RE: Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)
August 7, 2019 at 1:10 am
(This post was last modified: August 7, 2019 at 1:12 am by chimp3.)
[quote pid='1924218' dateline='1565010372']
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).
[/quote]
How do "heavier" eyes make your eyes droopy? LOL!
(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).
[/quote]
How do "heavier" eyes make your eyes droopy? LOL!
God thinks it's fun to confuse primates. Larsen's God!
