Yoda and the Arc of the Covenant
- Thread starter Jefferson
- Start date
- Status
Only Bob has serial eyes
Only Bob has serial eyes
Starting at 15:55 into the program, Bob talks about the impossibility of the evolution of vision. He refers to round 9 of the Battle Royale Debate where he discusses the encoding of vision into symbols, and the difficulty of extracting meaningful information from the encoded symbols. In the show he says:
Bob, in spite of his self-proclaimed status as scientifically literate, is in fact either miserably ignorant of real science, or blatantly dishonest. 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. Bob claims to have worked in computers for a while, so I would expect him to understand the differences between computer type of information that he used to illustrate his point in round 9 of the debate (serial data) and the massively parallel processing of the optic system. 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. At no time is it all jumbled together into a single stream as Bob’s silly example pretends. The brain continuously compares the signal strength of adjacent retinal spots, and can thusly differentiate things like flesh from clothes. Let Bob draw out a matrix with the darkness of each spot determined by the light intensity of the corresponding light on the retina, much as the brain does. His jumble of information will suddenly turn into very meaningful patterns.
It is clear why in the opening credits to his show he qualifies himself as “self-proclaimed”. Neither God nor science are on his side.
Only Bob has serial eyes
Starting at 15:55 into the program, Bob talks about the impossibility of the evolution of vision. He refers to round 9 of the Battle Royale Debate where he discusses the encoding of vision into symbols, and the difficulty of extracting meaningful information from the encoded symbols. In the show he says:
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.
Bob, in spite of his self-proclaimed status as scientifically literate, is in fact either miserably ignorant of real science, or blatantly dishonest. 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. Bob claims to have worked in computers for a while, so I would expect him to understand the differences between computer type of information that he used to illustrate his point in round 9 of the debate (serial data) and the massively parallel processing of the optic system. 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. At no time is it all jumbled together into a single stream as Bob’s silly example pretends. The brain continuously compares the signal strength of adjacent retinal spots, and can thusly differentiate things like flesh from clothes. Let Bob draw out a matrix with the darkness of each spot determined by the light intensity of the corresponding light on the retina, much as the brain does. His jumble of information will suddenly turn into very meaningful patterns.
It is clear why in the opening credits to his show he qualifies himself as “self-proclaimed”. Neither God nor science are on his side.
Zakath
Resident Atheist
Additionally, Enyart misuses probability.
Probabilties are useless to predicting things that have already happened. The probability for an event that has already occurred is always 100%.
Enyart has never yet demonstrated his deity is making or creating anything. Evolution is still a workable model until something that better fits the observable facts is produced.
Probabilties are useless to predicting things that have already happened. The probability for an event that has already occurred is always 100%.
Enyart has never yet demonstrated his deity is making or creating anything. Evolution is still a workable model until something that better fits the observable facts is produced.
Do we all realize that ThePhy is saying the same thing as Bob when he says this?
And one more thing. Does ThePhy realize that parallel processing is harder than serial processing?
And we all realize that ThePhy never actually addresses the point Bob makes?
And one more thing. Does ThePhy realize that parallel processing is harder than serial processing?
Tye Porter
New member
Walking thru the swamp
and what did I see?
A wrinkled little Muppet looking at me
It was Yoda.
Y-O-D-A Yoda.
and what did I see?
A wrinkled little Muppet looking at me
It was Yoda.
Y-O-D-A Yoda.
Yorzik's single optic fiber eyes
Yorzik's single optic fiber eyes
From Yorzhik:
Yorzik's single optic fiber eyes
From Yorzhik:
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.
If you are sure, then rest secure in your delusion. I hope you never become an optic physician.
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.
