Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)

[GrandizerII]

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.

I don't see the problem personally. Back and forth alternating changes of varying degrees between two organs or two species work just as fine as long as this still allows for the organism(s) to be well adapted to the surrounding environment, and to survive and produce offspring that will inherit the combination and via time and chance have more refined combinations through successive generations.