Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)

[John 6IX Breezy]

At work.

Wait.

Is Mr Breezy now asking how all the different bits of the eye (Though they really should specify which one or 'Type'. Molusc, Insect, Trilobite, Nautilus, Mammal etc so people at least have a ghost of a chance for giving an answer.) came about?

Jus' sayin'.

Yes and no; I am interested in how all the different bits of the eye came about, so long as the rest of the visual system is accounted for. I am interested in the human eye, but don't mind discussing any other's for simplicity.

So in general, I was expecting two different responses from the forum. The first are people arguing that you don't need the rest of the visual system for the eye to evolve, making Dawkins-like narratives good reference. The second are people that agree with me that its misleading and the whole system needs to be accounted for together, and want to present any paper that outlines the evolution of vision not just the eye, or wants to present their own hypothesis of how it happened

Sadly, I didn't realize how shell-shocked the forum would be with religion; so a simple, straight-forward conversation on the evolution of vision has been difficult.

---

No I meant traits literally being carried over to the next generations regardless of their adaptive functions.

So anyway what is the problem then again? Or has your challenge been successfully met?

I think you did a good job of addressing the topic and not straying away even if we disagree on certain things. I basically made this thread to test the forum out and get acquainted with the layout and its members, so there really wasn't a challenge of any kind. Just a simple claim that there's more to the evolution of vision than the eye. 

Hopefully by the end of the week I'll have time to post a thread critiquing evolutionary psychology. I'll present more clear-cut arguments and problems then, along with any supporting references.