Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)

[John 6IX Breezy]

The eye, for most species, is a relatively simple structure compared to the internal mechanisms that transform its sensory information into something perceivable. When it comes to evolution, the emphasis is usually on the eye rather than on vision (see video below). My primary concern with the typical narrative for the evolution of the eye, is that it only tells half the story. There are three things which, at the very least, need to co-evolve in order for there to be any positive evolutionary change in vision: Sensation, Perception, and Behavior. Sensation refers to the sense organ (eye); perception refers to whatever systems processes the sensory information (brain); and behavior refers to the output the organism aims to accomplish with this information. An eye that evolves through the stages presented by Dawkins, without simultaneously evolving the neural accessories for processing that information, and the behavioral capacity to make use of that information, should not be able to experience the types of selective pressures that allows for its evolution.

In other words, Dawkins' narrative (which I believe he recounts in one of his books) focuses on the sense organ exclusively, as if it evolved in isolation. My concern is that the narrative is too simple, to the point of being misinforming.




 

[BryanS]

The eye, for most species, is a relatively simple structure compared to the internal mechanisms that transform its sensory information into something perceivable. When it comes to evolution, the emphasis is usually on the eye rather than on vision (see video below). My primary concern with the typical narrative for the evolution of the eye, is that it only tells half the story. There are three things which, at the very least, need to co-evolve in order for there to be any positive evolutionary change in vision: Sensation, Perception, and Behavior. Sensation refers to the sense organ (eye); perception refers to whatever systems processes the sensory information (brain); and behavior refers to the output the organism aims to accomplish with this information. An eye that evolves through the stages presented by Dawkins, without simultaneously evolving the neural accessories for processing that information, and the behavioral capacity to make use of that information, should not be able to experience the types of selective pressures that allows for its evolution.

In other words, Dawkins' narrative (which I believe he recounts in one of his books) focuses on the sense organ exclusively, as if it evolved in isolation. My concern is that the narrative is too simple, to the point of being misinforming.

Same tired, old "irreducible complexity" arguments with new dressing. You creationists just don't learn.

[Anomalocaris]

The eye, for most species, is a relatively simple structure compared to the internal mechanisms that transform its sensory information into something perceivable. When it comes to evolution, the emphasis is usually on the eye rather than on vision (see video below). My primary concern with the typical narrative for the evolution of the eye, is that it only tells half the story. There are three things which, at the very least, need to co-evolve in order for there to be any positive evolutionary change in vision: Sensation, Perception, and Behavior. Sensation refers to the sense organ (eye); perception refers to whatever systems processes the sensory information (brain); and behavior refers to the output the organism aims to accomplish with this information. An eye that evolves through the stages presented by Dawkins, without simultaneously evolving the neural accessories for processing that information, and the behavioral capacity to make use of that information, should not be able to experience the types of selective pressures that allows for its evolution.

In other words, Dawkins' narrative (which I believe he recounts in one of his books) focuses on the sense organ exclusively, as if it evolved in isolation. My concern is that the narrative is too simple, to the point of being misinforming.




 

Gotcha!

No, didn’t get you?, but I gotcha here!


No, not here?, ok, ok, gotcha there!

Not there either, well, gotcha anyway!

[Amarok]

The eye, for most species, is a relatively simple structure compared to the internal mechanisms that transform its sensory information into something perceivable. When it comes to evolution, the emphasis is usually on the eye rather than on vision (see video below). My primary concern with the typical narrative for the evolution of the eye, is that it only tells half the story. There are three things which, at the very least, need to co-evolve in order for there to be any positive evolutionary change in vision: Sensation, Perception, and Behavior. Sensation refers to the sense organ (eye); perception refers to whatever systems processes the sensory information (brain); and behavior refers to the output the organism aims to accomplish with this information. An eye that evolves through the stages presented by Dawkins, without simultaneously evolving the neural accessories for processing that information, and the behavioral capacity to make use of that information, should not be able to experience the types of selective pressures that allows for its evolution.

In other words, Dawkins' narrative (which I believe he recounts in one of his books) focuses on the sense organ exclusively, as if it evolved in isolation. My concern is that the narrative is too simple, to the point of being misinforming.




 

Same tired long refuted crap

---

This is  almost as bad as that one women who came here trying to use a study she claimed refuted common descent by scientist who clearly accept evolution and don't think the study did that .

[LostLocke]

Still bringing up the same old eye shit?
You didn't read the explanations at AR, so you come here in another "gotcha" attempt?

For those unawares, he ran around Atheist Republic with a raging hard on for the "impossible" evolution of the eye, and the rest.... well that's what you see here in this thread.

[Peebothuhlu]

The eye, for most species, is a relatively simple structure compared to the internal mechanisms that transform its sensory information into something perceivable. When it comes to evolution, the emphasis is usually on the eye rather than on vision (see video below). My primary concern with the typical narrative for the evolution of the eye, is that it only tells half the story. There are three things which, at the very least, need to co-evolve in order for there to be any positive evolutionary change in vision: Sensation, Perception, and Behavior. Sensation refers to the sense organ (eye); perception refers to whatever systems processes the sensory information (brain); and behavior refers to the output the organism aims to accomplish with this information. An eye that evolves through the stages presented by Dawkins, without simultaneously evolving the neural accessories for processing that information, and the behavioral capacity to make use of that information, should not be able to experience the types of selective pressures that allows for its evolution.

In other words, Dawkins' narrative (which I believe he recounts in one of his books) focuses on the sense organ exclusively, as if it evolved in isolation. My concern is that the narrative is too simple, to the point of being misinforming.




 

Hello!

Your post is interesting.

Have you seen any of the videos where the formatoin of the eye is discussed/talked about?

Also, of note, is that there are about a dozen different 'Eye' type organs in evidence amongst the various animals of the world today.

So... the organ has not only eveolved/developed. Different phila (Family?) of critters have evolved/developed thier organs through different paths over time.

Cheers.    

Not at work.

[John 6IX Breezy]

@Amerok

Are you able to elaborate? 
Given that I'm new and you're a veteran, wouldn't you agree that a short response explaining where I'm wrong is more useful than one labeling it as old?
Hmm.

---

Still bringing up the same old eye shit?
You didn't read the explanations at AR, so you come here in another "gotcha" attempt?

For those unawares, he ran around Atheist Republic with a raging hard on for the "impossible" evolution of the eye, and the rest.... well that's what you see here in this thread.

Wouldn't you agree that a topic I'm very familiar with is a good way to test out a new and unfamiliar forum? Of course.

[Amarok]

Are you able to elaborate?

Yes but being a veteran has shown me why I should not bother 

Given that I'm new and you're a veteran, wouldn't you agree that a short response explaining where I'm wrong is more useful than one labeling it as old?

No being a veteran has shown me that calling it old then moving on is far more useful to me .

[John 6IX Breezy]

No being a veteran has shown me that calling it old then moving on is far more useful to me .

I fail to see how it is useful to you. You're investing energy into a post merely to announce that you will not be investing energy into it. Seems counterintuitive; benefiting neither of us.

[Amarok]

Wouldn't you agree that a topic I'm very familiar with is a good way to test out a new and unfamiliar forum? Of course.

Nope