Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)

[John 6IX Breezy]

Sure, why not.  There’s no rule stating that adaptations in the nervous system -must- conform to the theoretical limits of the eye.

One last point of clarification, so we're on the same page. The overdevelopment you're focusing on would be is in terms of vision, correct?. Thus why it can exceed the theoretical limits of the eye.

[Abaddon_ire]

Any connection between eyespots and motor cells is already the prototypical nervous system.

Overdeveloped, in any sense, that confers additional advantage.  Shorter longer, faster slower, more or even less focused.  

The criteria is open ended, in specifics.  Just anything that helps them have more offspring than their peers for any reason whatsoever.

The order of evolutionary emergence isn’t set, either.  Plants have eyespots, but never developed a nervous system at all.

---

Not that this will help, lol....but-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_...us_systems

Overdevelopment to me implies excess or redundancy, or more than what is needed. That's why I wanted clarification. Overdeveloped in reference to what?

The order of evolutionary emergence is already set for everything that has already occurred. That's why referencing plants or other species isn't useful, unless you're saying there were plant-like organisms in our evolutionary past that we can look at.

---

I am not a professor, I never claimed to be one. Fuck off with the abject lies, moron.

Oops I meant to say Professor X (thus why Professor was capitalized).

Lie.

Given your telepathic mind reading capabilities: "I was pretty good at spotting the pretenders."

Strawman.

I made no claim to any form of so called "telepathy". Withdraw that scurrilous claim immediately. Or just tell more lies as seems best to you.

[The Grand Nudger]

Either system can be better (or worse) at what it does than the other system is at what it does.

We have baller brains and shit for eyes, squid have baller eyes and shit for brains.

[John 6IX Breezy]

OK, thanks. 

Why can't you name the University??? Is it a Bible (religious) university? Mine was UNMC, class 1983.

And I'm with the rest, I totally don't get why you have a problem with evolution/eye unless you're being taught bad juju. 

Evolution does not invalidate god, the concept of god does that all by itself.

It's a regular public university, not religious. And because I had a situation were someone looked up one of my professors to apparently email them about my position on evolution. Its just a privacy issue that I don't want to know the repercussions of.

---

"We have baller brains and shit for eyes."

I'm inclined to disagree, explain?

[brewer]

OK, thanks. 

Why can't you name the University??? Is it a Bible (religious) university? Mine was UNMC, class 1983.

And I'm with the rest, I totally don't get why you have a problem with evolution/eye unless you're being taught bad juju. 

Evolution does not invalidate god, the concept of god does that all by itself.

It's a regular public university, not religious. And because I had a situation were someone looked up one of my professors to apparently email them about my position on evolution. Its just a privacy issue that I don't want to know the repercussions of.

And what did you professor think about your position on evolution?

[The Grand Nudger]

You can disagree if you like, I’m sure you’re capable of disagreeing with -anything-.

That’s an ability conferred to you by your baller brain.....but it remains a fact that the human eye isn’t the ultimate representative of its class. There are better eyes, often attached to shittier brains. Just as often as superior brains can be attached to shitty eyes.

[John 6IX Breezy]

And what did you professor think about your position on evolution?

Well no, they never talked to my professor that I know of, it was just a threat of sorts. And to be clear, my issue is with having some kind of privacy issue, not the evolution topic. I don't need my professors getting emails from bitters strangers in a forum, and spamming them with comments about it. Its unprofessional, and ruins any opportunity for references and the like.

That being said, I don't know any of my professors personal beliefs on evolution. Professionally they all seem to treat it the same as everything else in science. Keep in mind most classes hardly touch on evolution. We're concerned with how the mind and brain work, not how it came to be. I have talked to some, casually, about issues with evolutionary psychology specifically and there seemed to be agreement on those issues.

---

You can disagree if you like, I’m sure you’re capable of disagreeing with -anything-.

That’s an ability conferred to you by your baller brain.....but it remains a fact that the human eye isn’t the ultimate representative of its class.  There are better eyes, often attached to shittier brains.  Just as often as superior brains can be attached to shitty eyes.

Why do you go down these rabbit hole rants whenever I ask you to substantiate anything? Isn't it easier to just give the example so we can keep going?

[The Grand Nudger]

I’m helping you with your page count. You say something silly, get shit on..then fly off to some other thing. If I don’t keep humoring you you’ll never have a shot at getting on the podium.

[John 6IX Breezy]

I’m helping you with your page count.  You say something silly, get shit on..then fly off to some other thing.  If I don’t keep humoring you you’ll never have a shot at getting on the podium.

I guess it was silly to ask you to explain. I should of learned by now you it wouldn't happen.

[The Grand Nudger]

You can learn. Also conferred by your baller brain. That you have shit for eyes isn’t an issue there.

This speaks directly to your contentions and line of questioning.....but how?