The new research suggests that there must be, as yet undiscovered, magnetic field sensors in the bird’s inner ear which report compass readings to the brainstem. The story is further complicated, however, by activity in other regions of the brain as well. The researchers were able to detect signals in specific neurons, and how different neurons were sensitive to particular compass readings.
The researchers suspect that the reference information is stored in the hippocampus. As one writer explains:
In some birds that hide seeds and return later to their caches with astonishing accuracy, the hippocampus grows and shrinks seasonally, presumably as they map their hiding spots.
It has been an on-going and difficult area of research and this latest study is being called “stunning.” But it is only a small part of the story and there is much more to learn.
What is being slowly revealed is an astonishingly complex guidance and navigation system. As its profound complexity is increasingly understood the belief that it arose by chance biological variation becomes increasingly exposed for what it is: a non scientific and outdated view of origins. In this case, we would have to believe that sensors arose by chance, with multiple neurons that by chance reported their data to parts of the brain that by chance stored the information, and that other parts of the brain by chance evolved capabilities to store reference information, and that other parts of the brain evolved capabilities to compare the sensed information with the reference information and to make decisions. All of this had to be constructed in the embryonic stages and operate robustly in the mature bird. And all of this is so complex our best scientists still can’t figure it out how it works, let alone how it could have evolved. And yet evolutionists are certain that it did evolve. That is a conviction, not a scientific conclusion.
As its profound complexity is increasingly understood the belief that it arose by chance biological variation becomes increasingly exposed for what it is: a non scientific and outdated view of origins.
ReplyDeleteIt's a good thing then that no-one is suggesting such a feature came about by chance.
Evolution is not chance!!
Yes, the 'random mutation' part is random. But these random mutations are then fed through the filter of natural selection - the very mechanism which makes the whole process decidedly non-random. Like a valve, natural selection allows gene pools to flow in only one direction - towards greater fitness. And this allows for the development of some extremely complicated and sophisticated systems indeed.
This is not complicated stuff. A first grade textbook on the topic would put you straight on this.
It's a good thing then that no-one is suggesting such a feature came about by chance.
DeleteActually you are.
Evolution is not chance!!
Yes it is. That’s the whole point. No teleology, no final causes.
Yes, the 'random mutation' part is random. But these random mutations are then fed through the filter of natural selection - the very mechanism which makes the whole process decidedly non-random.
The mutations are still “random.” Just because you unplug every slot machine that fails to give you a jackpot doesn’t mean your odds of winning are any better, or that your plays are any less random. Of course, the only slot machines left operating at the end are those with “7 7 7” on them. But don’t think that it was obtained by anything other than a “random” attempt.
Like a valve, natural selection allows gene pools to flow in only one direction - towards greater fitness.
They’re not going to flow anywhere without the right mutations. They are still random. The astronomical unlikeliness of evolution is not alleviated because its attempts are failures from the start.
And this allows for the development of some extremely complicated and sophisticated systems indeed.
Evolution would have failed long ago if evolutionists were forced to defend their bare assertions.
This is not complicated stuff. A first grade textbook on the topic would put you straight on this.
Agreed, it is not complicated.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteCornelius Hunter
DeleteThe mutations are still “random.” Just because you unplug every slot machine that fails to give you a jackpot doesn’t mean your odds of winning are any better, or that your plays are any less random. Of course, the only slot machines left operating at the end are those with “7 7 7” on them. But don’t think that it was obtained by anything other than a “random” attempt.
Terribly bad example CH. Your 'selected' slot machines don't reproduce and carry forward their beneficial heritable traits.
Are you really that confused about how actual evolutionary processes work, or do you have some ulterior motive for posting something so obviously wrong?
Ritchie said, 'And this allows for the development of some extremely complicated and sophisticated systems indeed."
ReplyDelete--
That's what evolutionists imagine. But you do not actually have a single example of an "extremely complicated and sophisticated system" ever observed to evolve. If so, by all means tell us.
Neal -
DeleteLenski's E.Coli bacteria study provides a beautiful example of just that.
Not only did the seperated strains of the bacteria evolve along individual lines, but one strain developed the biologically complex and statistically unlikely ability to digest citrate.
True it is on a small scale, but large-scale systems take a lot longer to happen. Asking for an 'observation' of the evolution of a large and complex system such as the eye is like asking for an 'observation' of the clash of tectonic plates creating mountains. They kinda take a little time.
