Evolution Is For Brainlets

[evolutionisforbrainlets No.10842347]

What's up /sci/. I'm about to use the most basic concept in computer science to make Darwinian evolution look retarded. Sounds insane? Don't believe me? Well read on...
~

>The most basic concept in computer science

The simplest way to look at a computer is to break it down into three steps: input, processing, and output.

In the input step, the computer is fed information. For example, let's say you build a simple computer that adds two numbers together and displays them on a screen. You input the numbers "2" and "2".

The next step is processing. This will take your input of "2" and "2", convert this input to a language that the computer can understand (binary), and calculate the result of adding these numbers. The computer will then convert the result from binary back to a format that is more readable to humans.

This brings us to the output step, where the result of "4" is displayed on screen.

Keep in mind that all three of these steps (input, processing, output) must be in place and functional simultaneously, otherwise the computer will be useless (duh).
~

>How this relates to biology

A living organism is, in many ways, very similar to a computer with its input, processing, and output steps.

For example, think of a mouse that sees a cat. The mouse detects the cat with its eyes (input), the mouse's brain and nervous system recognize the cat as a threat (processing), and the mouse responds by running from the cat (output).

Just like the computer, all three of thsese steps must be in place and functional simultaneously, otherwise the mouse will be eaten by the cat.

You can think of the mouse as having "software" built into its brain that tells it to run from threats.
~

(Don't worry, more text wall incoming) (1/?)

[evolutionisforbrainlets No.10842348]

>How this simple concept makes evolution look retarded

Think about the modern eye. How did it develop? Evolutionists purport that it formed gradually, perhaps starting with a single photosensitive cell. (I know, I know. Hurr durr ThE eYe!!11! Stay with me.)

So, let's go back a couple billion years. Imagine that some "proto-cats" and "proto-mice" exist (a predator-prey relationship between two early, relatively simple species).

The proto-cats come out at night to prey upon the proto-mice. If only the proto-mice could tell the difference between day and night, then they would be able to hide from the proto-cats once day is over! It would be very advantageous for these creatures to develop some kind of photosensitive cell.

See the problem yet?

Our proto-mouse developing a photosensitive cell is only 1/3 of the story. This cell is only the first step: input. This provides no survival advantage on its own.

The cell (input), the nervous system's "software" that tells the proto-mouse that it is dark and therefore time to hide (processing), and the proto-mouse retreating under a rock to hide (output) ALL MUST BE PRESENT AND FULLY FUNCTIONAL SIMULTANEOUSLY TO PROVIDE A SURVIVAL ADVANTAGE.

THE DEVELOPMENT OF SUCH A SYSTEM IS NOT EXPLAINABLE BY GRADUAL CHANGE.

This is because extremely complex biological "software" is needed IN CONJUNCTION with NEARLY ANY new organ if it is to provide a survival advantage. This is true no matter how "simple" that organ may be (even a single photosensitive cell).
~

>"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find no such case."
- Charles Darwin

Well Chuck, I just found you a CASE. Enjoy the breakdown of your "theory", evotards.

(2/2)

[Anonymous No.10842353]

>>10842347
>A living organism is, in many ways, very similar to a computer with its input, processing, and output steps.

[evolutionisforbrainlets No.10842363]

>>10842353
Not an argument

[Anonymous No.10842366]

>>10842348
>THE DEVELOPMENT OF SUCH A SYSTEM IS NOT EXPLAINABLE BY GRADUAL CHANGE.
I doubt that.

[evolutionisforbrainlets No.10842369]

>>10842366
Explain how it can happen by gradual change, then.

[Anonymous No.10842376]

>>10842348
Retarded post. I'm not sure what scale you're talking about here, aside from the fact it's multi-cellular.
But, a basic level of intelligence is all that's required to turn an input into an output.
Let's say these proto-mouse sense proto-cats based on vibrations in the water that the proto-cats create. If the proto-mouse notices that they only sense proto-cats when there is no light, it might change it's behaviour depending on the light.
And that's pretty much all there is to it.

