Subject: The biology of the vertebrate eye

This tricky subject causes much confusion among atheists

The accumulation of small heritable changes within populations over time.

Moderators: Calilasseia, ADParker

Re: Subject: The biology of the vertebrate eye

#101  Postby DavidMcC » Jul 21, 2018 1:28 pm

I have just noticed that RS's recent posts here have gone. They may have been ill-informed, but at least he was trying to address the OP subject, for which I thank him. I wish I could say the same of TE.
May The Voice be with you!
DavidMcC
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: David McCulloch
Posts: 14913
Age: 67
Male

Country: United Kigdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Subject: The biology of the vertebrate eye

#102  Postby theropod » Jul 21, 2018 1:58 pm

The reason I am not posting is because my wife are on an extended road trip to the Colorado Rockies, and cell service is quite spotty at 12,000 feet. Taking a break from tent camping and soaking up the connivence of a hotel in Fort Collins. One additional reason is I am sick of the signal to noise ratio. Nobody should miss my ill formed thoughts.

RS
Sleeping in the hen house doesn't make you a chicken.
User avatar
theropod
RS Donator
 
Name: Roger
Posts: 7529
Age: 67
Male

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Subject: The biology of the vertebrate eye

#103  Postby DavidMcC » Jul 21, 2018 2:44 pm

... Getting back to the OP again, there was one further issue with Richard Dawkins' biology publications on the vertebrate eye that was misleading, and that is the little diagrams that appeared to show that the vertebrate eye was very similar in structure to the more sophisticated cephalopod eyes, and thus only needed a minor change to convert it to a surface vertebrate eye. This was a serious scientific error, IMO, reflecting his confusion about eye evolution.
May The Voice be with you!
DavidMcC
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: David McCulloch
Posts: 14913
Age: 67
Male

Country: United Kigdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Subject: The biology of the vertebrate eye

#104  Postby DavidMcC » Jul 21, 2018 2:53 pm

theropod wrote:The reason I am not posting is because my wife are on an extended road trip to the Colorado Rockies, and cell service is quite spotty at 12,000 feet. Taking a break from tent camping and soaking up the connivence of a hotel in Fort Collins. One additional reason is I am sick of the signal to noise ratio. Nobody should miss my ill formed thoughts.

RS

Maybe, but not posting isn't supposed to cause any existing posts to disappear!
May The Voice be with you!
DavidMcC
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: David McCulloch
Posts: 14913
Age: 67
Male

Country: United Kigdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Subject: The biology of the vertebrate eye

#105  Postby DavidMcC » Jul 21, 2018 2:56 pm

Sendraks wrote:
DavidMcC wrote:This thread already wreaks of your hidden agendas. Care to go public on them?


The thread reeks of your imaginings that people have hidden agendas.

It isn't imaginatioon, Sendraks, it's a rational conclusion, mainly from TE's flagrant disregard for the OP topic, plus his obsession with attempts to draw an insult out of me.
May The Voice be with you!
DavidMcC
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: David McCulloch
Posts: 14913
Age: 67
Male

Country: United Kigdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Subject: The biology of the vertebrate eye

#106  Postby newolder » Jul 21, 2018 2:57 pm

DavidMcC wrote:I have just noticed that RS's recent posts here have gone. They may have been ill-informed, but at least he was trying to address the OP subject, for which I thank him. I wish I could say the same of TE.

Post numbers 77 and 80 have not disappeared.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 7321
Age: 1
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

Re: Subject: The biology of the vertebrate eye

#107  Postby DavidMcC » Jul 21, 2018 3:22 pm

newolder wrote:
DavidMcC wrote:I have just noticed that RS's recent posts here have gone. They may have been ill-informed, but at least he was trying to address the OP subject, for which I thank him. I wish I could say the same of TE.

Post numbers 77 and 80 have not disappeared.

No, but they are not the posts I was thinking of. Having said that, what they are is good examples of the kind of aggressive nonsense I have come to expect in this thread. Nowhere did I say or imply what RS assumes I did.
May The Voice be with you!
DavidMcC
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: David McCulloch
Posts: 14913
Age: 67
Male

Country: United Kigdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Subject: The biology of the vertebrate eye

#108  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Jul 21, 2018 3:54 pm

DavidMcC wrote:
Sendraks wrote:
DavidMcC wrote:This thread already wreaks of your hidden agendas. Care to go public on them?