Multiple Mutations Needed for E. Coli - Michael Behe
DeleteExcerpt: As Lenski put it, “The only known barrier to aerobic growth on citrate is its inability to transport citrate under oxic conditions.” (1) Other workers (cited by Lenski) in the past several decades have also identified mutant E. coli that could use citrate as a food source. In one instance the mutation wasn’t tracked down. (2) In another instance a protein coded by a gene called citT, which normally transports citrate in the absence of oxygen, was overexpressed. (3) The overexpressed protein allowed E. coli to grow on citrate in the presence of oxygen. It seems likely that Lenski’s mutant will turn out to be either this gene or another of the bacterium’s citrate-using genes, tweaked a bit to allow it to transport citrate in the presence of oxygen. (He hasn’t yet tracked down the mutation.),,, If Lenski’s results are about the best we've seen evolution do, then there's no reason to believe evolution could produce many of the complex biological features we see in the cell.
http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2008/06/multiple-mutations-needed-for-e-coli/
Michael Behe's Quarterly Review of Biology Paper Critiques Richard Lenski's E. Coli Evolution Experiments - December 2010
Excerpt: After reviewing the results of Lenski's research, Behe concludes that the observed adaptive mutations all entail either loss or modification--but not gain--of Functional Coding ElemenTs (FCTs)
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/12/michael_behes_quarterly_review041221.html
Mutations: when benefits level off - June 2011 - (Lenski's e-coli after 50,000 generations)
Excerpt: After having identified the first five beneficial mutations combined successively and spontaneously in the bacterial population, the scientists generated, from the ancestral bacterial strain, 32 mutant strains exhibiting all of the possible combinations of each of these five mutations. They then noted that the benefit linked to the simultaneous presence of five mutations was less than the sum of the individual benefits conferred by each mutation individually.
http://www2.cnrs.fr/en/1867.htm?theme1=7
New Research on Epistatic Interactions Shows "Overwhelmingly Negative" Fitness Costs and Limits to Evolution - Casey Luskin June 8, 2011
Excerpt: In essence, these studies found that there is a fitness cost to becoming more fit. As mutations increase, bacteria faced barriers to the amount they could continue to evolve. If this kind of evidence doesn't run counter to claims that neo-Darwinian evolution can evolve fundamentally new types of organisms and produce the astonishing diversity we observe in life, what does?
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/06/new_research_on_epistatic_inte047151.html
Where's the substantiating evidence for neo-Darwinism?
Deletehttps://docs.google.com/document/d/1q-PBeQELzT4pkgxB2ZOxGxwv6ynOixfzqzsFlCJ9jrw/edit
Behe? On Lenski? Really?
Deletehttp://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2008/06/behes_vapid_response_to_lenski.php
http://nondiscovery.wordpress.com/2009/10/27/lenskis-new-results-behes-red-herring/
Behe's simply out of his depth here.
Of related note:
ReplyDeleteStarlings - Murmuration
http://vimeo.com/31158841
In the 1930s, British ornithologist Edmund Selous – also fascinated by Starling flocks – attributed the tremendous variety of their formations to telepathy! ,,, This recent discovery of a 'non-local' (beyond space and time) 'quantum compass' for birds has made the idea of 'telepathic birds' not such a 'bird brain' idea after all:
Quantum compass for birds - January 2011
Excerpt: In the new research, physicists at the University of Oxford and the National University of Singapore calculated that quantum entanglement in a bird’s eye could last more than 100 microseconds — longer than the 80 microseconds achieved in physicists’ experiments at temperatures just above absolute zero,,, The new prediction interprets data from earlier experiments that hinted at a quantum basis for magnetic navigation in migrating birds. In 2006, researchers in Frankfurt, Germany, netted 12 European robins migrating from Scandinavia. Researchers locked the robins in a wooden room and applied small magnetic fields tuned to a frequency that would disturb entangled electrons, if the birds indeed relied on entanglement to navigate.
The magnetic field, at 150 nanoTesla, was about 300 times weaker than Earth’s magnetic field, so it wouldn’t be expected to confuse the birds in the absence of an entanglement-based navigation system. But with the magnetic field on, the birds flew randomly instead of all flying in the same direction.
