Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)

[John 6IX Breezy]

I don't see the problem personally. Back and forth alternating changes of varying degrees between two organs or two species work just as fine as long as this still allows for the organism(s) to be well adapted to the surrounding environment, and to survive and produce offspring that will inherit the combination and via time and chance have more refined combinations through successive generations.

My issue with back an forth alternating between changes, is that they seem to create holes where selection can't occur. For that to make sense we have to agree that selection can't work "off-line," that an adaptation has to have an effect on the world, and be affected by it, in order for selection have any preference for one variation over another and slowly shape it. 

In other words, and to move beyond the detection of direction. If cones spontaneously evolve from rods, before theres a system able to use them to perceive color, cones are basically off-line structures. They can't be selected for or against, when it comes to color detection, because there's nothing to have an effect on when it comes to color detection. 

So, it seems to me that for there to be a back-and-forth, without causing an adaptation to go off-line, is for there to be some kind of scaffolding in place than can maintain it or keep it in the game until the rest of the system can catch up.

I'll explain better later, cause I'm out of time, but hopefully you get the point I'm trying to make.

[GrandizerII]

I don't see the problem personally. Back and forth alternating changes of varying degrees between two organs or two species work just as fine as long as this still allows for the organism(s) to be well adapted to the surrounding environment, and to survive and produce offspring that will inherit the combination and via time and chance have more refined combinations through successive generations.

My issue with back an forth alternating between changes, is that they seem to create holes where selection can't occur. For that to make sense we have to agree that selection can't work "off-line," that an adaptation has to have an effect on the world, and be affected by it, in order for selection have any preference for one variation over another and slowly shape it. 

In other words, and to move beyond the detection of direction. If cones spontaneously evolve from rods, before theres a system able to use them to perceive color, cones are basically off-line structures. They can't be selected for or against, when it comes to color detection, because there's nothing to have an effect on when it comes to color detection. 

So, it seems to me that for there to be a back-and-forth, without causing an adaptation to go off-line, is for there to be some kind of scaffolding in place than can maintain it or keep it in the game until the rest of the system can catch up.

I'll explain better later, cause I'm out of time, but hopefully you get the point I'm trying to make.

It seems to me like you're not taking into account that the eye or cone or rod or whatever is not existing in isolation from the whole organism itself. I'm not going to pretend I know all the specifics but theoretically, some traits may not be favorable for selection at all on their own, but when they're part of an organism that nevertheless has been enhanced in some other way in terms of adaptability, then the traits will carry over and be refined over time and successive generations. This is oversimplifying things but that's the gist of how this sometimes works.

[Abaddon_ire]

I don't see the problem personally. Back and forth alternating changes of varying degrees between two organs or two species work just as fine as long as this still allows for the organism(s) to be well adapted to the surrounding environment, and to survive and produce offspring that will inherit the combination and via time and chance have more refined combinations through successive generations.

My issue with back an forth alternating between changes, is that they seem to create holes where selection can't occur. For that to make sense we have to agree that selection can't work "off-line," that an adaptation has to have an effect on the world, and be affected by it, in order for selection have any preference for one variation over another and slowly shape it. 

Provide an instance of claimed evolution for an isolated organism. Just one will do.

In other words,

Euphemism for a forthcoming lie

and to move beyond the detection of direction.

You are claiming that there IS direction. No you are in full flight on the lies.

If cones spontaneously evolve from rods, before theres a system able to use them to perceive color, cones are basically off-line structures. They can't be selected for or against, when it comes to color detection, because there's nothing to have an effect on when it comes to color detection. 

Strawman. Nobody here or anywhere else made any such claim. Either you made that up out of whole cloth, or are so moronic that you failed to understand any of it.

So, it seems to me that for there to be a back-and-forth, without causing an adaptation to go off-line, is for there to be some kind of scaffolding in place than can maintain it or keep it in the game until the rest of the system can catch up.

What, exactly, is it that we are supposedly "catching up" with. You neglected to identify that. Likely intentionally. What "game"? You failed to identify that either. How can an "adaption" go "off-line"? What do you mean by that?

I'll explain better later, cause I'm out of time, but hopefully you get the point I'm trying to make.

Nope. Because you are incoherent and use terms which remain utterly undefined. GFYS.

