Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)

[Abaddon_ire]

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.

My issue with back an forth alternating between changes, is that they seem to create holes where selection can't occur. For that to make sense we have to agree that selection can't work "off-line," that an adaptation has to have an effect on the world, and be affected by it, in order for selection have any preference for one variation over another and slowly shape it. 

Provide an instance of claimed evolution for an isolated organism. Just one will do.

In other words,

Euphemism for a forthcoming lie

and to move beyond the detection of direction.

You are claiming that there IS direction. No you are in full flight on the lies.

If cones spontaneously evolve from rods, before theres a system able to use them to perceive color, cones are basically off-line structures. They can't be selected for or against, when it comes to color detection, because there's nothing to have an effect on when it comes to color detection. 

Strawman. Nobody here or anywhere else made any such claim. Either you made that up out of whole cloth, or are so moronic that you failed to understand any of it.

So, it seems to me that for there to be a back-and-forth, without causing an adaptation to go off-line, is for there to be some kind of scaffolding in place than can maintain it or keep it in the game until the rest of the system can catch up.

What, exactly, is it that we are supposedly "catching up" with. You neglected to identify that. Likely intentionally. What "game"? You failed to identify that either. How can an "adaption" go "off-line"? What do you mean by that?

I'll explain better later, cause I'm out of time, but hopefully you get the point I'm trying to make.

Nope. Because you are incoherent and use terms which remain utterly undefined. GFYS.