Posts: 6609
Threads: 73
Joined: May 31, 2014
Reputation:
56
RE: Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)
August 5, 2019 at 1:42 am
(This post was last modified: August 5, 2019 at 1:45 am by GrandizerII.)
The OP is just grasping at straws. The theory of evolution has been put to the test so many times and in so many ways, it has passed the tests again and again with flying colors. It's the best explanation we have for the diversity of life on this planet. Hell, it's the only compelling explanation we have.
To argue then that evolution is suspect because you can't answer some specific questions that you think have not been addressed, or because not every single detail has been specified, doesn't counter the explanatory power overall of evolution. Nothing comes close to evolution as an explanation of the variety of life on earth.
Posts: 1697
Threads: 15
Joined: August 2, 2019
Reputation:
6
RE: Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)
August 5, 2019 at 1:47 am
(This post was last modified: August 5, 2019 at 1:54 am by John 6IX Breezy.)
(August 5, 2019 at 1:30 am)Fake Messiah Wrote: (August 4, 2019 at 11:41 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: Is there something unique about vision neurons that contain redness, and which auditory neurons do not have?
Yes, it's called cone cells - do you not believe in cone cells? Are cone cells against Jesus?
L-cones might be sensitive to the wavelength of light we perceive as red, but you would be incorrect to suppose these cells contain the qualia of redness. If for no other reason than because perception certainly does not occur in the retina.
(August 5, 2019 at 1:42 am)Grandizer Wrote: The OP is just grasping at straws. The theory of evolution has been put to the test so many times and in so many ways, it has passed the tests again and again with flying colors. It's the best explanation we have for the diversity of life on this planet. Hell, it's the only compelling explanation we have.
To argue then that evolution is suspect because you can't answer some specific questions that you think have not been addressed, or because not every single detail has been specified, doesn't counter the explanatory power overall of evolution. Nothing comes close to evolution as an explanation of the variety of life on earth.
That's a common mistake of inductive reasoning; it fails to account for a black swan lying beyond whatever tests you say the theory has passed.
Posts: 3413
Threads: 25
Joined: August 9, 2015
Reputation:
27
RE: Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)
August 5, 2019 at 2:06 am
(August 4, 2019 at 10:48 pm)chimp3 Wrote: (August 4, 2019 at 10:36 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: What is a sock lol. And what is the introduction I skipped?
This forum asks that you give an intro post before you start making other posts! Read the rules. They are not that hard.
You have my deepest sympathies. It would appear the good lord FSM did not bless this one with any grey matter.
"For the only way to eternal glory is a life lived in service of our Lord, FSM; Verily it is FSM who is the perfect being the name higher than all names, king of all kings and will bestow upon us all, one day, The great reclaiming" -The Prophet Boiardi-
Conservative trigger warning.
Posts: 6609
Threads: 73
Joined: May 31, 2014
Reputation:
56
RE: Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)
August 5, 2019 at 2:09 am
(This post was last modified: August 5, 2019 at 2:14 am by GrandizerII.)
(August 5, 2019 at 1:47 am)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: (August 5, 2019 at 1:30 am)Fake Messiah Wrote: Yes, it's called cone cells - do you not believe in cone cells? Are cone cells against Jesus?
L-cones might be sensitive to the wavelength of light we perceive as red, but you would be incorrect to suppose these cells contain the qualia of redness. If for no other reason than because perception certainly does not occur in the retina.
(August 5, 2019 at 1:42 am)Grandizer Wrote: The OP is just grasping at straws. The theory of evolution has been put to the test so many times and in so many ways, it has passed the tests again and again with flying colors. It's the best explanation we have for the diversity of life on this planet. Hell, it's the only compelling explanation we have.
To argue then that evolution is suspect because you can't answer some specific questions that you think have not been addressed, or because not every single detail has been specified, doesn't counter the explanatory power overall of evolution. Nothing comes close to evolution as an explanation of the variety of life on earth.
That's a common mistake of inductive reasoning; it fails to account for a black swan lying beyond whatever tests you say the theory has passed.
Inductive reasoning will always fail to account for a "black swan" somewhere (if there is any). Doesn't mean it's a mistake. After all, there doesn't have to be a black swan. And given what we do know, we do have the best explanation for diversity of life on this planet. Do you have a better one? If so, let's hear it.
Your argument about how the eye needed to rely on nerves to see things is misguided and shows sheer ignorance of what it takes to "see" things. Hint: organisms do not need a brain or even eyes to detect and react to things. You just need some sensory receptor of some form to do so.
Posts: 1697
Threads: 15
Joined: August 2, 2019
Reputation:
6
RE: Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)
August 5, 2019 at 2:10 am
(This post was last modified: August 5, 2019 at 2:15 am by John 6IX Breezy.)
(August 5, 2019 at 2:06 am)Nay_Sayer Wrote: (August 4, 2019 at 10:48 pm)chimp3 Wrote: This forum asks that you give an intro post before you start making other posts! Read the rules. They are not that hard.
