Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)

[Peebothuhlu]

I thought I already responded to that elsewhere, but its ok. First, keep in mind we're talking about how things change or evolve. Pointing to a species with brains and no eyes isn't useful unless you're using them as a predictive step in our evolution, for example, or tying it back in to evolution. What good is a species with no eyes, in a discussion about eyes lol. Clarify that for me a little more, so we're on the same page. For now my answer is that brains can do other things besides seeing. And as far as eyes with no brains, I would ask if you're using brains in a specific sense, or as a general description of whatever processes information? Are you talking about organisms with eyes whose visual information leads absolutely nowhere?

But I agree that Dawkins' video is meant for children, I believe they are Christimas lectures even lol; I've said previously that my statements shouldn't be controversial.

Well... you've been saying that you don't understand how the whole brain and eye thing can happen.

I've just been pointing out that critters can develope eyes with out neurons behind them (Really. The Boxjelly fish has eye clusters that are not connected to neurons at all. Jellyfish really do not have brains in even a rudimentary sense.)

Why does that particular jelly have eyes when no others do? Because pretty much all other jellys are a kind of passive 'Filter feeders'.
Boxjellys activly hunt prey. Their eyes drive their motion with no neurons in any shape of a brain that can be found.

As for critters that respond to visual stimulous with out using their eyes. That's something you don't seem to have considered at all either.

My question in regards to 'Blindness' is about sort of the reverse of your questioning path.

Why are there critters (Fish, amphibians, insects) who don't have eyes while other, sister species still do?

You do grok how atrophy can happen, right?

So... you're on board with critters changing over time. Cool.
You've underestanding of the rather vast times potentially involved (Which is not to say that morphological and other changes can't happen 'Quickly' for a rather loose definition of 'Quick'.) yes?

Though, again, I'd remind you that the theory doens't actually make 'Hard' predictions about where things develope.
That's even possibly one of its failings.

For example.

We might hypothesis that... should a totally new environment appear... That creatures will (As a species, not a single indivual) over time change and adapt to different parts/elements of said enviropnment.

BUT

Not specifically how each possible critter type might change into what ever niche and in what possible way.
Other than suggesting covergent requiremnts. If there's lots of spaces and vertical motion possible then flight might emerg. If there's lots or total water then hydrodynamic traits might emerg. etc. But not in which species or what change might or might not occur or when.

Similarly. Any environment on another planet will have critters that will have 'X' looking developments. Should the planet have a descent enough atmosphere then flight might be found in regards to some critters. Some critters will be hydrodynamically streamlined for swimming etc.

That you might have a giant shrimp that looks like an Orca however is the thing that'd be waaaaay outside the box for human experiance.

Cheers.

Not at work.