Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)

[Nay_Sayer]

What will become an eye, as you know it, doesn’t need to be an eye at all, as you know it.  It doesn’t need to be an eye as you know it or the same thing it previously was at any step to be useful.

There is no destination in evolutionary theory, only a journey.

I disagree there is no destination, specially if we're dealing with natural phenomena. In the same way electrons will rest at the lowest energy state; or water traveling down the path of least resistance will be gathered in puddle at the bottom. I have to assume organisms are also trickling down towards a similar state of rest. Its homeostasis, its balance, its gas particles evening themselves out in a container.

Evolution has a destination, and a limited number of paths it can get there (too limited in my opinion)

Do you have like a list of names set to go or are these just off the top of your head?