Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)

[John 6IX Breezy]

Well... you've been saying that you don't understand how the whole brain and eye thing can happen.

I've just been pointing out that critters can develope eyes with out neurons behind them (Really. The Boxjelly fish has eye clusters that are not connected to neurons at all. Jellyfish really do not have brains in even a rudimentary sense.)

Why does that particular jelly have eyes when no others do? Because pretty much all other jellys are a kind of passive 'Filter feeder'.
Boxjellys activly hunt prey.

My question in regards to 'Blindness' is about sort of the reverse of your questioning path.

Why are there critters (Fish, amphibians, insects) who don't have eyes while other, sister species still do?

You do grok how atrophy can happen, right?

Not at work.

Well, all I know about jellyfish is that they have what is called a neural net with no central nervous system. I wasn't aware they had eye clusters, although I imagine they had some kind of sensory input. So I'll have to take a closer look at what you're talking about.

The atrophy question is interesting because I don't generally have any issues with things atrophying or becoming vestigial, or losing their functions overtime. So if the reason why some fish have eyes and other don't is that those fish used to have eye but that function is now lost, then I have no quarrels there. Is that what you meant by atrophy?

Edit: Just saw you added more.

I'm generally not concerned with the timing. I'm more worried about whether or not something can happen, not how long it took to happen. But yes, I'm aware of the time. As to making hard predictions I agree that it doesn't, or isn't able to. However, we're not predicting the future with these questions, we're uncovering a past that already happened. Those steps are already in whatever order they are.