Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)

[John 6IX Breezy]

You’ve already been given the deets here.

Between simple creatures with simple eyespots connected to motor cells and human beings, we would expect to find creatures with simple eyespots connected to motor cells in abnormally overdeveloped nervous systems.

Which we do.  Loads of them.

So in other words, the nervous system develops ahead of the simple eyespots and motor cells? Overdeveloped in what sense?

[The Grand Nudger]

Any connection between eyespots and motor cells is already the prototypical nervous system.

Overdeveloped, in any sense, that confers additional advantage. Shorter longer, faster slower, more or even less focused.

The criteria is open ended, in specifics. Just anything that helps them have more offspring than their peers for any reason whatsoever.

The order of evolutionary emergence isn’t set, either. Plants have eyespots, but never developed a nervous system at all.

---

Not that this will help, lol....but-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_...us_systems

[Abaddon_ire]

If you aren’t capable of conducting an independent investigation into the totality of evidence publicly available to you on this subject you seem to care so much about, what on earth did you think you would accomplish by coming here?  Atheists are in no way obligated to provide you with a science education.

Its not about obligation ma'am, its just basic human interaction skills. How often have you encountered this scenario, and not be even mildly suspicious of the intent:

Person 1: Hey, I just learned about topic X.
Person 2: Cool, what is it about?
Person 1: Go research it, or take a course at university, why are you asking me? I'm not responsible for your education, you're an adult.

Um...no.

Firstly, the general thrust of your dumb questions provides evidence that you are trolling and that you would not actually read let alone understand any papers given to you.

I could provide hundreds for you, but why would I be motivated to do that when you are obviously not even slightly interested. How do I know you are not remotely interested? you may ask. Simple. You have not bothered your arse to undertake even the most basic research.

You are not only ignorant, you are determined to wallow in your own ignorance. Because you just like it in that pit of ignorance.

But that's OK. It's your pit. Wallow away. Just don't complain when nobody is willing to drag you out of it against your own will.

Now, at this point you have alluded to evolution having an ever upward trajectory towards a goal of some sort. That is obviously untrue and not any part of evolution at all. You seem bizarrely to believe it is. 
Why? Who told you that lie? Why did you believe it? Why did you reject the evidence that we actually have in favour of such a crackpot notion?

---

Well, awesome, you have “half a degree” in cognitive science.  You’ll come across model based control sooner or later.

-but in the moment, here and now...do you think that your half a degree could be advantageous?

Is it helpful to know things, even if you don’t know all the things?

I don't even think full degrees are advantageous in today's society. Ask me what job I'll have once I graduate. But at least I'll be able to talk about stuff in forums, and that's always fun.

But it is funny that' we've gone from googling, to taking courses, to getting a full degree before I can learn about model based control.

The way you are headed, flipping burgers is most likely in your future.

See I have a whole string of alphabet soup after my name. Why? I earned it. You seem to think you can cruise along because you DESERVE it. Guess what, you don't. Over he course of decades, I have hired many graduates. I was pretty good at spotting the pretenders. Many of my hires are lifelong friends. I have been to their weddings/christianings;funerals/etc.

My point being that I can spot a reject a country mile away, and you are ringing an awful lot of bells in that regard.

[John 6IX Breezy]

Um...no.

Firstly, the general thrust of your dumb questions provides evidence that you are trolling and that you would not actually read let alone understand any papers given to you.

I could provide hundreds for you, but why would I be motivated to do that when you are obviously not even slightly interested. How do I know you are not remotely interested? you may ask. Simple. You have not bothered your arse to undertake even the most basic research.

You are not only ignorant, you are determined to wallow in your own ignorance. Because you just like it in that pit of ignorance.

But that's OK. It's your pit. Wallow away. Just don't complain when nobody is willing to drag you out of it against your own will.

Now, at this point you have alluded to evolution having an ever upward trajectory towards a goal of some sort. That is obviously untrue and not any part of evolution at all. You seem bizarrely to believe it is. 
Why? Who told you that lie? Why did you believe it? Why did you reject the evidence that we actually have in favour of such a crackpot notion?

---

The way you are headed, flipping burgers is most likely in your future.

See I have a whole string of alphabet soup after my name. Why? I earned it. You seem to think you can cruise along because you DESERVE it. Guess what, you don't. Over he course of decades, I have hired many graduates. I was pretty good at spotting the pretenders. Many of my hires are lifelong friends. I have been to their weddings/christianings;funerals/etc.

My point being that I can spot a reject a country mile away, and you are ringing an awful lot of bells in that regard.

I read and addressed Nakara's paper, making your claim false. And I haven't mentioned any goals or upward trajectories, making that a strawman. Try again Professor.

[Abaddon_ire]

Um...no.

Firstly, the general thrust of your dumb questions provides evidence that you are trolling and that you would not actually read let alone understand any papers given to you.

