Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)

[John 6IX Breezy]

There aren’t any “next steps”.  There is no goal, no destination.

Then this is why that argument isn't useful. Because the forum begins with a discussion on the evolution of human vision (or any visual system that has "more"). So you shouldn't bring up other species with "less" unless you think their mechanisms are in someway analogous to a step in our evolutionary past, or the past of some other visual system with "more"

History already happened. Its written in stone, and we already know what the present end-result of our visual system is. So you should be able to trace the steps from A to B. That's what Dawkins does in his video. If you're not able to do that by pointing to other species that have "less" then what good are they to the discussion?

So take a species with "less," copy paste them into our evolutionary past, and tell me what you think the next step should be.