Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)

[The Grand Nudger]

Evolutionary development and fetal development aren’t the same subject.

In humans, broadly, our brain, spine, and nervous system develops first....but none of these things are even remotely close to the oldest adaptations that make us what we are. There is no rule stating that organs and structures have to develop according to the temporal order of their evolutionary emergence.

What’s being referred to, with the brain following the eye, is that if you have an eye, a brain that can extract more information from that eye is advantageous.

[GUBU]

<bullshit>

You do realise, idiot, that the "what good is half an eye?" argument was debunked by Darwin himself. We actually have a pretty good handle on how and why eyes have evolved and continue to evolve amongst animal species. It's not actually hard to figure out that something which gives you a huge advantage to start with and improved that advantage at each stage it improved has come to be.

[notimportant1234]

This thing comes after I just saw a dude comparing evolution with dog breeding in a lab. Most of them don't realize that saying, "God did it", is not an explanation.

[John 6IX Breezy]

Evolutionary development and fetal development aren’t the same subject.

In humans, broadly, our brain, spine, and nervous system develops first....but none of these things are even remotely close to the oldest adaptations that make us what we are.  There is no rule stating that organs and structures have to develop according to the temporal order of their evolutionary emergence.

What’s being referred to, with the brain following the eye, is that if you have an eye, a brain that can extract more information from that eye is advantageous.

So we agree that there would be a disconnect between the two; that the way the eye develops would, in fact, be opposite to the way it evolved? I'm fine if there's no rule constricting the embryonic development of the eye to the temporal order of its evolutionary emergence. However, if such is the case then you (or evolutionary biologists) would need to account for the structural discrepancies between the two orders. For example, at what point in our evolution did the retina become inverted? Or at what point did the eye go from a folding of light-sensitive cells in the exterior surface of the organism, to a folding of neural matter (brain) within the organism that makes its way to the surface?

[GUBU]

@Amerok

Are you able to elaborate? 

Read.

[The Grand Nudger]

Eyes predate central nervous systems.

This is a general comment. It’s the existence of an eye that provides useful information that a creature with a brain will experience as a selective pressure on their brain.

The pressure being to capture more of that potential information. This isn’t a one way relationship, ofc. Every alteration of each structure (and others) can be the impetus of alteration for the other.

Put simply, having an eye makes having a “better” brain more useful, and having a better brain makes having a better eye more useful.

We think that the earliest eyes were directly attached to motor cells. Such that light shining on that cell caused a creature to move. We think that the earliest CNS were networked motor cells. This is what’s meant by eyes coopting existing nervous systems and their functions.

[John 6IX Breezy]

<bullshit>

You do realise, idiot, that the "what good is half an eye?" argument was debunked by Darwin himself.  We actually have a pretty good handle on how and why eyes have evolved and continue to evolve amongst animal species.  It's not actually hard to figure out that something which gives you a huge advantage to start with and improved that advantage at each stage it improved has come to be.

The issue with sensory organs is that they are there to inform or guide behavior. Given that perception is a highly interpretive process, possessing "half an eye" as you call it, will most likely lead to behaviors that are disadvantageous. Now its worth mentioning that I consider something to be "half an eye" when it is compared to the rest of that organisms structures, not when compared across organisms. So I wouldn't label phototaxic bacteria as having "half an eye" because they come equipped to adequately transform that information into movement. There is a balance of structure there, despite its minimal composition.

[GUBU]

Argyle, Crew Length, Wool, Knee-High

At first I was going to ask if you were having a stroke. Then for a split second I wondered if *I* was having a stroke.
But..... now I see what you did there.

Hey, a good sock these days is hard to find.

---

Complexity.

The eye.

Bees.

Obvious design.

Check mate, evolutionaries.

[notimportant1234]

You do realise, idiot, that the "what good is half an eye?" argument was debunked by Darwin himself.  We actually have a pretty good handle on how and why eyes have evolved and continue to evolve amongst animal species.  It's not actually hard to figure out that something which gives you a huge advantage to start with and improved that advantage at each stage it improved has come to be.

The issue with sensory organs is that they are there to inform or guide behavior. Given that perception is a highly interpretive process, possessing "half an eye" as you call it, will most likely lead to behaviors that are disadvantageous. Now its worth mentioning that I consider something to be "half an eye" when it is compared to the rest of that organisms structures, not when compared across organisms. So I wouldn't label phototaxic bacteria as having "half an eye" because they come equipped to adequately transform that information into movement. There is a balance of structure there, despite its minimal composition.

Soo you are saying that having bad vision is worse than beeing blind?

[GUBU]

You do realise, idiot, that the "what good is half an eye?" argument was debunked by Darwin himself.  We actually have a pretty good handle on how and why eyes have evolved and continue to evolve amongst animal species.  It's not actually hard to figure out that something which gives you a huge advantage to start with and improved that advantage at each stage it improved has come to be.

The issue with sensory organs is that they are there to inform or guide behavior. Given that perception is a highly interpretive process, possessing "half an eye" as you call it, will most likely lead to behaviors that are disadvantageous.

Half an eye is better than no eye, idiot.

For example, worms with patches of skin that distinguish what direction the sun is shining from do better than those without. They know when they've hit the surface of the soil for one thing, and can burrow themselves back into the ground. This is a classic example of half an eye being better than no eye.

To quote Darwin:

To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real.

Now go back to AIG and wallow with your fellow cretinists, or learn what evolution actually is. Stop bothering us with your nonsense.