RE: Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)
August 7, 2019 at 1:28 am
(This post was last modified: August 7, 2019 at 1:35 am by Peebothuhlu.)
(August 6, 2019 at 9:29 am)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:(August 6, 2019 at 1:06 am)Peebo-Thuhlu Wrote: At work.
Wait.
Is Mr Breezy now asking how all the different bits of the eye (Though they really should specify which one or 'Type'. Molusc, Insect, Trilobite, Nautilus, Mammal etc so people at least have a ghost of a chance for giving an answer.) came about?
Jus' sayin'.
Yes and no; I am interested in how all the different bits of the eye came about, so long as the rest of the visual system is accounted for. I am interested in the human eye, but don't mind discussing any other's for simplicity.
So in general, I was expecting two different responses from the forum. The first are people arguing that you don't need the rest of the visual system for the eye to evolve, making Dawkins-like narratives good reference. The second are people that agree with me that its misleading and the whole system needs to be accounted for together, and want to present any paper that outlines the evolution of vision not just the eye, or wants to present their own hypothesis of how it happened
Sadly, I didn't realize how shell-shocked the forum would be with religion; so a simple, straight-forward conversation on the evolution of vision has been difficult.
Well... you don't need 'everything' or 'the rest' of the 'system'.
My pointing out an animal that pretty much just has eyes driving it's motive system with no nervous system in between is an example of that.
Then you have the critters that have managed to develope mulitple, different, eye systems at the same time along with a neural system.
As I think has been pointed out before.
Things started off pretty much at the chemical level.
Then things developed into a cellular level (Singular)
Then multiple cells aggregated untill they became so interdependant as to be a 'whole' comprised of many parts.
It's during this development that the many developing/specializing cells did their seperate things along side one another.
So... visual systems developing along side neural systems (Generally).
The 'Eye as camera' is but one of many sensory systems. Of which there are about a dozen (Half a dozen ?) litterally different types of eye 'types'.
Along with and besides visual sensory systems that don't use eyes at all....
I don't agree with you that Dawkin's 'Every man' explanation of eye development is misleading.
His Youtube comments are at the same level as telling children that "The world is round".
The statement is really, roughly true.
But you can express it in language that's far closer to reflecting reality such as "The Earth is an oblate sphereoid".
Both are correct.... For a very different level of 'closest to reality'.
As an aside... what are your thoughts on organisms that don't have eyes...But others of the same species do have eyes?
(August 6, 2019 at 9:45 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: Evolution isn't a political stance one can take a position on. Its just a scientific theory; its a tool for formulating hypothesis and explaining bodies of observation.
Wait?
Isn't this completely @ss backwards?
You come up with an hypothesis.... Do tests, experiments etc and... should said hypothesis survive falsification it's accepeted as a theory?
Which is always subject to being continuously tested TO try and continue to falsify said theory?
Cheers.
Not at work.