I could provide hundreds for you, but why would I be motivated to do that when you are obviously not even slightly interested. How do I know you are not remotely interested? you may ask. Simple. You have not bothered your arse to undertake even the most basic research.

You are not only ignorant, you are determined to wallow in your own ignorance. Because you just like it in that pit of ignorance.

But that's OK. It's your pit. Wallow away. Just don't complain when nobody is willing to drag you out of it against your own will.

Now, at this point you have alluded to evolution having an ever upward trajectory towards a goal of some sort. That is obviously untrue and not any part of evolution at all. You seem bizarrely to believe it is. 
Why? Who told you that lie? Why did you believe it? Why did you reject the evidence that we actually have in favour of such a crackpot notion?

---

The way you are headed, flipping burgers is most likely in your future.

See I have a whole string of alphabet soup after my name. Why? I earned it. You seem to think you can cruise along because you DESERVE it. Guess what, you don't. Over he course of decades, I have hired many graduates. I was pretty good at spotting the pretenders. Many of my hires are lifelong friends. I have been to their weddings/christianings;funerals/etc.

My point being that I can spot a reject a country mile away, and you are ringing an awful lot of bells in that regard.

I read and addressed Nakara's paper, making your claim false. And I haven't mentioned any goals or upward trajectories, making that a strawman. Try again Professor.

I am not a professor, I never claimed to be one. Fuck off with the abject lies, moron.

[John 6IX Breezy]

Any connection between eyespots and motor cells is already the prototypical nervous system.

Overdeveloped, in any sense, that confers additional advantage.  Shorter longer, faster slower, more or even less focused.  

The criteria is open ended, in specifics.  Just anything that helps them have more offspring than their peers for any reason whatsoever.

The order of evolutionary emergence isn’t set, either.  Plants have eyespots, but never developed a nervous system at all.

---

Not that this will help, lol....but-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_...us_systems

Overdevelopment to me implies excess or redundancy, or more than what is needed. That's why I wanted clarification. Overdeveloped in reference to what?

The order of evolutionary emergence is already set for everything that has already occurred. That's why referencing plants or other species isn't useful, unless you're saying there were plant-like organisms in our evolutionary past that we can look at.

---

I am not a professor, I never claimed to be one. Fuck off with the abject lies, moron.

Oops I meant to say Professor X (thus why Professor was capitalized). Given your telepathic mind reading capabilities: "I was pretty good at spotting the pretenders."

[The Grand Nudger]

“More” than what would be needed if you use its unmutated peers for reference, but evolution doesn’t work based on what you do or don’t need, rather...on how you make use of what you have.

[John 6IX Breezy]

“More” than what would be needed if you use its unmutated peers for reference, but evolution doesn’t work based on what you do or don’t need, rather...on how you make use of what you have.

So that implies its also more than what their eyespots need (or can make use of) as well, correct? Given that the overdevelopment you highlighted was in the nervous system not the simple eyespots?

[The Grand Nudger]

Sure, why not. There’s no rule stating that adaptations in the nervous system -must- conform to the theoretical limits of the eye.

---

Let’s use two examples of that. We have a nervous system capable of processing much better data than our sensory systems provide...and there are other species with access to what we would consider much better sensory data than we possess, whose nervous systems don’t even seem to be capable of processing the data we can.

[brewer]

You made the claim, put up or shut up. University and professor list.

Give us the list of papers you claim to have ("I have no problem pointing you to any of the papers I've read. I generally keep them on an organized folder on my computer. They're all highlighted."). 

Please email S Pinker with a request and post an image of his response (I'll wait the week).

I'm not giving you my university or professor list. I've been doxed by atheists in the past (never underestimate how crazy the internet can get). There's probably already enough information to do so anyway, so I guess it doesn't matter. 

As to the list of papers, is there a specific topic you're wanting to discuss? I have way too many for my own good. Here's a screenshot of some of the ones we had to read on a course about sensation and perception (which is relevant to this thread). Pardon the inconsistent titles, I'm still working on the most effective way to categorize papers. I sometimes don't even know where to put what. For example, attention is a topic of its own, but a lot of research is done through visual attention. So should that fall under perception or attention? Or do I make a copy and place them in both? So yeah, its under construction.



Here's a screenshot of one of the old emails Pinker sent me. Its worth noting I was maybe on my first or second year of college? So the questions I was asking aren't even that great (by my own standards today). But rather than ignore the email as "ignorant" he took the time address it and comment on it. Contrast that with your response earlier. 

But I was wrong lol. He responded within a day, not a week lol. So I take that back.

OK, thanks. 

Why can't you name the University??? Is it a Bible (religious) university? Mine was UNMC, class 1983.

And I'm with the rest, I totally don't get why you have a problem with evolution/eye unless you're being taught bad juju. 

Evolution does not invalidate god, the concept of god does that all by itself.