Defending Richard Dawkins from Misguided Criticism

A discussion about critics of Dawkins

Anything that doesn't fit anywhere else below.

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8

Re: Defending Richard Dawkins from Misguided Criticism

#381  Postby Oldskeptic » Oct 24, 2015 2:32 am

DavidMcC wrote:Back to the (surface-)vertebrate eye: it recently occurred to me that the "inverted" retina has an additional advantage for a fish that was forced up from the deep, dark ocean by shallowing seas (in turn caused by severe ice ages). Such a fish would have to cope with increasingly bright light falling on its retinae, so the inversion-induced covering of the photoreceptors by the nerve fibre layer would be just the ticket to avoid the problem. Until now, I had assumed that the nerve fibre covering was the price we paid for self-maintaining eyes, but it turns out that this is not the case after all. This is additional evidence that the vertebrates did, indeed evolve from a deep-water fish with non-imaging eyes, that was forced towards the surface as a result of geological/climatic changes.


That you expect anyone that was participating in this thread before your suspension to respond to new unfounded assertions is baffling. Do you really think that time has erased your shameful and deceitful accusations and avoidance of addressing refutations of your nonsense arguments from memories?

I for one have no use for and no interest in anything you have to say, and can only hope that you and your inane posts will be ignored by the general population from here forward.
There is nothing so absurd that some philosopher will not say it - Cicero.

Traditionally these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead - Stephen Hawking
User avatar
Oldskeptic
 
Posts: 7395
Age: 64
Male

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Defending Richard Dawkins from Misguided Criticism

#382  Postby DavidMcC » Oct 24, 2015 2:30 pm

Oldskeptic wrote:
DavidMcC wrote:Back to the (surface-)vertebrate eye: it recently occurred to me that the "inverted" retina has an additional advantage for a fish that was forced up from the deep, dark ocean by shallowing seas (in turn caused by severe ice ages). Such a fish would have to cope with increasingly bright light falling on its retinae, so the inversion-induced covering of the photoreceptors by the nerve fibre layer would be just the ticket to avoid the problem. Until now, I had assumed that the nerve fibre covering was the price we paid for self-maintaining eyes, but it turns out that this is not the case after all. This is additional evidence that the vertebrates did, indeed evolve from a deep-water fish with non-imaging eyes, that was forced towards the surface as a result of geological/climatic changes.


That you expect anyone that was participating in this thread before your suspension to respond to new unfounded assertions is baffling. Do you really think that time has erased your shameful and deceitful accusations and avoidance of addressing refutations of your nonsense arguments from memories?

I for one have no use for and no interest in anything you have to say, and can only hope that you and your inane posts will be ignored by the general population from here forward.

So, your only argument against my eye evolution case is that I was suspended for reasons unconnected with this debate? That's really rational - not! :roll: :lol:
May The Voice be with you!
DavidMcC
 
Name: David McCulloch
Posts: 14913
Age: 67
Male

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

Previous

Return to General Debunking

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest