Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)

[John 6IX Breezy]

Keep googling.

That's already enough to disqualify fatalism. Doesn't the quote I presented suggest we're immune from changes under fatalism? That doesn't represent my beliefs on the matter.

Edit: Reading your addendum. It seems you're still treating destination as a state of unchanging stasis, despite having already told you it doesn't. Those are your words not mine.

[Abaddon_ire]

"...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.

Sure you don't. Fukkit.

Newtons laws were a good approximation for gravity at the time. Einstein went way beyond that and established more accurate 
"laws". Someone might well exceed Einstein and establish more accurate laws still. Science is not a scripture of holy writ, like the stupid boble. It changes over time as knowledge increases.

Does that mean Newton was wrong? No. It simply means Newton was approximately correct. Approximations which are still in use today, because they are close enough for various applications to be useful. Like satellites that provide the planet with TV.

And there is your religion emerging. Science does not deal in absolutes. When new evidence rocks up, science changes to accommodate that new evidence.Religion not only fails to do that, it actively refuses to do that

And that is where your thinking is stuck. In 2,000 year old mythology (or older) refusing to ever learn anything.

Science claims that it is always provisional on the available evidence. Religion claims that it is eternal and can never change.

Get that nonsense out of your head. Science accepts new verifiable evidence and changes accordingly. You don't.

You think a scientific theory is just some WAG. That is not the case even remotely.

You think a scientific "law" is immutable. That is not the case even remotely.

I am starting to suspect you are really a child.

[The Grand Nudger]

Again, so what if your position is accurately described as fatalism? It’s how you think this stuff works, right?

Do you have a problem with the way you think this stuff works, or just the term?

[Abaddon_ire]

Keep googling.

That's already enough to disqualify fatalism. Doesn't the quote I presented suggest we're immune from changes under fatalism? That doesn't represent my beliefs on the matter.

Edit: Reading your addendum. It seems you're still treating destination as a state of unchanging stasis, despite having already told you it doesn't. Those are your words not mine.

Good grief. In effect, you are now claiming atheism = fatalism. Wow.

Good luck with that.

At this point I think you are a sock. Too many red flags.

[John 6IX Breezy]

Again, so what if your position is accurately described as fatalism? It’s how you think this stuff works, right?

Do you have a problem with the way you think this stuff works, or just the term?

If the term described my position, then it would describe my position. But because what you've said about it, and what I just read about it, doesn't describe my position, then I have a problem with it.

[The Grand Nudger]

Who said anything about atheism? Are you an atheist John? We’re you describing atheism or evolutionary theory when you opined on how evolutionary biology worked? I don’t think so, so ire’s concerns can be set aside.

-and again. So what if your position is best described by fatalism. That’s just how you think this stuff works, right?

Is your problem with your description of how you think this stuff works, or is it just the term?

[Abaddon_ire]

Again, so what if your position is accurately described as fatalism?  It’s how you think this stuff works, right?

Do you have a problem with the way you think this stuff works, or just the term?

If the term described my position, then it would describe my position. But because what you've said about it, and what I just read about it, doesn't describe my position, then I have a problem with it.

Great. What, then, is your REAL position as opposed to your FAKE position?

[LadyForCamus]

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.

Lovely power move lol.

---

Also, he seems to be attaching sentience to nature when that's not what natural selection suggests at all.

Nature doesn't actively throw dice until something good happens. Rather, stuff happens naturally, and then just by random chance, something comes up that just happens to work really well (compared to something else), and because of that will be more pronounced than that something else and dominate. Very abstract and simplistic but hopefully should put him in the right direction instead of thinking that Mother Nature is a literal sentient being.

I'm glad we agree mother nature isn't a sentient being.

*shrugs* How you decide to spend your time here is up to you. If you jerk us around, you’ll be banned. It’s really all on you at this point.

[The Grand Nudger]

It always been your call, John.

Now that you know (or at least have been provided with ample information and opportunity to educate yourself) that there are no destinations in evolutionary theory, and that there are evolutionary explanations of vision which refer to sense, perception, and behavior.....and that even Dawkins intentionally focused remarks contained reference to that relationship

.......what more do you have to say, or would you like to discuss, about your own god-damned chosen thread title and remarks?

[LadyForCamus]

Something about the difference between a theory and a hypothesis I imagine...