Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)

[John 6IX Breezy]

Then lets agree to disagree. I fail to see how selection and adaptation doesn't lead to states of homeostasis between an organism and its environment, and you fail to give any good arguments against it besides repeating its not a biological fact. This wasn't even the point of OP so its not a hill I care to die on.

There would have to be stasis in the creature and the environment individually before there were the possibility of some mutual stasis.

Think that over.  Just the pure implausibility of it.  An unchanging world.  Then remember that mutations occur.  An unchanging world with unchanging creatures.

Neither of these things describe our world, or our biology.

I don't see the implausibility of it. For one, equilibrium doesn't imply an absence of change: planetary orbits, oscillations, cycles, are all balanced movements. So perhaps the destination of a species is stasis for some, and some sort of cyclical loop for others. 

To throw more wood into the fire, I wouldn't doubt if even mutations go away. The more balanced an organism is with its environment the more likely a mutation is to knock it off balance than to improve it. So I wouldn't doubt it if species eventually evolve safeguards against mutations. Our own genes already have redundancy built into them, as well as other mechanisms that attempt to correct unwanted mutations.