Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)

[Jackie]

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.




 

In my online time since 2001 I constantly run into theists of every religion whom all fail to see that they all do the same damned thing.

I have debated not just Christians, but Muslims and Jews and Hindus and Buddhists about science. And the tactic is always the same. When they cant simply sell their old mythology, they attack science, when they cant get away with attacking science, they try to say their religion was the catalyst that lead to modern science.

Scientific method is not a tool used to prove Jesus or Allah or Yahweh or Vishnu or Buddha, because scientific method is a tool, not a religion.