RE: Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)
August 5, 2019 at 9:06 am
(This post was last modified: August 5, 2019 at 9:40 am by John 6IX Breezy.)
(August 5, 2019 at 3:40 am)Fake Messiah Wrote: Wood also doesn't contain phlogiston and yet it burns. That's why cone cells have pigments, at least bother to read a wiki article: "Cones are normally one of the three types, each with different pigment, namely: S-cones, M-cones and L-cones. Each cone is therefore sensitive to visible wavelengths of light that correspond to short-wavelength, medium-wavelength and longer-wavelength light."
I mean this is a shout out to every person that reads creationists books: If your only knowledge about evolution is from creationists books then DO NOT think that you know evolution or human anatomy or how to world works. You have to read science books in order to know what evolution really is.
I like how the wiki quote you paste is basically a mirror of what I already said lol.
(August 5, 2019 at 7:14 am)Grandizer Wrote: Why does evolution need to account for qualia exactly? Regardless of what the true theory of consciousness is, evolution works just fine with a number of them. If the mind is directly a causal product of the complex brain, evolution makes sense just fine. If the world somehow is panpsychist or even dualistic, evolution can still operate on consciousness indirectly by acting on the physical biological structures that consciousness is contingent on or linked to. So, no problem there. The problem that you think is there is in your head.
Sadly you're not wrong, evolution is one of those theories that can conform itself to whatever reality happens to be. If consciousness is a useless byproduct, oh well, that's just what evolution does. If consciousness is a needed component for volition and decision-making, oh well, that's because evolution made it so.
Theories that can predict every possible outcome, besides being useless, run into issues of falsification.
(August 5, 2019 at 7:46 am)chimp3 Wrote: Again, John, I ask you to support this statement. You are proficient enough in shifting the burden of proof. Please explain why the eye and the neural network must evolve simultaneously in order to convey any advantage. This is your claim.
I wouldn't say they need to evolve simultaneously to convey an advantage, only that both need to be present for the system to work. Evolutionists are great at imagining advantages out of thin air, so for all I know even cancer of the retina has some advantage. So perhaps evolving cones, even without a brain that can represent color, has the advantage of making the eye heavier, even though it has no advantage in terms of color vision (assuming heavier eyes are for whatever reason advantageous, perhaps females love males with droopy eyes, I'm not as creative as evolutionists, sadly).
