RE: Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)
August 5, 2019 at 2:09 am
(This post was last modified: August 5, 2019 at 2:14 am by GrandizerII.)
(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.
(August 5, 2019 at 1:42 am)Grandizer Wrote: The OP is just grasping at straws. The theory of evolution has been put to the test so many times and in so many ways, it has passed the tests again and again with flying colors. It's the best explanation we have for the diversity of life on this planet. Hell, it's the only compelling explanation we have.
To argue then that evolution is suspect because you can't answer some specific questions that you think have not been addressed, or because not every single detail has been specified, doesn't counter the explanatory power overall of evolution. Nothing comes close to evolution as an explanation of the variety of life on earth.
That's a common mistake of inductive reasoning; it fails to account for a black swan lying beyond whatever tests you say the theory has passed.
Inductive reasoning will always fail to account for a "black swan" somewhere (if there is any). Doesn't mean it's a mistake. After all, there doesn't have to be a black swan. And given what we do know, we do have the best explanation for diversity of life on this planet. Do you have a better one? If so, let's hear it.
Your argument about how the eye needed to rely on nerves to see things is misguided and shows sheer ignorance of what it takes to "see" things. Hint: organisms do not need a brain or even eyes to detect and react to things. You just need some sensory receptor of some form to do so.