The thread reeks of your imaginings that people have hidden agendas.

It isn't imaginatioon, Sendraks, it's a rational conclusion,

False, it's either delusional or dishonest straw-man, as I've repeatedly made it clear why I respond the way I have.

DavidMcC wrote: mainly from TE's flagrant disregard for the OP topic,

Still hypocritical bullshit David. You pulled your own thread off-topic with baseless accusations and insinuations aimed at interlocutors.

DavidMcC wrote:plus his obsession with attempts to draw an insult out of me.

Have you stopped beating your wife yet? Because you're obvious trolling this much to distract from the beatings you keep giving your wife. :roll:
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31088
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Subject: The biology of the vertebrate eye

#109  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Jul 21, 2018 3:56 pm

DavidMcC wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
DavidMcC wrote:^ ^
Classic psychological warfare technique.
___________________________________

^Pure cow manure ^
Silly, rectally extacted accusations like this won't fool anyone David.

Yet more of the same. :roll:

Yes David, if you persist in dishonest or delusional attacks on myself and others rather than discussing the topic, you will keep being called out on it.
You've got only yourself to blame.

DavidMcC wrote:PS: When are you going to ention the OP subject? Oh, I forgot, you're not actually interested in that, just the psycho war! :roll:

Have you stopped beating your wife yet? :roll:
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31088
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Subject: The biology of the vertebrate eye

#110  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Jul 21, 2018 3:59 pm

DavidMcC wrote:
newolder wrote:
DavidMcC wrote:I have just noticed that RS's recent posts here have gone. They may have been ill-informed, but at least he was trying to address the OP subject, for which I thank him. I wish I could say the same of TE.

Post numbers 77 and 80 have not disappeared.

No, but they are not the posts I was thinking of.

Which posts would those be?

DavidMcC wrote: Having said that, what they are is good examples of the kind of aggressive nonsense I have come to expect in this thread.

Says the person who consistently jumps to personalised attacks when somebody disagrees with him. :roll:

I wish I could say the same of TE.

You owe me yet another hypocricy meter David. :naughty:
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31088
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Subject: The biology of the vertebrate eye

#111  Postby DavidMcC » Jul 21, 2018 4:01 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
DavidMcC wrote:
Sendraks wrote:
DavidMcC wrote:This thread already wreaks of your hidden agendas. Care to go public on them?


The thread reeks of your imaginings that people have hidden agendas.

It isn't imaginatioon, Sendraks, it's a rational conclusion,

False, it's either delusional or dishonest straw-man, as I've repeatedly made it clear why I respond the way I have.

That's your opinion, and I suppose you're entitled to it. However, that does not make it correct.
DavidMcC wrote: mainly from TE's flagrant disregard for the OP topic,

Still hypocritical bullshit David. You pulled your own thread off-topic with baseless accusations and insinuations aimed at interlocutors.

I think it is helpful to other readers to realise that certain posters do not konw, or care anything about the OP topic.
DavidMcC wrote:plus his obsession with attempts to draw an insult out of me.

Have you stopped beating your wife yet? Because you're obvious trolling this much to distract from the beatings you keep giving your wife. :roll:

Bizarre! Truly bizarre!
May The Voice be with you!
DavidMcC
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: David McCulloch
Posts: 14913
Age: 67
Male

Country: United Kigdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Subject: The biology of the vertebrate eye

#112  Postby DavidMcC » Jul 21, 2018 4:05 pm

I notice that most of the people currently on-line are guests. What must they think of a site that contains such absurd posts as yours! :dunno: :shock: :crazy:
May The Voice be with you!
DavidMcC
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: David McCulloch
Posts: 14913
Age: 67
Male

Country: United Kigdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Subject: The biology of the vertebrate eye

#113  Postby theropod » Jul 21, 2018 4:14 pm

Just what, exactly, have I assumed? Did I assume you, David, placed an arbitrary cut off date on tracing the origin of the vertebrate eye? No, that was you. Did I lump all atheist into a single group and then use a well know evolutionary biologists as an example of misguided thinking? Nope, that was you again. Did I address you personally, or quote any of your posts in this thread? Nope, I commented on the topic, and provided my own thoughts independent of yours.