[John 6IX Breezy]

@Abaddon_ire

1. Not an isolate organism, but an isolated organ. And by off-line I mean from a specific functional system. Vestigial organs are isolated from whatever function they used to have. They're off-line, and that's probably why they persist.
2. There's no strawman. Not even an attempt to represent anyone's claims on anything there. So I don't know what you're talking about.
3. Forgive me but, you're basically interrupting a conversation I'm having with Grandizer as if it were a conversation I'm having you. As long as Grandizer understood what I meant by "catching up" or the "game" then I'm good. You clearly aren't doing a good job of keeping up, and are just stepping in out the blue.

---

It seems to me like you're not taking into account that the eye or cone or rod or whatever is not existing in isolation from the whole organism itself. I'm not going to pretend I know all the specifics but theoretically, some traits may not be favorable for selection at all on their own, but when they're part of an organism that nevertheless has been enhanced in some other way in terms of adaptability, then the traits will carry over and be refined over time and successive generations. This is oversimplifying things but that's the gist of how this sometimes works.

Right, so that's basically what I mean by scaffolding. Cones would be isolated from selection in terms of color, but perhaps it experience selection for some other reason since its still part of the organism as a whole, keeping it in play until the brain develops enough to use of them for color vision, and experience selection under those terms.

By traits carrying over do you mean traits are adaptive for one thing, and then become adaptive for some other thing?

[GrandizerII]

@Abaddon_ire

1. Not an isolate organism, but an isolated organ. And by off-line I mean from a specific functional system. Vestigial organs are isolated from whatever function they used to have. They're off-line, and that's probably why they persist.
2. There's no strawman. Not even an attempt to represent anyone's claims on anything there. So I don't know what you're talking about.
3. Forgive me but, you're basically interrupting a conversation I'm having with Grandizer as if it were a conversation I'm having you. As long as Grandizer understood what I meant by "catching up" or the "game" then I'm good. You clearly aren't doing a good job of keeping up, and are just stepping in out the blue.

---

It seems to me like you're not taking into account that the eye or cone or rod or whatever is not existing in isolation from the whole organism itself. I'm not going to pretend I know all the specifics but theoretically, some traits may not be favorable for selection at all on their own, but when they're part of an organism that nevertheless has been enhanced in some other way in terms of adaptability, then the traits will carry over and be refined over time and successive generations. This is oversimplifying things but that's the gist of how this sometimes works.

Right, so that's basically what I mean by scaffolding. Cones would be isolated from selection in terms of color, but perhaps it experience selection for some other reason since its still part of the organism as a whole, keeping it in play until the brain develops enough to use of them for color vision, and experience selection under those terms.

By traits carrying over do you mean traits are adaptive for one thing, and then become adaptive for some other thing?

No I meant traits literally being carried over to the next generations regardless of their adaptive functions.

So anyway what is the problem then again? Or has your challenge been successfully met?

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

Wait.

Is Mr Breezy now asking how all the different bits of the eye (Though they really should specify which one or 'Type'. Molusc, Insect, Trilobite, Nautilus, Mammal etc so people at least have a ghost of a chance for giving an answer.) came about?

Jus' sayin'.

[Abaddon_ire]

@Abaddon_ire

1. Not an isolate organism, but an isolated organ. And by off-line I mean from a specific functional system. Vestigial organs are isolated from whatever function they used to have. They're off-line, and that's probably why they persist.

Provide an example of such an isolated organ anywhere. You can't. It is a baseless claim.

2. There's no strawman. Not even an attempt to represent anyone's claims on anything there. So I don't know what you're talking about.

Right, you are unable to see what you are actively attempting. Your myopia is not my problem. It's yours alone. I can't help you with that. Nobody can. If you chose to believe in a spooky, beardy bloke in the sky on the basis of fuck all evidence, nobody can stop you.No one here can prevent you believing in Santa. Sure, I know you god botherers resent the Santa analogy big time, I get that..............But both god and Santa are watching you 24/7, yes or no? And both are judging you, Yes or no? And so forth.

The problem is not with the analogy, nor with the obvious equivalence, not at all. Your actual problem is that you recognise that they are no different. This realisation makes you feeluncomfortable. ~Right now this minute you are fumbling to make excuses for the immoral tenets of your faith. You are bound by some sort of fucked up duty to do so. Weirdly you don't see it.

