(November 3, 2017 at 9:10 am)Mathilda Wrote: Richard Dawkins explains the process of how the eye evolved (and a visual representation of a fitness landscape I mentioned earlier)
Specific examples of how it actually happened with references:
Or are you going to claim the links don't work like last time Stevell so you continue to pretend that the steps aren't known?
If so then there is a wikipedia article for it
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye
Or if you want to laugh at a wikipedia article not being trustworthy, then why not use google scholar to look for a book on the subject?
https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&l...ed&f=false
... which you can buy on amazon
Evolution's Witness: How eyes evolved
You may wonder how I found all these links. Well I use a web browser you see and there are things called search engines. If I type in a question or a particular subject into a little box in my web browser or go to the web page of the search engine, then the search engines will give me a whole load of relevant links. It's pretty amazing. I reckon it must be magic. I would suggest that you should try it some day but you are staying deliberately ignorant.
If you have trouble clicking on links because your sensori-motor coordination means that it is difficult for you to place a mouse cursor over a link and click then I am sure we can copy and paste some relevant text.
LOL. NONE of these answers my question: how does two or three functions that depend on each other for a survival benefit evolve through small incremental changes that are selected for a survival benefit? Your Youtube videos and links to Wikipedia only DESCRIBES stages that an eye might have gone through--not HOW is it possible to get from one stage to another. Even you must see that these are not the same thing and do not answer my question. Come on, according to your own link it has happened some 50-100 independent times! It should be easy to explain the mechanism. I'll paste it one last time for your ease in your reply:
Even if we presuppose an already vastly complicated cell to kick off the evolution of the eye, an eye makes absolutely no sense on its own. You need a mechanism to process the information and be able to do something about it to relate it to a survival benefit--or no increase in functionality will evolve. But wait, you don't need a light processing center to make decision if you don't have any light sensitive information to process. What came first, the ability to move, the ability to sense light or the processing center to ascertain some survival benefit from light and effect movement? Seems like all three are needed for any survival benefit to occur. But wait, it's worse than that. For there to be an evolved increase in functionality in the eye (like to discern shapes), you would need a massively more complex processing unit for there to be any survival benefit---but what survival benefit led to the evolution of the processing unit without the complexity of the eye already present? How did that happen? For reference, this would be the "mechanism" sense of the definition of evolution which you said was fact.
