Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)

[John 6IX Breezy]

Yes... Australian boxjellys have four eye clusters with which their motion is guided towards 'Prey'. Whether that's other fish... Or people swimming.

So... an eye system with out a brain attached.

You're wrong about predictions on one level, though.
On a broad brush scale you can make pedictions. Both backwards in time and looking off to other worlds/environments.
Looking back through geology hypothesis can be formed and fossils found to either falsify or bolster the hypothesis.
Hence finding Tiktaalik being a successful bolstering of the theory.

If there's a planet with liquid water (Or, technically any life bearing liquid) then you will have things that look like fish.
If the atmosphere is dense enough you'll have flying critters.

What those fish looking things willactually be? That we can't guess at, hence my comment about a crustacean shaped like an Orca.

Now.. about that critter which can discern things about its surroundings and react to such while not using the eyes that it has (Though it's still using its brain).

Cheers.

Not at work.

Well the backwards in time predictions is what I'm saying or looking for. Which is why pointing at plants, for example, doesn't do much for the conversation unless we're predicting that there were plant-like ancestors in our evolutionary lineage; or predicting how plants can evolve eyes, if they ever do.

As to the jellyfish. I guess to summarize what I've said in the past, I'm not concerned with the specific components that organisms have or don't have; I'm not saying a brain is needed to survive or eyes to sense the environment. So again, we have to insert the jellyfish into a talk about evolution for my OP to apply. For example, how jelly fish evolved, or how they can evolve to something like our system.

---

Maybe it just so happens to be the case that "vision" is a bit of a loaded term. And it just so happens that eyes and brains aren't necessary for a "living" detection of, and reaction to, stimuli.

For humans, part of the definition for that word "vision" involves the perception of what you see, and we require the eyes for sensing and the brain for perceiving. For jellyfish and other such simple organisms, it's a different story. And for other organisms, other different stories. It's not so clear cut black or white, after all.

Right, I know people don't intend it this way but it almost becomes strawman-ish to talk about other unrelated species. I can understand the argument they're trying to make, just not entirely how it applies. I'm comfortable sticking with the term vision because that is what I want to focus on, vision as it applies to humans. Dawkins' video is an account of how human (or human-like) eyes evolved. So staying within our evolutionary history, and our anatomy and physiology, helps solve issues of communication somewhat.