Tye Porter
New member
I met him in a swamp down in Dagoba
Where it bubbles all the time like a giant carbonated soda
S O D A, soda
I saw the little runt sitting there on a log
I asked him his name and in a raspy voice he said "Yoda"
Y O D A, Yoda
Yo-yo-yo-yo Yoda
Well, I've been around, but I ain't never seen
A guy who looks like a muppet, but he's wrinkled and green
Oh, my Yoda
Yo-yo-yo-yo Yoda
Well, I'm not dumb, but I can't understand
How he can lift me in the air just by raising his hand
Oh, my Yoda
Yo-yo-yo-yo Yoda Yo-yo-yo-yo Yoda
Well, I left home just a week before
And I've never ever been a Jedi before
But Obi Wan, he set me straight, of course
He said, "Go to Yoda and he'll show you the Force"
Well I'm not the kind that would argue with Ben
So it looks like I'm gonna start all over again
With my Yoda
Yo-yo-yo-yo Yoda Yo-yo-yo-yo Yoda
Yoda
Yo-yo-yo-yo Yoda Yo-yo-yo-yo Yoda
So I used the Force
I picked up a box
I lifted some rocks
While I stood on my head
Well, I won't forget what Yoda said
He said, "Luke, stay away from the darker side
And if you start to go astray, let the Force be your guide"
Oh, my Yoda
Yo-yo-yo-yo Yoda
"I know Darth Vader's really got you annoyed
But remember, if you kill him, then you'll be unemployed"
Oh, my Yoda
Yo-yo-yo-yo Yoda
Well, I heard my friends really got in a mess
So I'm gonna have to leave Yoda again
But I know that I'll be coming back some day
I'll be playing this part 'till I'm old and gray
The long-term contract that I had to sign
Says I'll be making these movies till the end of time
With my Yoda
Yo-yo-yo-yo Yoda Yo-yo-yo-yo Yoda
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?
Even if above you meant to say possibility, as written this argument appears to be useless since the cause of the event isn't even specified. :think:
Zakath
Resident Atheist
Probability, as used in this context, is the likelihood that an event will occur or (to be official)
- "A number expressing the likelihood that a specific event will occur, expressed as the ratio of the number of actual occurrences to the number of possible occurrences."
Thus, in the formal definition, possibility (whether something is possible) is, more or less, linked to probability (how likely it is that the something will happen) and the linkage of the two forms a ratio or fraction.
Note that this does not address the rationality of the possibility of an event. In other words an event could be determined to be impossible, making the denominator of the fraction or ratio zero and the expression would be mathematically meaningless.
The fact that the organ under discussion exists is evidence that it is possible for such an organ to exist. The probability that something will exist when it already does is 1 (100/100) or 100%.
Re: Only Bob has serial eyes
Re: Only Bob has serial eyes
Phy, perhaps Bob read your post(?) He addresses the eye again in his show entitled, "250 of 1000 so far!" at about the 27th minute. This time he didn't say "symbols," a word he used in his earlier show that baffled me also.
Please post your comments, if any, in the new thread. This argument seems more polished.
Re: Only Bob has serial eyes
Phy, perhaps Bob read your post(?) He addresses the eye again in his show entitled, "250 of 1000 so far!" at about the 27th minute. This time he didn't say "symbols," a word he used in his earlier show that baffled me also.
Please post your comments, if any, in the new thread. This argument seems more polished.
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. 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. 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?
Please notice that everything stated in the following quote can be interpreted as either serial or parallel communications. Only somebody who didn't get the point would not see it.
ThePhy said:
Seriously, I think you'll find the part of Bob's statement that you think is claiming serial communications would actually be agreed upon by all (and I'm using “all” in the biblical tradition)optic physicians to be 100% accurate.
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.
ThePhy said:
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.
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.
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.
Oh, but you'd love my bedside manner... “Hi, I'm doctor Yorzhik. If you're a Christian, raise your hand.”
Seriously, I think you'll find the part of Bob's statement that you think is claiming serial communications would actually be agreed upon by all (and I'm using “all” in the biblical tradition)optic physicians to be 100% accurate.
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.
Zakath
Resident Atheist
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.
Probabilities are always based on assumptions. What assumptions to you use to derive this low (virtually zero) probability assessment?
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".
Stratnerd
New member
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.
How else could someone calculate the probability that it happened?
- Status