This obsession with me is becoming quite tedious. No matter the content, or formulation, you distort my posts to make it all about you. Just fucking stop. I really find your posting behavior to be increasingly disturbing, and down right irrational. If you actually think I spend my time mulling over ways to chip away at your fantasy version of reality you have become a candidate for institutional help. This latest claim that some of my posts in this thread have been removed is a clinical example of pure delusion.

Just so you can rest easier, and maybe dismiss some of your fabricated demons, I will never again comment on any position you may take on any subject on this forum. I am making a public vow to ignore anything and everything you post. Those memebers aware of my posting history, which includes cases of self punished suspensions, can relate to you that such a vow will be honored. So, continue to misrepresent, belittle and attack me at your pleasure. I will no longer play a role in this insanity.

RS
Sleeping in the hen house doesn't make you a chicken.
User avatar
theropod
RS Donator
 
Name: Roger
Posts: 7529
Age: 67
Male

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Subject: The biology of the vertebrate eye

#114  Postby DavidMcC » Jul 21, 2018 4:21 pm

theropod wrote:Just what, exactly, have I assumed? Did I assume you, David, placed an arbitrary cut off date on tracing the origin of the vertebrate eye? No, that was you. Did I lump all atheist into a single group and then use a well know evolutionary biologists as an example of misguided thinking? Nope, that was you again. Did I address you personally, or quote any of your posts in this thread? Nope, I commented on the topic, and provided my own thoughts independent of yours.

This obsession with me is becoming quite tedious. No matter the content, or formulation, you distort my posts to make it all about you. Just fucking stop. I really find your posting behavior to be increasingly disturbing, and down right irrational. If you actually think I spend my time mulling over ways to chip away at your fantasy version of reality you have become a candidate for institutional help. This latest claim that some of my posts in this thread have been removed is a clinical example of pure delusion.

Just so you can rest easier, and maybe dismiss some of your fabricated demons, I will never again comment on any position you may take on any subject on this forum. I am making a public vow to ignore anything and everything you post. Those memebers aware of my posting history, which includes cases of self punished suspensions, can relate to you that such a vow will be honored. So, continue to misrepresent, belittle and attack me at your pleasure. I will no longer play a role in this insanity.

RS

Your posts are now as bizarre as TE's. And yes, your recent erroneous posts (and my replies) have been removed, and it can only have been done by a mod.
I can only assume that you two are tryig to convince me that this is some kind of mad-house, and that I will snap, throw insults at you, and get suspended, or even banned.
May The Voice be with you!
DavidMcC
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: David McCulloch
Posts: 14913
Age: 67
Male

Country: United Kigdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Subject: The biology of the vertebrate eye

#115  Postby newolder » Jul 21, 2018 4:38 pm

DavidMcC wrote:
newolder wrote:
DavidMcC wrote:I have just noticed that RS's recent posts here have gone. They may have been ill-informed, but at least he was trying to address the OP subject, for which I thank him. I wish I could say the same of TE.

Post numbers 77 and 80 have not disappeared.

No, but they are not the posts I was thinking of. Having said that, what they are is good examples of the kind of aggressive nonsense I have come to expect in this thread. Nowhere did I say or imply what RS assumes I did.

theropod did not post anything more to this topic until post 102. What do you mean by "RS's recent posts"?
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 7321
Age: 1
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Subject: The biology of the vertebrate eye

#116  Postby DavidMcC » Jul 21, 2018 4:48 pm

newolder wrote:
DavidMcC wrote:
newolder wrote:
DavidMcC wrote:I have just noticed that RS's recent posts here have gone. They may have been ill-informed, but at least he was trying to address the OP subject, for which I thank him. I wish I could say the same of TE.

Post numbers 77 and 80 have not disappeared.

No, but they are not the posts I was thinking of. Having said that, what they are is good examples of the kind of aggressive nonsense I have come to expect in this thread. Nowhere did I say or imply what RS assumes I did.

theropod did not post anything more to this topic until post 102. What do you mean by "RS's recent posts"?