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/68484/title/Quantum_compass_for_birds
Bird Evolution vs. The Actual Evidence - video and notes
http://vimeo.com/30926629
Bornagain77, yes the bacteria already can digest citrate. The change simply involved getting it through the membrane in an oxic environment from mutations that probably broke/modified an existing function on the E.Coli membrane. It took trillions of bacteria and 30,000 generations in an extremely narrow lab tech guided experiment to produce. Yet its still not a complex biological change.
DeleteSo this minor change would be the human equivalent of a half a million of years and a human population in the trillions with 99% of the population starving to death every hundred years.
Do you have a better example?
Neal that is about the best evolutionists got. Of course they will mention nylonase, but that also is found to fall within Genetic Entropy bounds. Moreover the adaptation involves repeatable 'non-random' evolutionary changes that arise from the programming of the cell. Dr. Behe talks of a few other examples in his book Edge of Evolution, and though sometimes some of the adaptations from the parent species are impressive, as with everything else they all fall within the principle of Genetic Entropy when looked at at the molecular level. So no, I don't know of any better examples.
DeleteOf related note:
DeleteBirds have a 'Quantum connection' to the earth's magnetic field: Jan. 2011
Quantum robins lead the way
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-01-quantum-robins.html
Does the Magnetic Compass of Birds Involve a Coherent Quantum Process? Yes! - video
http://www.scivee.tv/node/25345
Natural 'Magnetometer' in Upper Beak of Birds
Excerpt: Iron containing short nerve branches in the upper beak of birds may serve as a magnetometer to measure the vector of the Earth magnetic field (intensity and inclination) and not only as a magnetic compass, which shows the direction of the magnetic field lines.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100223101419.htm
Magnetic Compass of Birds Is Based on a Molecule with Optimal Directional Sensitivity
http://www.cell.com/biophysj/retrieve/pii/S0006349509004688
Natural 'Magnetometer' in Upper Beak of Birds? - Feb. 2010
Excerpt: Specialized iron compounds in the dendrites locally amplify the Earth magnetic field and thus induce a primary receptor potential. Most probably each of these more than 500 dendrites encodes only one direction of the magnetic field. These manifold data are processed to the brain of the bird and here -- recomposed -- serve as a basis for a magnetic map, which facilitates the spatial orientation.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100223101419.htm
Nice piece. The stupidity of evolution is blatant and in your face. It is injurious to the mind. It takes a lot of dishonesty and/or cowardice to proclaim that evolution is a fact or even possible.
ReplyDeleteNo, it doesn't.
DeleteYou may not find evolutionary persuasive, but that does not mean that those of us who do find it persuasive are dishonest or stupid, or cowardly.
They may simply be wrong. Or you may be.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteShame on you Louis. You don't have to agree with Elizabeth, but can't you at least be civil? You don't have to insult everyone who disagrees with you, you know. Elizabeth is conducting herself with dignity and politeness (more than you deserve, it seems). She certainly doesn't deserve your vapid and petty insults.
DeleteYou did say that. It's no better.
ReplyDeleteIntelligent, courageous, honest people can differ.
I'm reasonably intelligent, fairly courageous, and certainly honest, and I disagree with you. So I know it's possible.
When the final truth comes out, even Einstein will be shown to have been stupid. Did you know that nothing can move in Einstein's spacetime? This is the reason that Karl Popper compared Einstein to Parmenides (Zeno's teacher) and called spacetime "Einstein's block universe in which nothing happens." Surprise!
DeleteSource: Conjectures and Refutations.
Truth about anything usually makes someone feel silly. They get to choose, though, whether or not they want to continue in silliness.
DeleteWhat is your reaction to yourself when you discover you were wrong about something, Louis?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteI see that Hunter's commenting rules are rather sensitive. My answer to your question is that I say something like "mea culpa", mentally chastise myself and then move on. However, I would use much more flowery language.
Delete"When the final truth comes out, even Einstein will be shown to have been stupid."
DeleteBeing wrong is not the same as being stupid.
The invigorating thing about doing science is that you can have the smartest idea in the world, and yet have the data falsify it.
It doesn't make you stupid, just wrong. And humble :)
Elizabeth:
ReplyDeleteI enjoy your very eloquent responses. You hone in on the logic so precisely that it's quite pleasurable to read.