Automated Capabilities Are Designed Into The Eye And Brain

When an object is thrown at us, we instinctively try to move out of its path. Recently, there are  new experimental studies which are showing designed capabilities that can react faster than the eye or brain. The studies were conducted by a team from the Canadian Institutes of Health and then published later in PNAS.

With damage to the visual cortex, scientists were amazed that the subject could still avoid obstacles in the way during hand-reach experiments. In order to find compelling evidence that these mechanisms can operate in ‘real-time’ there was a two second delay which would nullified an  automated response but  indicate direct input from primary visual cortex. So the subject even without knowing the presence of those obstacles scientists observe the subject still being able to detect the position and move accordingly.

The paper suggested without mentioning evolution…

“These findings have far-reaching implications, not only for our understanding of the time constraints under which different visual pathways operate, but also in relation to how these seemingly ‘primitive’ subcortical visual pathways can control complex everyday behavior without recourse to conscious vision…the results of the current study clearly indicate that we have to rethink the role of what are often considered primitive visual pathways in the mediation of complex motor behavior.

In another study, New Scientist reports, the eye see trouble before the brain even notices! This is quite amazing discovery as eye cells can warn us of approaching danger without needing the brain’s help. Reporter Sanjida O’Connell of New Scientist suggests how this came about: “This ability may have evolved to speed escape from predators.”

A natural process in evolution doesn’t have a goal or a purpose which begins by random mutations. There is nothing physically connected with the reproductive system and experience for example, the animal didn’t sit there getting hit by objects which then caused it to produce an automated reaction for multiple interacting systems where it could avoid those objects. If a parent’s arm is removed, this doesn’t mean the parent’s off spring will be born without an arm or a defective arm as a result.

Reporter Sanjida O’Connell stepped way out of the bounds of science, but it’s not surprising to see no evolutionist call her on the speculation. I believe if her conclusion was supernatural rather than natural, then you would see an onslaught of outrage about her speculation. But this doesn’t detract from this new discovery as we marvel at the design of both the eye and the brain!

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “Automated Capabilities Are Designed Into The Eye And Brain

  1. Michael: “Reporter Sanjida O’Connell stepped way out of the bounds of science, but it’s not surprising to see no evolutionist call her on the speculation. I believe if her conclusion was supernatural rather than natural, then you would see an onslaught of outrage about her speculation. But this doesn’t detract from this new discovery as we marvel at the design of both the eye and the brain!”

    You’ve got that backwards, Michael Observing an effect and proposing a mechanism for that effect, a mechanism that can be investigated and possibly traced to other organisms, is exactly what science is all about.

    If the reporter’s explanation were supernatural, that would indeed be stepping outside the bounds of science, because science does not investigate supernatural occurrences. And there is an excellent reason for this. Science studies “natural” phenomena—that is, phenomena that are testable and repeatable. This is what allows scientific predictions to be made, and allows practical applications based upon the predictability of the results.

    Imagine basing an experiment or a device on a phenomenon subject to the arbitrary whim of a deity. What would you test? Repeating the observation may produce some other result. Prediction is impossible by definition. Applications would be nugatory. So why study it? The concept is simply vacuous.

    There is one way in which supernatural explanations might be acceptable, so don’t lose hope. If you would be willing to restrict the power of God to always produce the same results from the same circumstances, then we can talk. Then there would be something to investigate and apply to human use.

    Let me know your decision.

  2. “New Discoveries & Comments About Creationism”

    As wiith almost all of Michael’s posts, there seems to be no connection between the title of the blog and the subject of the post.

    Is a new type of cell in the eye evidence of God? Does an as-yet unexplained effect prove the Bible? Does a simple neural pathway in a complex brain demonstrate creationism?

    What exactly is the point here?

    Apparently that scientists attack ignorance, while creationists embrace it. But then this is not exactly a new discovery about creationism, is it?

    ==Soc Puppette

  3. Pingback: Is The Human Eye A Bad Design or Good? « New Discoveries & Comments About Creationism

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s