RE: Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)
August 5, 2019 at 7:30 pm
(This post was last modified: August 5, 2019 at 7:36 pm by John 6IX Breezy.)
(August 5, 2019 at 6:56 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: An explanation of the evolutionary pathways eyes have taken will be more accurate with respect to eyes if it focused on eyes than it would be if it jumped all over the place.
Ok, so as an example of why I disagree with you there, I would point towards Dawkins example that as a patch of light sensitive cells begins to curve into a cup, the organism is able to detect direction. By focusing solely on the evolution on the eye, the assumption is made that the detection of direction occurs directly on the retina, as a consequence of its curvature. In strictly physical term, a curvature does allow for the perception of direction in ways that a patch does not, but it does not produce it. You need some additional mechanism that can process and perceive direction in perhaps a quite sophisticated way. For example, because of the curvature, light coming from the right hemifield, will activate the left side of the retina. So the organism needs to perceive right as left, and up as down, or risk moving towards a predator when it ought to move away, or away from food when it needs to move towards it.
Not mentioning what goes on behind the scenes, makes it appears as if a curved retina is all thats required to perceive direction. I call that less accurate and misleading.