(August 3, 2019 at 11:01 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: 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.
What makes you think it didn't evolve the neurons and behaviour?
Do you think only one thing evolves at a time?
can you be that ill informed?
uneducated or delusional?
Are you American? Because that would explain it.
You can fix ignorance, you can't fix stupid.
Tinkety Tonk and down with the Nazis.
