Jules

[Jules @Truth__Enjoyer]

@Leophilius I said that theories were criticised for being non-natural until they were successful and 'natural' got redefined to include them. Youre on a streak of missing basic historical facts.

[Jules @Truth__Enjoyer]

@Leophilius No that wasn't my point, my point was that your point is meaningless and unaware of the history of science.

[Jules @Truth__Enjoyer]

@Leophilius Completely missing the point.

[Jules @Truth__Enjoyer]

@Leophilius What counts as a 'natural' explanation changes throughout history to include any successful model. Many times new discoveries upset previous paradigms leading to new models, quantum mechanics is 'magic' to a newtonian and newtons model was 'magic' to what came before

[Jules @Truth__Enjoyer]

@QuantumTumbler I didnt point at complexity and say this is getting harder. I was citing Jaeger's evo-devo paper which said that drawing conclusions about evolutionary processes ia getting murkier as more data is gathered instead of getting clearer.

[Jules @Truth__Enjoyer]

@QuantumTumbler I just said model refinement is good, but those mechanisms are post hoc rationalisations, not true predictions. An example of 'no structure at all' being a failure like you mentioned is the missing correlation between clade age and species richness. Too many examples for 1 tweet

[Jules @Truth__Enjoyer]

@QuantumTumbler Refining models is good but if theres old and new probems still, continuing to patch up the model becomes just a cope. Gene-tree conflict is pervasive (Parins-Fukuchi,Stull&Smith2021) and figuring out evolutionary history is facing crises and getting worse- Jaeger's comet paper

[Jules @Truth__Enjoyer]

@MacGraeme42 @SpaceKoala No, we would see fewer photons not more, because our wavelength dependant wave-guide cells wouldn't be there

[Jules @Truth__Enjoyer]

@MacGraeme42 @SpaceKoala There is no 'cost' associated with the vertebrate eye having cells in front of the retina. This layer of cells contains mueller cells that act like fibre optics and help direct photons onto the retina improving daylight vision. This feature is a strength not a weakness.

[Jules @Truth__Enjoyer]

@melosyna @SpaceKoala A component of a system being 'crappy' by itself without all the other systems that it is supposed to work with, means nothing

[Jules @Truth__Enjoyer]

@dalmaer God did work it out for humans. In humans, the inverted retina layout with photoreceptor cells being behind cell layers is not a design flaw, rather these cells in front of the retina act as wave guides that help direct photons, increasing photon absorption by cones.