Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)

[Succubus]

As to the list of papers, is there a specific topic you're wanting to discuss? I have way too many for my own good. Here's a screenshot of some of the ones we had to read on a course about sensation and perception (which is relevant to this thread). Pardon the inconsistent titles, I'm still working on the most effective way to categorize papers. I sometimes don't even know where to put what. For example, attention is a topic of its own, but a lot of research is done through visual attention. So should that fall under perception or attention? Or do I make a copy and place them in both? So yeah, its under construction.

That's some heavy duty stuff you're into.

The First Steps in Seeing R. W. Rodieck

Snip:

A full appreciation of how the eyes work is rooted in diverse areas of science--optics; biochemistry and photochemistry; molecular biology, cell biology, neurobiology, and evolutionary biology; psychology and psychophysics.

And yet you ask fucking stupid questions, as in...

how can those species that lack "more" get "more?" Take a species of your choosing, and tell me what you think the next evolutionary step should be, if they were to evolve human-like eyes.

To paraphrase Eric Cartman; You're a fucking troll dude.