Another "New" View of Creation

Why not? Whatever chemical reaction controls the linkup between optic nerves and the brain wouldn't suddenly stop working because it found the "wrong" brain tissue. I would find it more impressive if it could tell the difference and for some reason stopped working.The size of brains is not a particularly good indicator of intelligence, although there is undoubtedly a point at which size reduction results in the loss of intelligence. For instance, whales have massive brains when compared to humans, yet there is no question that humans are smarter than whales. Of course there is the problem of measuring intelligence in the first place, which an IQ test does not really do very well.

You forget that people are not constructed whole, or from the outside in. They grow; they start small and get bigger. The optic nerve connections were very close and never diverged. Each component part keeps functioning the best it can, and the pattern we call "consciousness" does not require the entirety of our brain to form. It does not "know" to rewire itself and it does not "know" anything is missing.

No, there is no intelligence in a helium atom. We don't have retarded helium atoms that respond incorrectly to situations; a helium atom simply exists. You are combining intelligence with existence seemingly without reason, and destroying whatever meaning the terms had in the process.

That is exactly what is described in the article. "...rewired itself during development when she was still in her mother's womb." One lobe managed to cope with receiving stimuli from both visual fields. The brain is able to cope with and adapt to many different conditions, which includes unexpected nerve arrangements. It was a convenient, happy accident. It does not detect that something has gone wrong; each component of the brain functions as it normally does. The amazing part is that those component parts can operate in many different configurations than the "normal" one.This does not at all imply that consciousness is separate from the material of the brain.

This is not a case if a difference in opinion, it is a case of you misusing language. You appear to be equating causality with intelligence.An inability to express you opinion is not support for that opinion, as it indicates that you (quite literally) do not know what you are talking about.Edited by Phage0070, : No reason given.

Again, you are thinking of it like multiple crazy coincidences. It isn't like that. How about this example:There is a forest on a slope, where the vast majority of trees point straight up, putting them on a 45 degree angle with the ground. One strange tree points straight out from the ground though, at right angles. This obviously is a hindrance to the tree, but it amazingly manages to function just fine. Do you consider it an amazing coincidence that all the limbs are still attached to the trunk, even though that trunk is significantly out of position?Of course not. The same goes for the roots of the abnormal tree; some trees need to cope with weak soil, and the fact that this tree developed an abnormally strong root system isn't impossible (although somewhat abnormal for this forest). No it isn't. We have no evidence of conscious developmental reaction of any organism, anywhere, at any time. It is all an automatic part of the functioning of the organism. And while I am sure your imagination is quite comforting, it isn't real. These studies do not support your preconceived conclusions, which brings me to my next point:From your link:

quote:

---

"Skeptics have claimed that it was an error of interpretation of the scans themselves. Lorber himself admits that reading a CAT scan can be tricky. He also has said that he would not make such a claim without evidence. In answer to attacks that he has not precisely quantified the amount of brain tissue missing, he added, "I can't say whether the mathematics student has a brain weighing 50 grams or 150 grams, but it is clear that it is nowhere near the normal 1.5 kilograms.""

---

There are serious issues with his ability to perform the study accurately. And there we see the crux of your argument: "I don't understand how it really works, and I understand my concept of magic. Therefore, I declare it much more likely to be magic!"This is referred to as an "Argument from Ignorance", and is not logical. If it looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck... QUACK!Bayblab: Quack of the week: Healing Water OnlineQUACK!Bruce Lipton, quack - Atheist in a (Metaphorical) Foxhole LiveJournalQUACK!John H Armstrong : ScienceQUACK!

No you have not, it does not, and there isn't a missing piece! You have not been investigating the biological action behind why a stomach grows to the size it does and stops, while not sticking to the sides of the abdominal cavity but mating its ends to the esophagus and the duodenum. You have not been asking why a femur grows into the shape of a femur, rather than just keeping adding bone randomly. And finally, you have not been asking how an eye distinguishes itself from the surrounding tissue and links up with other parts of the body.What you have been asking is how the brain commands such things to happen, which is plainly ridiculous; it does not command it to happen at all. Surely you would think it ridiculous for the brain to command the construction of three eyes, or the growth of only one, and yet you think it perfectly acceptable for it to command the divergence of nerves from one lobe to the other!Here is a hint toward understanding what happened: The eyes normally connect to both lobes of the brain. Both eyes. Each lobe normally interprets the opposite field of vision (the same side of the retina, remember that vision is flipped). It seems that the remaining lobe simply assumed the duties of the other lobe in vision, as it obviously did in other areas. Everything is an interpretation of evidence, and thus an opinion. Some are better than others, despite what your kindergarten teacher says. Of course it does, but we don't need this example to keep science marching on. The study of the brain is ongoing, and would continue even without such examples. For example: Phineas Gage
Phineas Gage - WikipediaThis guy had one or both of his frontal lobes destroyed by an iron rod driven completely through his head; it completely changed his personality and who he was. He managed to keep on living more functionally than many people even after his accident and, as his doctor relates:

quote:

---

Mr. G. got up and vomited; the effort of vomiting pressed out about half a teacupful of the brain, which fell upon the floor.

---

Define the difference with something other than incredulity or rarity.

That isn't how logical thought happens. Logically you should look at something that happens through programmed responses and, when it operates differently in different circumstances than normal, assume that it still operates as a programmed response unless proof otherwise is shown. My point is that it has been known for quite a long time that it is possible to compensate for the loss of comparatively large amounts of brain matter even for an adult. Phineas Gage was helpful in sparking studies into the function of the brain, and even particular parts of the brain. Saying "this is an area that warrants further study" earlier in the thread seems to ignore the fact that this concept is not unknown. Scientists are very much aware, and have not ignored this area of study. Again, this isn't how logical thought progresses. We have evidence that a brain performs certain functions, excluding all other parts of the body. In the circumstances that the brain is very small, we still conclude that the brain performs those functions unless we have evidence that those functions have been assumed by other parts. We DON'T simply assume it isn't capable and make up some other explanation, or ghostly overseer.