Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)

[Anomalocaris]

Any description of a process capable of creating life’s endless forms most beautiful, would, by necessity, be as flexible as what it described.

Don’t you think?

Yup, I agree. In fact, its almost poetic. That a theory which views nature as able to produce countless variations to an organism until a successful version emerges; itself also functions by making endless predictions in hopes that a successful one emerges.

And the moron thinks he has a gift for irony and sarcasm.


There is nothing intrinsically wrong with a complicated and convoluted theory that can match prior observations and specifically and uniquely predict observation that was yet to be made, so long as there isn't a simpler theory that can match the same prior observation and also specifically and uniquely predict the same or a greater set of observation yet to be made.


In the range of later verified specific and unique predictions of observations yet to be made,  all other hypothesis fall flat, and your god hypothesis seems to fall far flatter than most on its smarmy face, boy. 

So evolution is the only theory standing.   It's complexity and convolution is no discredit because nothing less works, boy.     Simplicity and atheistic by some subjective measure is nice to have, but working is essential, boy.

Reality can be complicated, dirty and messy at macroscopic level, not like delusions of god, boy.