Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)

[John 6IX Breezy]

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.

What is the relevancy between what the book description said and I said? I agree the study of vision is very interdisciplinary. Regardless, my question was very straightforward and uncontroversial. To give an example there's a paper out there where researchers hypothesized that in between whales that had teeth vs. baleen, there would a step in which they would have some specified mixture of the two; later such a whale was discovered. (I think Chimp3 was the one who told me about it, so if you're out there reading this, let me know if you remember the source).

The premise here is the same. Evolution went from point A to point B for the human eye. So take point A and tell me what the next major phenotypic step would be on its what to B.