Can you prove evolution wrong

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by idmonster

 

Hmm, Ok, you do realise that this has nothing to do with how fast the brain is working. Yes, its an impresive feat, and certainly when you see something like it in real life it is astounding, but that ability is no greater than my ability catch a ball that has been thrown at me which a only see peripheral.

So dropping a box of toothpics on the floor and a savant being able to count all 282 toothpics in 3 seconds versus a math pro taking a minute to do it, you don't think the brain is working to a faster ability.

Faster ability? not sure what that means.

The reason I asked you to clarify "faster" before entering into this was to ensure that I answered your question to the best of my ability. You equated being able to perform and action at speed to be demonstrable of savants "faster" brain.

While I agreed with you that this is an amazing feat, i have shown that non savant brains are also capable of routinley performing comparable acts. The calculations involved in catching a ball are far more complex that counting toothpicks. Most children can do it.

Neither feat demonstrates a "faster brain".

I have also offered an alternative for the phrase " faster brain" comparing processing speeds of computer processors. There is no evidence to suggest that your or my definition of "faster" is shown in savants.

reply to post by itsthetooth
More comments from your idiots guide ignored.

Ok here are some things that prove beyond a doubt that we have disabled powers...
There are seven reasons that suggest we have disabled powers.

You say beyond a doubt and follow it with a list saying reasons SUGGEST. Another epic fail and your list has been discredited many times as have you. Your meaning less drivel has been answered so ignored.

I didn't mean it in a leteral sense, I meant just running faster.

Wiggle wiggle little worm only your dumb avoidance fools no one. Just more dishonesty from you.

No I didn't, I read it again to make sure I was reading it correctly. Do you have some examples of our relathionship with apes?

Because if your suggesting we have a good relationship with them, I think your wrong.

Someone suggested you read a book on biology. I think that advise was wrong. You actually need to learn how to read. My answer to you was regarding wolves as you well know. I said what apes because it is a large group which we belong too. Your standard of reading and understanding is lower than a gnats.

Now here are 9 documented attacks, some of which are gruesome as hell, and your going to try to convenience me that these are are relatives.

And what bearing does that have on anything? I suggest you go outside and try to gain some life experience as you have shown none here.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Ok so it wasn't the soffit, but the double glazing. Either way it doesn't matter, My point still sticks and is valid.

So you are now saying that double glazed windows were fitted to keep sparrows from nesting behind old soffit boards. I think you meant to say your point still STINKS and is about as valid as a 3 dollar bill.

Well there is no proving here, like I'm admitting, even if it were a bad relationship, its still a relationship. The Bear and rainbow trout don't have a good relationship (at least on the trouts side) yet it is still an excellent example of a natural relationship.

And as I told you .Your question was answered and your stance proved wrong but you are not man enough to admit it.

reply to post by itsthetooth

No I'm denying the dinosaur layed a chicken egg. According to everything I have read that new species would die, and fast.

Your question was. 'What came first the chicken or the egg'. The answer was and is correct. The fact you try to say it is not confirms you have no understanding of logic. As for everything you have read show links or otherwise who cares.

No I'm denying that your point has nothing to do with the question.

Tragic ignorance

Well there is a difference between the chicken being prehistoric, and prehistoric birds laying eggs that become chickens.

Comical lack of any understanding at all

Even from a creation point of view, it would seem more that the egg came first, however its only speculation and speculation doens't prove anything.

No, I gave you the correct answer. Yet another answer you refuse to accept. Everyone on this thread has been telling you speculation proves nothing since page 54. Is the penny finally dropping, I doubt it.

Thats not what your saying, your saying a diansour layed a chicken egg, looks more like he did blink into existance.

I refer you to my correct answer given above. Please show me where I wrote a dinosaur laid a chicken egg. Your reading ability has failed you again.

Your math is off, and I have obviously done more research than you. Yes 2.5 million is larger than thousands and thousands, so get with the program. You have 2.5 million fossils and bones and not a single one that connects any species to any other species. Now what does this tell you?

There are thousands upon thousands of fossil evidence. Observations, studiies, DNA all verifiable and open for peer review. So you believe evolution could not happen. Now why is that?

There are thousands upon thousands of fossil evidence. Observations, studiies, DNA all verifiable and open for peer review. So you believe evolution could not happen. Now why is that?

No you were complaining about his findings, or more in how he got them. Like it or not, you were complaining about something. Why don't you just prove him wrong and put it to rest.

Oh I have a very handy quote from you to answer that.

however its only speculation and speculation doens't prove anything.

reply to post by Xcalibur254

There actually is a reason behind it. Pop "psychologists" misinterpreted the claims of actual research and put it in their books. Of course the general public only gets their "scientific" information from pop science books so that's what stuck while the original research is forgotten. There is not a single study that confirms the 10% myth and in fact those who publish it as fact can't even agree on an original source.

Well I agree that we will have no way to confim the percentage.

reply to post by idmonster

While I agreed with you that this is an amazing feat, i have shown that non savant brains are also capable of routinley performing comparable acts. The calculations involved in catching a ball are far more complex that counting toothpicks. Most children can do it.

I doubt that children can count 282 toothpics spilled on the floor in 3 seconds.

reply to post by colin42

Ok here are some things that prove beyond a doubt that we have disabled powers...
There are seven reasons that suggest we have disabled powers.

You say beyond a doubt and follow it with a list saying reasons SUGGEST. Another epic fail and your list has been discredited many times as have you. Your meaning less drivel has been answered so ignored.

Well why not, its no different than the evolutionism links telling us that those are based on postulated and hypothetical theorys, but you believe them.

Now here are 9 documented attacks, some of which are gruesome as hell, and your going to try to convenience me that these are are relatives.

And what bearing does that have on anything? I suggest you go outside and try to gain some life experience as you have shown none here.

well it proves a couple things, first is that your blind to whats in front of you, and2nd that you will most likely get messed up pretty bad by putting your arm around an ape.

reply to post by colin42

So you are now saying that double glazed windows were fitted to keep sparrows from nesting behing old soffit boards. I think you meant to say your point still STINKS and is about as valid as a 3 dollar bill.


Well there is no proving here, like I'm admitting, even if it were a bad relationship, its still a relationship. The Bear and rainbow trout don't have a good relationship (at least on the trouts side) yet it is still an excellent example of a natural relationship.

And as I told you .Your question was answered and your stance prved wrong but you are not man enough to admit it.

I have agreed with you three times now about this, are you honestly that dense?

reply to post by colin42

Your question was. 'What came first the chicken or the egg'. The answer was and is correct. The fact you try to say it is not confirms you have no understanding of logic. As for everything you have read show links or otherwise who cares.

Unfortunatly logic doens't prove anything. We logically aren't from this planet, but that doesn't mean anything.

Tragic ignorance

Well it would help if you stayed on subject.

Comical lack of any understanding at all

Well its a comical answer to a comical comment.

No, I gave you the correct answer. Yet another answer you refuse to accept. Everyone on this thread has been telling you speculation proves nothing since page 54. Is the penny finally dropping, I doubt it.

Only problem is you cant prove or disprove any of it, on either side. You better call CNN fast, let them know you got the 411 on our existance.

I refer you to my correct answer given above. Please show me where I wrote a dinosaur laid a chicken egg. Your reading ability has failed you again.


Your math is off, and I have obviously done more research than you. Yes 2.5 million is larger than thousands and thousands, so get with the program. You have 2.5 million fossils and bones and not a single one that connects any species to any other species. Now what does this tell you?

so now your going to try to retract what you said.

Oh I have a very handy quote from you to answer that.


however its only speculation and speculation doens't prove anything.

Well you assume his work was speculation, and you have nothing to back it up with.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by idmonster

 

While I agreed with you that this is an amazing feat, i have shown that non savant brains are also capable of routinley performing comparable acts. The calculations involved in catching a ball are far more complex that counting toothpicks. Most children can do it.

I doubt that children can count 282 toothpics spilled on the floor in 3 seconds.

Who said anything about that?

Are you suggesting that children cant catch a ball. Is your reading comprehension so poor that a sentence saying " Green is the colour of chlorophil not blue, All plants have it. "

Is making the statement that all plants have "blue"

Everytime you post anything like the above. you make any argument you attempt to make suspect.

I will reiterate, you suggested that savant brains "work faster" because the film rainman showed an actor pretending to be savant, instantly count toothpicks. We agreed that similar feats are accomplished by real life savants.

I have put the counter argument that non savant brains are capable of comparable feats. If you disagree, thats fine, tell me why you disagree, maybe I can put forward an explanation or maybe I might think you have a point. If you agree, even better, let me know, or if you prefer never refer to it again. I made a statement, I didnt, in that instance ask a question.

reply to post by idmonster


Well it looks like you were wrong about his response. He's just ignored my post regarding the pineal gland. That probably means we can expect him to repeat his claims in a week and then say that nobody has debunked them yet.

reply to post by Xcalibur254


Roger that.

Altough he piqued my interest with toothpicks, so i though i'd do a quick google to see if there is any reference apart from rainman.

All references to "savant toothpick count" on the first and second page on the google search results are in referene to rainman except one, and that one (fourth one, down page 1) links directly into.............

You got it, this thread.

reply to post by idmonster

I have put the counter argument that non savant brains are capable of comparable feats. If you disagree, thats fine, tell me why you disagree, maybe I can put forward an explanation or maybe I might think you have a point. If you agree, even better, let me know, or if you prefer never refer to it again. I made a statement, I didnt, in that instance ask a question.

I just think the word comparable is not even close. Everything else is fine. If people could do comparable feats then I don't think they would have the savant catagory out to such a distant degree that I'm getting from it. Thats not to say that some people cant do some things that savants are known for being able to do.

It's possible they too are part savant.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Unfortunatly logic doens't prove anything. We logically aren't from this planet, but that doesn't mean anything.

Wrong again. I gave you the logic path that proves the egg came first. As evidence to back that I have dinosaur eggs. Evidence that birds evolved from dinosaurs. Chickens and Chicken eggs.

Now you say logically we arent from this planet. Show the logic path and the evidence that supports it.

What followed from you was drivel and so not answered.

so now your going to try to retract what you said.

Still drivel but. I asked you to show me where I wrote a dinosaur laid a chicken egg. You have yet to do that. So how does anyone retract what they have not written?

Well you assume his work was speculation, and you have nothing to back it up with.

WOW! almost correct. I assume his work is speculation as he has given no proof to show otherwise. So as I told you before he and his work remains insignificant until he does.

reply to post by Xcalibur254

Well it looks like you were wrong about his response. He's just ignored my post regarding the pineal gland. That probably means we can expect him to repeat his claims in a week and then say that nobody has debunked them yet.

Excuse me, but just because YOU weren't able to find anything on it, doesn't mean its debunked. It's a typical approach when your dealing with evolutionisim. Assumptions are made and based on nothing.

Not that its conclusive but I found just about everything thats needed per this topic right in wiki.
en.wikipedia.org...

Some of which just have unique tallents, while others might get some positive with some negative outcomes.

Either way you slice it, if the brain has the ability to perform better, and obviously getting a unique talent with no side effects is just that, then I was right, the brain CAN work better.

reply to post by itsthetooth


You have absolutely no evidence for your claims. We have countless examples of the pineal gland throughout the animal kingdom. Each one functions in much the same way as those found in humans. They produce and secrete hormones. There is not a single example of the pineal gland doing what you claim and there is no indication that what you claim was ever the case. Wherever you got your information regarding the pineal gland from is wrong and its clear that they don't have the slightest bit of knowledge regarding the pineal gland. Instead they made up some claim to fit in with the "the pineal gland is special" New Age crowd who in turn base their claims on material that is centuries out of date. Face it. You were wrong and the argument from ignorance isn't going to help you. Based on the logic you are using right now I could claim that the world sits on the back of an invisible giant turtle who in turn rests on four invisible elephants and I would have as much evidence to back up my claim as you do. You were wrong. That's all there is to it. The next time you try to make a similar claim regarding the pineal gland everyone will know that you have no desire for the truth. Instead you would just rather live in your world based on blind faith.

What level have you paid for? Are you clear yet?

2nd

reply to post by itsthetooth


Prodigious savants face their own difficulties. For example, while many people would consider eidetic memory a blessing, if you actually research the people that have it many consider it a curse. Unfortunately since prodigious savantism is so rare it has not been studied to the extent it should. Most of what we have are case studies, which don't really reveal much. I would like to point out however that it is possible for humans to experience periods of extremely increased activity in areas of the brain, or even the brain as a whole. We call this epilepsy.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by idmonster

 

I have put the counter argument that non savant brains are capable of comparable feats. If you disagree, thats fine, tell me why you disagree, maybe I can put forward an explanation or maybe I might think you have a point. If you agree, even better, let me know, or if you prefer never refer to it again. I made a statement, I didnt, in that instance ask a question.

I just think the word comparable is not even close. Everything else is fine. If people could do comparable feats then I don't think they would have the savant catagory out to such a distant degree that I'm getting from it. Thats not to say that some people cant do some things that savants are known for being able to do.

It's possible they too are part savant.

Remember, we are not talking about individuals, and we are not talking about specific acts, we are talking about the processing speed of the brain.

If we, just for a second, look at the autism spectrum (yes, I am aware that autism and savant syndromr are not connected). Here you have a condition that, among other effects, xauses an inability in sufferers socialise in what is seen to be a normal manner. This inability to beform a function to the standard of" normal" is in no way a measurement of "brain speed".

Back to savant, from a brain function point of veiw, the ability to count toothpick is no greater that that of being able to catch a ball. Add in things like catching a ball while running top speed like they do in rugby or what you americans call football, and the feat becomes even more astounding.

From Xcaliburs post way back, it would appear that the title savant, when talking about brain function (which we are) is more about HOW the brain processes information, WHERE it processes information. and howmuch surface is given over to specific functions.

You suggested that it was faster, I am assuming that this could be a guess on your part, if not, the usual request for evidence please.

As for my guess, a similie if you'll indulge me.

Using the computer analogy.

lets say we have a pc with dedicated chips for graphics, audio, maths, logic and pc health. All processors have a maximum running speed of 1 gig. In the normal brain each processor will be running at around 300mgh unless called on for a apecific purpose. When on ATS, for example, the logic chip reves up to the full 1gig. Based on the single paragraph posted by xcalibur earlier (let me know if this is way off) the savant brain may end with one of these processors hijacking the run tim of the others. So the maths processor, ticking away at 300mgh, is also utillizing 200mgh of the graphics and audio processors and they are only allowing 100mgh of there processing power to their primary function.
In this hypothesis, the savant brain is still only running at 300mgh, but it has three processors concentrating on issues mathematical, one of the processors in this example is graphics, which leads into the possibility of processing visual items in a mathematical manner, i.e. counting toothpicks,

As I said, just my guess from a point of ignorance.

reply to post by Xcalibur254

You have absolutely no evidence for your claims. We have countless examples of the pineal gland throughout the animal kingdom.

True but you also have no evidence to disprove it either. And you are correct about there being countless examples, there are so many that its obvious they are unsure about what it is this gland does.

Each one functions in much the same way as those found in humans. They produce and secrete hormones. There is not a single example of the pineal gland doing what you claim and there is no indication that what you claim was ever the case.

Of course there is no proof, do you think we would still be disabled had they of figured it out by now?

Wherever you got your information regarding the pineal gland from is wrong and its clear that they don't have the slightest bit of knowledge regarding the pineal gland. Instead they made up some claim to fit in with the "the pineal gland is special" New Age crowd who in turn base their claims on material that is centuries out of date.

Those of which have also never been proven wrong. Look I just read wiki on it myself and all they offer is postulated theorys. No one is stepping up and saying that anything is known for sure. All they are saying is at one time this was thought, at another time, this was thought, and in a different time, this was thought. It would be nice if that could be set aside and someone says but this is what it really does. They don't know, and they don't know because its disabled.

You were wrong and the argument from ignorance isn't going to help you. Based on the logic you are using right now I could claim that the world sits on the back of an invisible giant turtle who in turn rests on four invisible elephants and I would have as much evidence to back up my claim as you do. You were wrong.

Well there might not be much to prove me correct, but I still see nothing to prove me wrong either.

When you make claims as such, your profilling me.

That's all there is to it. The next time you try to make a similar claim regarding the pineal gland everyone will know that you have no desire for the truth. Instead you would just rather live in your world based on blind faith.

When you have proven it wrong, I will agree with you. Thanks for trying anyhow.