Unfortunately, I didn't think to make a note of the post numbers, or copy them into my computer. All I remember for sure is that, yesterday, he posted that he thought there were many different imaging eye types around from which he thought that the vertebrate eye could have evolved. In other words, he was trying to imply that the vertebrate eye might have been derived from any of them, and I implied that this is false. However, today, I noticed that that entire discussion had vanished. (Which means that the mods must have removed it.)

LATE EDIT: It is possible that RS regards eyes as being a bit like bones (which can evolve from one shape to another, and maybe back again, if the situation demands it). I was trying to say that eye evolution doesn't work like that.
Last edited by DavidMcC on Jul 21, 2018 4:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
May The Voice be with you!
DavidMcC
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: David McCulloch
Posts: 14913
Age: 67
Male

Country: United Kigdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Subject: The biology of the vertebrate eye

#117  Postby scott1328 » Jul 21, 2018 4:52 pm

newolder wrote:
DavidMcC wrote:
newolder wrote:
DavidMcC wrote:I have just noticed that RS's recent posts here have gone. They may have been ill-informed, but at least he was trying to address the OP subject, for which I thank him. I wish I could say the same of TE.

Post numbers 77 and 80 have not disappeared.

No, but they are not the posts I was thinking of. Having said that, what they are is good examples of the kind of aggressive nonsense I have come to expect in this thread. Nowhere did I say or imply what RS assumes I did.

theropod did not post anything more to this topic until post 102. What do you mean by "RS's recent posts"?

It is David’s belief that moderators remove posts in order to make him look bad.
User avatar
scott1328
 
Name: Some call me... Tim
Posts: 8703
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Subject: The biology of the vertebrate eye

#118  Postby newolder » Jul 21, 2018 4:55 pm

DavidMcC wrote:
newolder wrote:
DavidMcC wrote:
newolder wrote:
Post numbers 77 and 80 have not disappeared.

No, but they are not the posts I was thinking of. Having said that, what they are is good examples of the kind of aggressive nonsense I have come to expect in this thread. Nowhere did I say or imply what RS assumes I did.

theropod did not post anything more to this topic until post 102. What do you mean by "RS's recent posts"?

Unfortunately, I didn't think to make a note of the post numbers, or copy them into my computer. All I remember for sure is that, yesterday, he posted that he thought there were many different imaging eye types around from which he thought that the vertebrate eye could have evolved. In other words, he was trying to imply that the vertebrate eye might have been derived from any of them, and I implied that this is false. However, today, I noticed that that entire discussion had vanished. (Which means that the mods must have removed it.)

If the only evidence you have for this is your memory then I cannot help you. I've been following this topic for many days and do not recall RS posting anything to the topic yesterday.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 7321
Age: 1
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

Re: Subject: The biology of the vertebrate eye

#119  Postby newolder » Jul 21, 2018 4:57 pm

scott1328 wrote:
newolder wrote:
DavidMcC wrote:
newolder wrote:
Post numbers 77 and 80 have not disappeared.

No, but they are not the posts I was thinking of. Having said that, what they are is good examples of the kind of aggressive nonsense I have come to expect in this thread. Nowhere did I say or imply what RS assumes I did.

theropod did not post anything more to this topic until post 102. What do you mean by "RS's recent posts"?

It is David’s belief that moderators remove posts in order to make him look bad.

Ahh, I see now... This then is more evidence for DMcC's persecution complex I've read about elsewhere.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 7321
Age: 1
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

Re: Subject: The biology of the vertebrate eye

#120  Postby DavidMcC » Jul 21, 2018 5:00 pm

scott1328 wrote:
newolder wrote:
DavidMcC wrote:
newolder wrote:
Post numbers 77 and 80 have not disappeared.

No, but they are not the posts I was thinking of. Having said that, what they are is good examples of the kind of aggressive nonsense I have come to expect in this thread. Nowhere did I say or imply what RS assumes I did.

theropod did not post anything more to this topic until post 102. What do you mean by "RS's recent posts"?

It is David’s belief that moderators remove posts in order to make him look bad.

Actually, no, it was likely more to save RS from looking bad. There's a subtle, but real difference.
May The Voice be with you!
DavidMcC
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: David McCulloch
Posts: 14913
Age: 67
Male

Country: United Kigdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Evolution & Natural Selection

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest