Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)

[Peebothuhlu]

The eye, for most species, is a relatively simple structure compared to the internal mechanisms that transform its sensory information into something perceivable. When it comes to evolution, the emphasis is usually on the eye rather than on vision (see video below). My primary concern with the typical narrative for the evolution of the eye, is that it only tells half the story. There are three things which, at the very least, need to co-evolve in order for there to be any positive evolutionary change in vision: Sensation, Perception, and Behavior. Sensation refers to the sense organ (eye); perception refers to whatever systems processes the sensory information (brain); and behavior refers to the output the organism aims to accomplish with this information. An eye that evolves through the stages presented by Dawkins, without simultaneously evolving the neural accessories for processing that information, and the behavioral capacity to make use of that information, should not be able to experience the types of selective pressures that allows for its evolution.

In other words, Dawkins' narrative (which I believe he recounts in one of his books) focuses on the sense organ exclusively, as if it evolved in isolation. My concern is that the narrative is too simple, to the point of being misinforming.

 

Hmmm...okay, lets try this again.

First, I disagree that any part of an organic being is just "A relatively simple structure." whether you compare parts on one creture with various parts of the same crature or comparing parts of one creature with various parts of another.

Again, I ask if you've seen the various vidoes that succinctly detail the possible path through which gradual change might bring about an organ whos funciton is vision?

Cheers.

Not at work.