3. Forgive me but, you're basically interrupting a conversation I'm having with Grandizer as if it were a conversation I'm having you. As long as Grandizer understood what I meant by "catching up" or the "game" then I'm good. You clearly aren't doing a good job of keeping up, and are just stepping in out the blue.

You want a private conversation with Grandizer? Fine. But this is a public forum, not a venue to isolate (or attempt to do so). Kindly fuck right off with that abject nonsense.

[soldierofGod]

The theory of evolution does not explain the origin of life on earth. Science refute the theory of evolution. This theory is only an illusion.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXu-f_rNQ54

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlXhMqJeuTQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LG0oD0TYzhA&t=2s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amfa-EjMKX4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Pvuct9TrpA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrHDOmKPv80

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paPJKPY-tuc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ABm8kOrxQk&t=412s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPXUtYs5p1U


Or they say, "He has invented it!" No, they don't believe! If what they say is true, bring a similar story! Have they been created from nothing? Or are they the creators? Or have the heavens and the earth created? No, they are not convinced.

Koran 52:33-36

List of failures in this post (incomplete):

1.  The Theory of Evolution does not try to explain the origins of life.  That would be abiogenesis.

2.  Youtube videos are not proof of anything apart from the fact that people made youtube videos.

3.  Quotes from magic books fail every time.

You should see the content of the videos. Scientists showing and demonstrating the refutation of the theory of evolution. It is not a question of a YouTube video, but what it says. If it is a video that talks about evolution then yes, but if it speaks against it then it is not worth it.

[The Valkyrie]

List of failures in this post (incomplete):

1.  The Theory of Evolution does not try to explain the origins of life.  That would be abiogenesis.

2.  Youtube videos are not proof of anything apart from the fact that people made youtube videos.

3.  Quotes from magic books fail every time.

You should see the content of the videos. Scientists showing and demonstrating the refutation of the theory of evolution. It is not a question of a YouTube video, but what it says. If it is a video that talks about evolution then yes, but if it speaks against it then it is not worth it.

Amazing how many of these “scientists” happen to have no scientific credentials or have one in anything but evolutionary biology.

Show me a peer-reviewed, scientific papaer on a credible website and we’ll have something to discuss.

Every youtube video by a “scientist” I have seen has the credibility of Ray Comfort and a banana.

It’s a shame theists have to resort to lying so often to demonstrate their opposition to scientific realities.

As the tshirt says “We have the fossils. We win!”

[Abaddon_ire]

@Abaddon_ire

1. Not an isolate organism, but an isolated organ. And by off-line I mean from a specific functional system. Vestigial organs are isolated from whatever function they used to have. They're off-line, and that's probably why they persist.

Provide an example of such an isolated organ anywhere. You can't. It is a baseless claim.

2. There's no strawman. Not even an attempt to represent anyone's claims on anything there. So I don't know what you're talking about.

Right, you are unable to see what you are actively attempting. Your myopia is not my problem. It's yours alone. I can't help you with that. Nobody can. If you chose to believe in a spooky, beardy bloke in the sky on the basis of fuck all evidence, nobody can stop you.No one here can prevent you believing in Santa. Sure, I know you god botherers resent the Santa analogy big time, I get that..............But both god and Santa are watching you 24/7, yes or no? And both are judging you, Yes or no? And so forth.

The problem is not with the analogy, nor with the obvious equivalence, not at all. Your actual problem is that you recognise that they are no different. This realisation makes you feeluncomfortable.  ~Right now this minute you are fumbling to make excuses for the immoral tenets of your faith. You are bound by some sort of fucked up duty to do so. Weirdly you don't see it.

3. Forgive me but, you're basically interrupting a conversation I'm having with Grandizer as if it were a conversation I'm having you. As long as Grandizer understood what I meant by "catching up" or the "game" then I'm good. You clearly aren't doing a good job of keeping up, and are just stepping in out the blue.

You want a private conversation with Grandizer? Fine. But this is a public forum, not a venue to isolate (or attempt to do so). Kindly fuck right off with that abject nonsense.

Yeah, it's the towering arrogance that pisses me off.