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.