[Anonymous No.10842378]

>>10842347
I really hope this is a joke but there’s some possibility it isn’t and that saddens me.

[Anonymous No.10842381]

>>10842348
The "output" is movement, the processing already exists as neurons. Photoreceptors are neurons, thus they already have locomotion and encephalization before the "input" of predation.

[Anonymous No.10842382]

>>10842369
this is like he asked you to prove that it is not. Can you do that?

[Anonymous No.10842383]

>>10842348
>The cell (input), the nervous system's "software" that tells the proto-mouse that it is dark and therefore time to hide (processing), and the proto-mouse retreating under a rock to hide (output) ALL MUST BE PRESENT AND FULLY FUNCTIONAL SIMULTANEOUSLY TO PROVIDE A SURVIVAL ADVANTAGE.

Are you aware that bacteria exist, single-celled organisms with no nervous system, that have eyes they use to navigate?
Kys

[evolutionisforbrainlets No.10842397]

>>10842381
>The "output" is movement, the processing already exists as neurons. Photoreceptors are neurons
But you are neglecting the fact that the processing does not yet exist for this type of input (light). Different senses require different software. You obviously respond to different senses (sight, smell, touch, taste, sound) differently.

>>10842383
>Are you aware that bacteria exist, single-celled organisms with no nervous system, that have eyes they use to navigate?
Scale is mostly irrelevant, the concept is still the same.

[evolutionisforbrainlets No.10842403]

>>10842376
This is the closest thing to a valid argument so far.
You are still wrong, though, because there are very, very unintelligent creatures capable of turning an input into an output.

[Anonymous No.10842406]

>>10842397
>Scale is mostly irrelevant

No it isn’t. So quickly attempting to outright lie?

[evolutionisforbrainlets No.10842408]

>>10842406
Please explain why scale is not irrelevant, then. The logic of my original post can be applied at any scale. Unless I am missing something, of course.

[Anonymous No.10842414]

>>10842408
Your “logic” is entirely irrelevant and useless since biology isn’t computers.

[evolutionisforbrainlets No.10842423]

>>10842414
Did you even read my post?
It's called an ANALOGY. Many biological functions are ANALOGOUS to the way that computers work.

[Anonymous No.10842466]

>>10842348

It is sad to see that you are not a christian :-( since the God is very clear in Scripture that He started the process of evolution. Evolution is what is being referred to by the Tree of Life in Genesis. Hopefully you can make your way back to Christ.

[Anonymous No.10842469]

>>10842403
>You are still wrong, though, because there are very, very unintelligent creatures capable of turning an input into an output.
Huh? How does this refute my statement? Did you mean intelligent creatures incapable of turning an input into an output?

[Anonymous No.10842474]

is this the power of computer """"""""""""""""""""""""""scientists""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

[Anonymous No.10842476]

>>10842469

OP is not supported by science or by God since God refers to evolution in Genesis, aka the Tree of Life :-(

We will be praying for you OP

[Anonymous No.10842478]

>>10842476
don't reply to me with this shit bait ever again

[Anonymous No.10842484]

>>10842478

I am sorry OP, I only hope to save you from hellfire. Scripture is very clear that God created Evolution written through the parables of Jesus Christ, the True author of Genesis.

Those who mock His ways are endangering their souls.

[evolutionisforbrainlets No.10842514]

>>10842469
You stated
>a basic level of intelligence is all that's required to turn an input into an output
You are essentially trying to argue with me by saying, "the proto-mouse could have used intelligence to decipher the input it is receiving from its new photoreceptor."
This statement is meaningless in the context of this discussion. There are many unintelligent creatures capable of turning an input into an output (i.e., they have senses). Maybe you should re read my post.

