Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)

[John 6IX Breezy]

At work.

I would ask to see what specific organism you have in mind to better answer that question. But most of the time, organisms have some other way of making use of that sensory information. In bacteria the energy produced by light sensitive pigments goes straight into powering their flagella for example. In my view, such a bacteria has successfully evolved a functional system, that works for its needs in its environment. It has no eye, no brain, etc. So clearly, organisms can find pockets where sensation, perception, and behavior, are all balanced at any given stage of evolution. There are many such pockets inhabited by many different species. My issue is with accounts that ignore the balance between components that are needed for survival. when they talk about how an organism evolved.

Different species have different biological needs to survive in their environment. Our species needs neurons and consciousness, take that away in any increment you want, and the medical literature is full of examples of what happens.

So you are aware of organisms that have a level of environmental reactivity. Cool.

Sorry, it's just that most of your previous posts were entangled with brains and vision.

That organisms function quite well without brains/neural bundles but still react (Interact?) with their environment, such as the Australian box jellyfish, is a step forwards in our conversation at least.

Cheers.

I wouldn't say they're entangled with brain and vision, they're rather focused on it. A jellyfish is able to function the way it does, because its a jellyfish. Its environment and behavioral repertoire are balanced with its internal infrastructure. But if a jellyfish is ever going to evolve anything like the human visual system, it needs to maintain that balance throughout that process. A Dawkins' account that focuses on one aspect wouldn't work.