%20of%20the%20vestibular%20system. martin_r
Brain-Eye Connection i was always wondering, how Darwinists (natural science graduates) imagine the evolution of brain-eye communication protocol and data processing. Blind natural unguided process invented a communication protocol and figured out how to process visual information ???? How to process and interpret colors in RGB space???? Without any knowledge???? Who on Earth can buy this non-sense??? Especially in 21st century... You have to have some communication protocol so the brain knows how to interpret the data incoming from eyes. Moreover, most laymen don't realize, but we are looking at very fast image processor - our eyes have pretty high resolution (an equivalent of 576 Mpixels). To process such a huge amount of visual data in REAL-TIME requires a very fast computation power (today we use very powerful and expensive microprocessors in our 4K/8K camcorders). Here is an interesting mainstream article on this (NewScientist): "Each of your eyes transfers information to your brain at about the same speed as a fast Ethernet connection" "https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9633-calculating-the-speed-of-sight/ So why on Earth should i believe (especially in 21st century), that such a fast and powerful image processor was 'designed' by some blind unguided process???? How absurd does that sound in 21st century? Because biologists says so? Biologists who never made anything and don't understand how image processing works? Today teams of engineers with lots of knowledge are required to design image processors/camcorders (exactly the same situation like brain-eye visual system) Laymen can't even imagine how huge this engineering problem is ... But for Darwinists, to real-time process visual data at higher resolution than 8K, no problem... just give it a time, the blind unguided natural process will figure out everything :))))))) Darwinists believe in miracles.... martin_r
This also fits the complex-first template. The ipsilateral plus bilateral arrangement requires a lot of coordination and trickery in the brainstem to form the overall image. It's not the arrangement you'd think of as primitive. If the gar is the common ancestor, then the simpler arrangement, with each eye served by its own exclusive part of the brain, is degenerate or subtractive. polistra
News> Isn’t this becoming a trend? just yesterday i posted the same here, and also the day before yesterday... and so on... Darwinists never feel embarrassed… one would expect, that with tons of new findings every day, Darwin's theory of evolution gets confirmed, over and over (because it is a fact!) … Instead, we see shocked, surprised and confused Darwinists, using words like: "... what we found was shocking..." “… it challenges a long-held theory…” “… it upends a common view…” “… it shakes up the dogma … ” “… it needs a rethink … ” “… the findings are surprising and unexpected …. ” “… earlier than thought…” “… younger than thought….” “… smarter than thought ….” “… more complex that thought ….” Darwinists appear to be permanently wrong ... if this is not an example of a pseudoscience, then i don't .... (and i feel it will get much worse, because in 21st century, the research just started ...) martin_r
No. My brain appeared circa 1959. Mung

Leave a Reply