[Anonymous No.10842680]

>>10842514
It's your fault for using such a shit analogy. Don't use cats and mice as examples if you want to talk about unintelligent life.
Alright, if we're talking about unintelligent life, it still applies.
Obviously, the photo-receptor provides input. You believe that the organism requires specialised processes to process that input. This is wrong. I don't know what we're saying the reaction is when this photo-receptor activates, but let's say it's an electrical charge.
This charge WILL have an effect on the organism. If it benefits it, than it will have more kids. If it doesn't it will have less. Basic survival of the fittest.

[Anonymous No.10842696]

>>10842423
Analogies are completely useless outside of attempting to explain some things to literal children.

[Anonymous No.10842697]

>>10842397
I know this is bait, but usually these types of senses develop as regulatory mechanisms for pre-existing “software”. Like a light sensor develops because cells good at swimming towards light survive better. So you’re not necessarily wrong that software comes first, but are wrong that senses can’t be evolved in this natural way.

In bacteria, even plasmids can develop sensors for internal components to reduce metabolic burden. It’s pretty cool stuff!

[Anonymous No.10843047]

>>10842348
You completely ignore the fact that evolutionary changes don't always have to be advantageous, particularly not at first. A lot of advantageous phenotypes don't really come into play until they reach a certain level in the population, so neutral genetic drift is incredibly important. Also, if you want to talk about the eye specifically, then there's also pretty good molecular evidence regarding the fact that Pax6 is highly conserved in regulating eye development, meaning that a Pax6 homologue was likely present in the last common ancestor of organisms that developed eyes

[Anonymous No.10843083]

>>10842348
>see the problem yet?
>Our proto-mouse developing a photosensitive cell is only 1/3 of the story. This cell is only the first step: input. This provides no survival advantage on its own.
>The cell (input), the nervous system's "software" that tells the proto-mouse that it is dark and therefore time to hide (processing), and the proto-mouse retreating under a rock to hide (output) ALL MUST BE PRESENT AND FULLY FUNCTIONAL SIMULTANEOUSLY TO PROVIDE A SURVIVAL ADVANTAGE.
>THE DEVELOPMENT OF SUCH A SYSTEM IS NOT EXPLAINABLE BY GRADUAL CHANGE.
Its exactly why evolution works. There were some/few proto mice that could tell the difference between day and night, with extra photo receptive cells that were integrated in early brain or some form or nervous processing center, there were others that only had a cell, which wasnt integrated, others even who had no extra cells, the ones that couldnt survive the proto cat died off, the next generation had ability to see and understand(hide or not) day and night. Its how they evolved, then it was a turn for proto cat, some could hunt mice day and, most though could only do it at night, with new mice, most cats died, but the surviving ones were better hunters, its how evolution works, only traits that work are passed, traits that dont work or work unreliably, are incomplete etc, are not passed.

[Anonymous No.10843108]

>A living organism is, in many ways, very similar to a computer with its input, processing, and output steps.

Computers can't cannibalize and regrow their circuitry down to the sub-atomic scale. An amoeba can harness physics in ways that we still can't fathom, let alone incorporate into a machine.

You are comparing apples to batteries.

[Anonymous No.10843220]

A certain bacteria has no sensory or translational ability. Then it evolves a protein that wiggles when not in a resource rich area to speed up brownian motion. Then it evolves greater directional resolution for the resource detection. Then it evolves more directed and efficient wiggling. Then it evolves a sensory input method that takes light into account (it's just protein excitation). Then this sensor accumulates into an organelle. Then the organelle develops a hemispherical pigmentation. You now have a primitive eye capable of sensing the direction of light connected to the motility pathway, and the rest is history.

[Anonymous No.10843230]

ITT: can’t do math, have never read a book on genetics, low iq gay retards arguing with sociopath baiting nigger for hours

[evolutionisforbrainlets No.10843464]

>>10842680
>You believe that the organism requires specialised processes to process that input
It does. The organism will not necessarily process that input in a way that is advantageous. The organism could process the input and respond in a practically infinite number of ways. Only a few of these responses are advantageous. This is why you need specialized software to process the input.

