Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)

[The Grand Nudger]

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?

[Anomalocaris]

---

Were you aware that your inability to intuitively conceive of the evolutionary account of the interaction between sense organs and qualia is predicted by one of the evolutionary accounts of the relationship between sense organs and qualia?

Nope, but I wouldn't be surprised if it did. Evolution is one those theories that can bend and twist to predict almost everything imaginable.

That's because your imagination is much smaller than reality such that you have to indulge in the trivial and discreditable cheat of imagining a god in lieu of imagining reality.    

Evolution can be twisted to predict much.  Your god can be twisted and still predicts nothing.

[John 6IX Breezy]

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 survives by making endless predictions in hopes that a successful one emerges.

[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.

[The Grand Nudger]

You butchered it again. Evolutionary theory posits that only successful creatures will continue along the path of greater variation.

Not that variation will proceed (how?) -until- a successful creature emerges.

[Abaddon_ire]

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 survives by making endless predictions in hopes that a successful one emerges.

Not how evolution works at all. Did your pastor tell you that?

[Pat Mustard]

There is no such fucking thing as a "law" of gravity you braindead cretin.

I'm getting a strong stench of CDF47 off this bozo.  Especially considering he's got exactly the same monomania and "debating style".

Newton's takes the form of "F = Gm1m2/r2"  The copy/paste option sucks, but hopefully its decipherable.

Edit: That's the equation for it anyway.

An equation isn't a law idiot. Plus Einstein's theory and equation have superseded Newton's, because they're more accurate.

That's why in science you have theories, because you are making you conclusions based on the best available, and incomplete, evidence. When new evidence comes to light the theory gets modified, or replaced. Laws don't work in science because laws deal with fixed and fully known situations.

[John 6IX Breezy]

"...Laws don't work in science because laws deal with fixed and fully known situations."

Explain this portion; what exactly is your position on laws? I'm not sure I understand.

[GrandizerII]

So John doesn't really understand how evolution works. No wonder he's confused and talks about destinations and such.

[LadyForCamus]

While we're at it, can someone explain what is considered trolling? The rules lists things such as

"Making posts that are unrelated / irrelevant to the thread or conversation subject."

If God, religion, Jesus, etc., are unrelated to the conversation subject. Wouldn't the constant shift to creationism and other irrelevant topics be considered an act of trolling? Just wondering for future reference, thanks.

Pretending not to understand shit that is being spoon fed to you, and lying about your religious views in your profile would certainly meet the criteria. You’re walking the line right now. Consider this your one and only friendly, informal warning.