Posts: 9915
Threads: 53
Joined: November 27, 2015
Reputation:
92
RE: Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)
August 4, 2019 at 12:50 pm
@ John 6IX Breezy
You do realize that even if you could demonstrate that the human eye couldn’t have evolved, that does not constitute a positive argument or evidence for any other alternative hypothesis...yes?
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
Wiser words were never spoken.
Posts: 5664
Threads: 219
Joined: June 20, 2016
Reputation:
61
RE: Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)
August 4, 2019 at 12:52 pm
(August 3, 2019 at 11:32 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: Wouldn't you agree that a topic I'm very familiar with is a good way to test out a new and unfamiliar forum? Of course.
It is not all together new and unfamiliar, John.
God thinks it's fun to confuse primates. Larsen's God!
Posts: 13901
Threads: 263
Joined: January 11, 2009
Reputation:
82
RE: Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)
August 4, 2019 at 1:03 pm
(August 4, 2019 at 12:52 pm)chimp3 Wrote: (August 3, 2019 at 11:32 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: Wouldn't you agree that a topic I'm very familiar with is a good way to test out a new and unfamiliar forum? Of course.
It is not all together new and unfamiliar, John.
I cant see how it is a "subject he is very familiar" with. He is making a lot of errors of the nature of evolution. I am guessing American, possibly home "schooled".
You can fix ignorance, you can't fix stupid.
Tinkety Tonk and down with the Nazis.
Posts: 67166
Threads: 140
Joined: June 28, 2011
Reputation:
162
RE: Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)
August 4, 2019 at 1:16 pm
Your position can be whatever you want, John. Regardless of whether you hold the position that evolutionary biology has a destination, it’s not part of the theory or consistent with biological facts.
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!
Posts: 30726
Threads: 2123
Joined: May 24, 2012
Reputation:
71
RE: Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)
August 4, 2019 at 1:17 pm
(This post was last modified: August 4, 2019 at 1:18 pm by Brian37.)
(August 3, 2019 at 11:01 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: The eye, for most species, is a relatively simple structure compared to the internal mechanisms that transform its sensory information into something perceivable. When it comes to evolution, the emphasis is usually on the eye rather than on vision (see video below). My primary concern with the typical narrative for the evolution of the eye, is that it only tells half the story. There are three things which, at the very least, need to co-evolve in order for there to be any positive evolutionary change in vision: Sensation, Perception, and Behavior. Sensation refers to the sense organ (eye); perception refers to whatever systems processes the sensory information (brain); and behavior refers to the output the organism aims to accomplish with this information. An eye that evolves through the stages presented by Dawkins, without simultaneously evolving the neural accessories for processing that information, and the behavioral capacity to make use of that information, should not be able to experience the types of selective pressures that allows for its evolution.
In other words, Dawkins' narrative (which I believe he recounts in one of his books) focuses on the sense organ exclusively, as if it evolved in isolation. My concern is that the narrative is too simple, to the point of being misinforming.
In my online time since 2001 I constantly run into theists of every religion whom all fail to see that they all do the same damned thing.
I have debated not just Christians, but Muslims and Jews and Hindus and Buddhists about science. And the tactic is always the same. When they cant simply sell their old mythology, they attack science, when they cant get away with attacking science, they try to say their religion was the catalyst that lead to modern science.
Scientific method is not a tool used to prove Jesus or Allah or Yahweh or Vishnu or Buddha, because scientific method is a tool, not a religion.
Posts: 5664
Threads: 219
Joined: June 20, 2016
Reputation:
61
RE: Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)
August 4, 2019 at 1:39 pm
(August 4, 2019 at 1:03 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: (August 4, 2019 at 12:52 pm)chimp3 Wrote: It is not all together new and unfamiliar, John.
I cant see how it is a "subject he is very familiar" with. He is making a lot of errors of the nature of evolution. I am guessing American, possibly home "schooled".
He posted at Atheist Republic for years. He is tenacious to say the least.
God thinks it's fun to confuse primates. Larsen's God!
Posts: 18503
Threads: 79
Joined: May 29, 2010
Reputation:
125
RE: Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)
August 4, 2019 at 1:49 pm
Great, we attract idiots that think of themselves too high. Dunning and Kruger would have a field day on this forum.
Posts: 13901
Threads: 263
Joined: January 11, 2009
Reputation:
82
RE: Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)
August 4, 2019 at 2:02 pm
(August 4, 2019 at 1:39 pm)chimp3 Wrote: (August 4, 2019 at 1:03 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: I cant see how it is a "subject he is very familiar" with. He is making a lot of errors of the nature of evolution. I am guessing American, possibly home "schooled".
He posted at Atheist Republic for years. He is tenacious to say the least.
One of those eh.
You can fix ignorance, you can't fix stupid.
Tinkety Tonk and down with the Nazis.
Posts: 35273
Threads: 204
Joined: August 13, 2012
Reputation:
146
RE: Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)
August 4, 2019 at 2:08 pm
Evolution: fact
Creationism: fantasy
Intelligent design: really bad fantasy
Playing Cluedo with my mum while I was at Uni:
"You did WHAT? With WHO? WHERE???"
Posts: 19789
Threads: 57
Joined: September 24, 2010
Reputation:
85
RE: Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)
August 4, 2019 at 3:55 pm
(This post was last modified: August 4, 2019 at 3:57 pm by Anomalocaris.)
Fantasy is usually calculated to be harmless. Creationism and intelligent design can not really be excused as belonging in the “calculated to be harmless” category. They are malicious frauds meant to benefit and perpetuate the dominance of particular cabal with almost total disregard of the possible expense to humanity.
|
