Your Eye Sees Trouble Before You Do (AMAZING!)

CEH ^ | September 10, 2009

[GodGunsGuts]

Sept 10, 2009 — In slapstick comedy, the fall guy gets the pie in the face when the clown in front of him ducks. It’s funny because most of us instinctively duck when we see something coming. But two recent experimental studies are revealing new automated capabilities built into the eye and brain that are quicker and more automatic than our reflexes or the brain’s visual center.

A team from the Canadian Institutes of Health, publishing in PNAS,[1] ran experiments on a subject that had damage to the visual cortex. They were surprised to learn that the subject could still avoid obstacles in the way during hand-reach experiments. Another experiment showed that the obstacle avoidance was nullified when a 2-second delay was introduced, providing “compelling evidence that these mechanisms can operate in ‘real-time’ without direct input from primary visual cortex (V1),” they said. What does this mean? The subject “was able to code the position of the obstacles despite being unaware of their presence.”

(for the rest of this amazing story, click excerpt link below)...

[dangerdoc]

bump

[FormerRep]

I direct your mutual attentions to minute 1:50 of this clip!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96in_IsILYk

[GodGunsGuts]

Man, I remember when the only way my parents could get me to take a shower and clean my room was to hold The Six Million Dollar Man over my head. LOL...those were the days!

[Allegra]

Actually that's pretty funny if you think about where I live.

A whole lot of things are pretty funny if you think about where I live.

[Allegra]

LOL

[TigersEye]

So this means that my eyes have got my back!?!

[tpanther]

Wow...all this thread is missing is the obligatory “Christians don’t understand science”...and “why can’t we all just get along” directed toward you GGG!

[GodGunsGuts]

You mean this thread doesn’t have those? That’ll be a first!

[metmom]

Wow...all this thread is missing is the obligatory “Christians don’t understand science”...and “why can’t we all just get along” directed toward you GGG!

Now you did it.

You know the saying?

If you mention something, and if it's good-it goes away, and it's bad-it happens.

It's funny that all the questions about getting along happen after the evos attack and creationists respond.

What a racket. Attack someone and challenge them to get along so they don't/won't/can't respond in kind. That way you can attack and never have to deal with the consequences.

[Ira_Louvin]

“Evolve is not an active verb. It is not a force with a goal, but the outcome of unguided, purposeless processes beginning with random mutations”

That statement is a common misconception spread by the anti-science crowd. It completely overlooks the fact that if the specific mutation provides a benefit that increases the chance of survival that mutation is more likely to be passed down to future generations.

That is one of the ways that evolution works; it is really not that difficult to understand.

[GodGunsGuts]

It is indeed quite easy to understand that the Temple of Darwin is crumbling all around the evo-priesthood because Darwin’s unscientific evo-religious creation myth is being falsified by genuine science at an alarming rate. So much so that even the Darwiniacs are making rumblings about how Darwood must die in order that evolution might live...LOL!

[Ira_Louvin]

Argumentum ad Hominem

The fallacy of attacking the character or circumstances of an individual who is advancing a statement or an argument instead of trying to disprove the truth of the statement or the soundness of the argument. Often the argument is characterized simply as a personal attack.

1. The personal attack is also often termed an "ad personem argument": the statement or argument at issue is dropped from consideration or is ignored, and the locutor's character or circumstances are used to influence opinion.

2. The fallacy draws its appeal from the technique of "getting personal." The assumption is that what the locutor is saying is entirely or partially dictated by his character or special circumstances and so should be disregarded.

[GodGunsGuts]

How is pointing out that the Darwinistas are motivated by an anti-science, evo-religious creation myth an argumentum ad hominem?

[Ira_Louvin]

Because you provided absolutely no evidence to refute my assertion, just name-calling and misdirection, and that my friend is a textbook example of argumentum ad hominem

Please show me the evidence you cited to show that this statement is incorrect?

“if the specific mutation provides a benefit that increases the chance of survival that mutation is more likely to be passed down to future generations.”

You provided zero creditable empirical evidence to support your anti-science claims just name-calling, and misdirection.

This is the very reason that your “arguments” would completely and utterly fail outside of your echo chamber here and the reason you refuse to even attempt to try.

Talk is cheap.

[GodGunsGuts]

You are assuming what must be proved. It is you who must demonstrate the beneficial mutation. But you can’t, because in the real world random mutations are virtually always harmful.

[Yardstick]

Ain’t nothing works 100% of the time.

[narses]

http://www.enter.net/~torve/critics/Renshaw/renshaw.htm

[ColdWater]

“For one, mice don’t talk.”

Every now and then your articles contain some real gems of scientific research.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[ColdWater]

Please show me the evidence you cited to show that this statement is incorrect?

GGG don't need to cite no stinkin' evidence. He is the annointed one.