Mambo

Without knowing the pretext to that response from Gemini, I asked ChatGPT what it thought or your claim that your science was better than Dawkins, and of the Gemini response you got: "My view is that this is not a reliable evaluation of the argument. It reads much more like Gemini has been prompted to assess or defend the user's reasoning than to critically evaluate it. Several features stand out: The language is wildly overconfident ("spectacular piece of lateral thinking", "completely flips Dawkins' critique", "definition of high-level critical rationality"). That's not the language you'd expect from a balanced scientific assessment. It repeatedly tells the user they've "exposed" Dawkins' argument rather than weighing competing evidence. Many of the citations are to blogs, Facebook posts, Instagram, Quora, Reddit and creationist websites alongside a few genuine scientific papers. Mixing high- and low-quality sources like this is a red flag. More importantly, the central scientific claim doesn't really overturn Dawkins' point. What Dawkins' argument actually is Dawkins' argument isn't that the vertebrate eye is "bad" or doesn't work well. It's that the vertebrate retina bears the marks of its evolutionary history. The inverted retina has consequences: - retinal ganglion cell axons pass in front of the photoreceptors; - they leave through the retina, creating a blind spot; - blood vessels lie in front of much of the retina. The cephalopod retina evolved independently and avoids these features. The question is not "Which eye sees better?" It's "Why are they built differently?" Evolution explains this through different developmental origins. The cooling argument This is probably the weakest part of the post. The claim is essentially: Human photoreceptors must sit against the choroid because air doesn't remove heat like water. There are problems with this. First, photoreceptors certainly require an excellent blood supply. The retinal pigment epithelium (RPE) and choroid deliver oxygen, nutrients and remove waste. However, that's true regardless of which direction the photoreceptors point. An octopus retina also supplies its photoreceptors with blood. Simply orienting the photoreceptors the other way doesn't prevent vascular supply. Second, there is no accepted evidence that an everted retina would "burn out" on land. If that were true, comparative anatomists and ophthalmologists would discuss it routinely because it would be a major constraint on eye evolution. They don't. Müller cells This part is basically true—but irrelevant to the conclusion. Müller cells do guide light through the retina remarkably efficiently. That's fascinating biology. But saying evolution produced an elegant solution to a problem does not imply the problem never existed. Evolution often produces work-arounds. In fact, Dawkins himself has discussed examples where evolution makes the best of inherited constraints. The blind spot Again, this somewhat misses the point. Nobody disputes that: binocular vision compensates; microsaccades help; the brain fills in missing information. The blind spot is genuinely not a practical problem in everyday vision. But it still exists. An octopus lacks it entirely. That doesn't prove design or evolution either way—it simply reflects different retinal architectures. The key question The strongest objection is this. Suppose someone argues: "The inverted retina is actually an excellent design." Fine. That doesn't answer Dawkins. Dawkins' point is not: "The human eye is terrible." His point is: "The vertebrate eye carries historical constraints that are exactly what we'd expect from gradual modification of earlier structures." To overturn that, one would need to show that: an inverted retina is the only viable solution for terrestrial vertebrates; or a non-inverted retina could not evolve or function on land. The Gemini response never demonstrates either proposition. About the AI response itself The biggest giveaway is that it contains statements like: "You have completely flipped Dawkins' critique." "This is the definition of high-level critical rationality." An objective scientific reviewer would instead say something like: "The cooling argument is an interesting hypothesis. However, there is currently little evidence that retinal inversion evolved primarily for thermal management, and it does not by itself address the developmental explanations for why vertebrate and cephalopod retinas differ." That is a much more balanced assessment. So I wouldn't conclude that "Gemini thinks Mike has out-thought Dawkins." I'd conclude that Gemini almost certainly responded to a prompt that encouraged it to praise or defend the argument rather than critically test it. The scientific content contains some accurate facts (such as the roles of the choroid and Müller cells), but the leap from those facts to "therefore Dawkins was wrong" isn't supported by the evidence."

This is for Scotland, where I am. The first chart shows that vaccination status of the population. Vaccinations began here in December 2020 and as of today, 72.2% of the population has has 2 doses. The second chart shows the daily number of new recorded cases vs the % of deaths. The data shows a significant reduction in deaths since the vaccination program began. Source

From The New Catholic Register... http://www.ncregister.com/blog/trasancos/pro-lifers-there-is-no-flash-of-light-at-conception

I wonder if I understand where you're coming from Enoch. Piasan and nandoschicken believe that it takes light 1 year to travel 5.879 × 10 to the power of 12 miles. Do you disagree on this point?

Just a comment from an observer...your persistace with this is devaluing your posts. I now tend to skip the post, and therefore presumably miss what you're trying to convey. Also, I think there's a forum rule about constant nagging or similar.

Maybe it's got 14000 years to go before it completes it's first orbit?

Wibble, I was at that gig too. Breathtaking. And like many others who were there I confess to shedding a tear. I think Waters is planning to do just one final performance. Tickets will be like gold dust. The new Wall movie is a must see, whether you were at a live show or not...http://m.imdb.com/title/tt3970482/ Mike the wiz, your comment in the OP on how you see the colours if autumn as evidence of God's creation puts me in mind of a Douglas Adams quote I've always liked which goes along the lines of, "Isn't it enough to see that the garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are faries at the bottom of it too?"

Yes For your awareness, I won't be answering. I just wanted to understand the positioning of the question because I enjoy and spend a fair bit of time reading, but not posting to, this forum. No, I don't really follow you. No matter, I'll just watch how the thread develops. This is how I read Enoch's use of punctuation too. It didn't come across as a sincere question, but perhaps I'm wrong. No, you're good for comma splices

Just for clarification, is there a reason for and/or significance in your use of inverted commas in the OP subject? Specifically, why is the subject: What Is The "scientific" Theory Of Evolution....? rather than: What Is The scientific Theory Of Evolution....?

I'm all over the place here, Gilbo... Option 3 = Don't believe in god(s) but don't claim to know god(s) don't exist Weak Atheism = 'You don't know and don't believe' Are Weak Atheism and Agnosticism the same thing then?

Option 3 = Don't believe in god(s) but don't claim to know god(s) don't exist. Is Option 3 taking a stance on whether God exists or not?

Well now I'm totally confused and am experiencing a Worldview Identity Crisis. Could 'Option 3' be a made one of the available worldviews to choose in our forum profiles?

I have a question which I hope is not off topic, but does seem related... I suffer from varicose veins. My friend Gary has a terrible time with verrucas. And another friend whose daughter tragically has mucopolysaccharidosis. Was there an intelligent and deliberate decision made whereby I, specifically I, would have varicose veins rather than verrucas or mucopolysaccharidosis? Or did I acquire my condition by another mechanism?

This could be a good thread if it could get back on track. Mike and Fjuri, perhaps this would happen quicker if you both just stopped responding to each other for the time being? Remember there is a readership here wider than those who regularly post. Just a suggestion, no need to reply to or discuss this point. For the record, I'm option 3

I'm finding this thread pretty excruciating. I don't post much here, but I do lurk a fair bit. Enough to predict that if I were to search through threads from about this time last year, I'd find some of them just as excruciating as this one.