>>10842697
>senses develop as regulatory mechanisms for pre-existing “software”
The software on its own provides no survival advantage, and is therefore invisible to the evolutionary process.
>Like a light sensor develops because cells good at swimming towards light survive better
How does it have software to swim towards light if it can't sense light? This is retarded

>>10843047
>>10843083
>>10843108
>>10843220
Low IQ

[Anonymous No.10843479]

>>10843464
>Only a few of these responses are advantageous.
Yes and those organisms will be more likely to survive and pass on this behavior to the next generation. So you just admitted evolution works.

[Anonymous No.10843493]

>>10843464
>The software on its own provides no survival advantage
The software is not on its own. It interacts with the machinery of the cell and the environment. This either produces no result, a negative result, or a positive result. The positive results get propagated.

>How does it have software to swim towards light if it can't sense light?
The software and the sensor are the same, simply the random reaction of a protein to light.

[Anonymous No.10843509]

>>10843464

if not evolution how do you think life on earth came to be?

[Anonymous No.10843532]

>>10842348
You seem to lack the understanding of neuroplasticity. Look at how human, given artificial limbs, can manage to "make sense" of the input that is given to them during their lifetime. Thanks to neuroplasticity and learning, basic beings can manage to understand these new inputs. For example, if your protomice has already had a sense of sound, it can learn to understand "flashy light" as being equivalent to "loud menacing noises", and reuse this "circuitery".

Even acknowledging your (arguably) retarded analogy of computers and beings, other mechanisms would better explain your fictious scenario, that thus does not contradict evolution.

[Anonymous No.10843627]

>>10842403
They might not be much compared to humans, but they are not as unintelligent as you seem to think. We have way way more brain power than we need. Even the fact that animals can be trained shows their ability to turn a new input into an output. Maybe start back at bacteria and we can have a conversation

[Anonymous No.10843663]

>>10842696
Voltage is analogous to temperature difference. Temperature difference is analogous to pressure difference. Pressure difference is analogous to gravitational potential differences. These are very useful analogies, and they work because all these things have similar mathematical form.

[Anonymous No.10843692]

>>10842423
>He's trying to make science using only an analogy

Lmao

[Anonymous No.10845181]

There is this meme, where a biologist concludes evolution is impossible if looked at from a chemical perspective, as some of the molecules formed are far too complex to be formed by chance

[Anonymous No.10845221]

>>10843464
> low IQ
great argument you protoplasmic piece of shit

[Anonymous No.10845242]

>>10843464
OP is either pure bait or does not believe in evolution since it missed him

[Anonymous No.10845275]

>>10845181

Good thing chance has nothing to do with how chemicals are formed or selected, then.

[Anonymous No.10845281]

>>10842363
not a retort

[Anonymous No.10845456]

>>10842347
>Evolution is false
What is your counter thesis?
The Bible?
Are you fundamentalist christian type or a Bronze Age Pervert type?

[Anonymous No.10845526]

>>10842347
>>10842348

The two main logical fallacies you make are assuming that evolutions needs to happen in order (e.g first "input" then "processing" and finally "output") when they can happen in any order or even simultaneously, and that you assume there only being 1 proto-cat and 1 proto-mouse at the same time.

To better demonstrate evolution using your analogy imagine like 100 proto-mice and 20 proto-cats. The cats hunt at night so the mice develop photosensors. Some mice also develop affinity for light and start living during the day. Because the cats don't hunt during the day these mice thriwe and mice slowly become day creatures. Because cats are running low on food some of them also develop an affinity for the day and start hunting during the day. The mice start dying again so they have to evolve. Some become night creatures again and some start regocnizing cats better and avoiding them and so on.

Evolution isn't just changing to improve your chances of survival, it's random chance where the weakest get cut off and the changes that either offer an advantage or don't change anything relevant go on.