Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)

[The Grand Nudger]

The set of tenacious views contains items not shared by the set of worthy or accurate views.

Creationism, like evolutionary “destinations” is just such a view. Initially, this view was very popular, with the arc of life being some line of improvement between an amoeba and the pinnacle of evolutionary achievement. A Victorian scholar.

What we’ve learned since, not just about biology but also psychology and anthropology, leaves no room whatsoever for this notion, however tenacious, to be worthy or true.

[chimp3]

John 6IX Breezy:

" 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."

Why do the changes between the eye and the neural network have to co-evolve simultaneously to bestow an advantage?

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

I find it interesting that John6IXBreezy hasn't addressed things such as;

Creatures that have eyes but no brains.
Creatures that have brains but no eyes.
Creatures that have brains but no eyes and yet they have the genes to express eyes. (Plus are genetically related to creatures with brains and eyes)
Creatures that show evidence of innitially having brains and eyes. Only to have lost their eyes. Then reactivating said lost genes hence having eyes again BUT still retaining the adaptions involved with having no eyes.

Sadly I don't have time to expand upon the point of the "Ordered solar system/cosmos". Since said systems are definately NOT odrered but highly chaotic. It's just that such chaos is unfolding in timescales far removed from human perception.

Cheers.

[John 6IX Breezy]

The set of tenacious views contains items not shared by the set of worthy or accurate views.

Creationism, like evolutionary “destinations” is just such a view.  Initially, this view was very popular, with the arc of life being some line of improvement between an amoeba and the pinnacle of evolutionary achievement.  A Victorian scholar.

What we’ve learned since, not just about biology but also psychology and anthropology, leaves no room whatsoever for this notion, however tenacious, to be worthy or true.

I can only think of two reasons why you think what I'm saying in controversial. The first is wrongly attributing some kind of spiritual meaning, such as fate, to the word destination. The second is holding some kind of anti-deterministic philosophy, in which organisms exist outside of any casual chains. Your position seems odd to me. What does it mean to talk about selection and adaptation if there aren't states at which an organism can or can't be at rest in?

Its very popular in psychology to hold very deterministic views of behavior. Not many believe that an organism could have behaved otherwise than it did. I think psychology leaves very little room for wide open endogenous action. If organism are indeed on a journey, as you say, it is one they take on train tracks.

---

@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?

I don't see the point of realizing something that has no effect on the OP, but yes, it seems you understand how theory confirmation and disconfirmation works.

[The Grand Nudger]

It doesn’t matter why you’re proposing the thing you are, the proposal is not a part of evolutionary theory or any biological fact.

Determinism and fatalism are not interchangeable. As you refer to there being a “set of tracks” that would be fatalism, not determinism.

Determinism is more like a rock traveling through space getting pummeled by other rocks. The more strikes, the more difficult it becomes to know the end path with certainty. Additionally these sorts of events aren’t a closed system. New external cause routinely arise and disappear. Introductions of species and material, changing environments. Blind bad luck from catastrophic events (and the subsequent good luck for previously marginalized survivors).

With fatalism, the track metaphor...no matter how many times the rock is struck it will always be and always have been going where the tracks lead.

[John 6IX Breezy]

It doesn’t matter why you’re proposing the thing you are, the proposal is not a part of evolutionary theory or any biological fact.

Determinism and fatalism are not interchangeable.  As you refer to their being a “set of tracks” that would be fatalism.

Then lets agree to disagree. I fail to see how selection and adaptation doesn't lead to states of homeostasis between an organism and its environment, and you fail to give any good arguments against it besides repeating its not a biological fact. This wasn't even the point of OP so its not a hill I care to die on.

[LadyForCamus]

The set of tenacious views contains items not shared by the set of worthy or accurate views.

Creationism, like evolutionary “destinations” is just such a view.  Initially, this view was very popular, with the arc of life being some line of improvement between an amoeba and the pinnacle of evolutionary achievement.  A Victorian scholar.

What we’ve learned since, not just about biology but also psychology and anthropology, leaves no room whatsoever for this notion, however tenacious, to be worthy or true.

I can only think of two reasons why you think what I'm saying in controversial. The first is wrongly attributing some kind of spiritual meaning, such as fate, to the word destination. The second is holding some kind of anti-deterministic philosophy, in which organisms exist outside of any casual chains. Your position seems odd to me. What does it mean to talk about selection and adaptation if there aren't states at which an organism can or can't be at rest in?

Its very popular in psychology to hold very deterministic views of behavior. Not many believe that an organism could have behaved otherwise than it did. I think psychology leaves very little room for wide open endogenous action. If organism are indeed on a journey, as you say, it is one they take on train tracks.

---

@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?

I don't see the point of realizing something that has no effect on the OP, but yes, it seems you understand how theory confirmation and disconfirmation works.

You’re a Christian.  How did god create the human eye?

[John 6IX Breezy]

I don't see the point of realizing something that has no effect on the OP, but yes, it seems you understand how theory confirmation and disconfirmation works.

You’re a Christian.  How did god create the human eye?

How would I know? If God exist, then I assume He can make even the nonsense of evolution sensible. So perhaps He create the human eye by gradual asynchronous changes over time, in other words, by a miracle.

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

........ I fail to see how selection and adaptation doesn't lead to states of homeostasis between an organism and its environment, and you fail to give any good arguments against it besides repeating its not a biological fact. This wasn't even the point of OP so its not a hill I care to die on.

Hello Mr Breezy.

Could you, perhaps, give an explanation of "Environmental homeostasis" of which you speak?

Cheers.

[LadyForCamus]

You’re a Christian.  How did god create the human eye?

How would I know? If God exist, then I assume He can make even the nonsense of evolution sensible. So perhaps He create the human eye by gradual asynchronous changes over time, in other words, by a miracle.

Holy troll.