Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)

[John 6IX Breezy]

Well that's it, basically lol. Thats what the OP was about, that the eye is not enough. And I would like to see an evolutionary narrative that takes the rest of the story into account, because it seems to me the only way to avoid many problems with selection is a simultaneous co-evolution between the components, not a single-stepped, one at a time process. For example, what selective pressure can cause the eye patch to curve, before the animal is able to perceive direction? Or what would cause the perception of direction, before the eye patch begins to curve? It seems to me they have to evolve in sync.

It seems to me more like you lack imagination. Nobody said anything about single-stepped processes. Stuff like this happen gradually (ie, in a slope manner) over a long period of time, and people here have already explained to you the concept of co evolution. That's something you should've learned in biology, though, if you're going to challenge the theory.

Well yeah, thats what I meant by single-stepped process. Not that it happens in a single step, but that the steps are single and gradual as opposed to multiple and simultaneous. In other words, by single-stepped I mean the eye evolves first and then brain, or they see-saw back and forth with one another But in a multi-stepped process I mean they evolve together, synchronously, and by the same amount.

I don't know how else to call it without referring steps. And I feel like I've been championing co-evolution on this thread, and arguing for it, but keep being told its all bullocks. So I don't know. I've been under the impression I'm not saying anything controversial, but I keep being told I dont' know what I'm talking about. It is what it is I guess.