You have my deepest sympathies. It would appear the good lord FSM did not bless this one with any grey matter.
The rules don't seem to mention anything about giving an intro post; perhaps such a rule has been misplaced elsewhere in the forum?
(August 5, 2019 at 2:09 am)Grandizer Wrote: Inductive reasoning will always fail to account for a "black swan" somewhere (if there is any). Doesn't mean it's a mistake. After all, there doesn't have to be a black swan. And given what we do know, we do have the best explanation for diversity of life on this planet. Do you have a better one? If so, let's hear it.
At one point, epicycles was the best explanation for planetary motion.
Posts: 6609
Threads: 73
Joined: May 31, 2014
Reputation:
56
RE: Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)
August 5, 2019 at 2:18 am
(August 5, 2019 at 2:10 am)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: (August 5, 2019 at 2:06 am)Nay_Sayer Wrote: You have my deepest sympathies. It would appear the good lord FSM did not bless this one with any grey matter.
The rules don't seem to mention anything about giving an intro post; perhaps such a rule has been misplaced elsewhere in the forum?
(August 5, 2019 at 2:09 am)Grandizer Wrote: Inductive reasoning will always fail to account for a "black swan" somewhere (if there is any). Doesn't mean it's a mistake. After all, there doesn't have to be a black swan. And given what we do know, we do have the best explanation for diversity of life on this planet. Do you have a better one? If so, let's hear it.
At one point, epicycles was the best explanation for planetary motion.
Yes, and it turned out to be wrong when scientists came up with better explanation ...
Posts: 3413
Threads: 25
Joined: August 9, 2015
Reputation:
27
RE: Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)
August 5, 2019 at 2:24 am
(This post was last modified: August 5, 2019 at 2:25 am by Nay_Sayer.)
(August 5, 2019 at 2:10 am)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: (August 5, 2019 at 2:06 am)Nay_Sayer Wrote: You have my deepest sympathies. It would appear the good lord FSM did not bless this one with any grey matter.
The rules don't seem to mention anything about giving an intro post; perhaps such a rule has been misplaced elsewhere in the forum?
(August 5, 2019 at 2:09 am)Grandizer Wrote: Inductive reasoning will always fail to account for a "black swan" somewhere (if there is any). Doesn't mean it's a mistake. After all, there doesn't have to be a black swan. And given what we do know, we do have the best explanation for diversity of life on this planet. Do you have a better one? If so, let's hear it.
At one point, epicycles was the best explanation for planetary motion.
It's customary. Unless your M.O is to run into random forums flailing your arms around.
"For the only way to eternal glory is a life lived in service of our Lord, FSM; Verily it is FSM who is the perfect being the name higher than all names, king of all kings and will bestow upon us all, one day, The great reclaiming" -The Prophet Boiardi-
Conservative trigger warning.
Posts: 1697
Threads: 15
Joined: August 2, 2019
Reputation:
6
RE: Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)
August 5, 2019 at 2:25 am
(August 5, 2019 at 2:18 am)Grandizer Wrote: (August 5, 2019 at 2:10 am)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: The rules don't seem to mention anything about giving an intro post; perhaps such a rule has been misplaced elsewhere in the forum?
At one point, epicycles was the best explanation for planetary motion.
Yes, and it turned out to be wrong when scientists came up with better explanation ...
No, I'm sure it turned out to be wrong when it became inconsistent with observations. Theories are not disconfirmed by hotter theories.
Posts: 6609
Threads: 73
Joined: May 31, 2014
Reputation:
56
RE: Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)
August 5, 2019 at 2:30 am
(This post was last modified: August 5, 2019 at 2:32 am by GrandizerII.)
(August 5, 2019 at 2:25 am)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: (August 5, 2019 at 2:18 am)Grandizer Wrote: Yes, and it turned out to be wrong when scientists came up with better explanation ...
No, I'm sure it turned out to be wrong when it became inconsistent with observations. Theories are not disconfirmed by hotter theories.
Did I say "hotter"? No?
You're a student of psychology, right? Do you remember what it takes for a theory to be a good scientific theory?
Are you saying the theory of evolution is not a good scientific theory?
(August 5, 2019 at 1:47 am)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: (August 5, 2019 at 1:30 am)Fake Messiah Wrote: Yes, it's called cone cells - do you not believe in cone cells? Are cone cells against Jesus?
L-cones might be sensitive to the wavelength of light we perceive as red, but you would be incorrect to suppose these cells contain the qualia of redness. If for no other reason than because perception certainly does not occur in the retina.
Here's a secret for you:
Organisms do NOT need qualia to detect "red" or any other color.
Posts: 67166
Threads: 140
Joined: June 28, 2011
Reputation:
162
RE: Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)
August 5, 2019 at 2:45 am
Done butchering evolutionary biology, on to waffling about qualia.
Try model based control theories.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
|
![[Image: s-l640.jpg]](https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/DjAAAOSwpIhe1HCM/s-l640.jpg)
