Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)

[Nay_Sayer]

Argyle, Crew Length, Wool, Knee-High

[Amarok]

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 useful to you. You're investing energy into a post merely to announce that you will not be investing energy into it. Seems counterintuitive, but such is your right.

It is useful and takes far less energy too cut through the BS and simply state your wrong and your idea's have long been refuted then spending hours potentially days in futile back and forth of explaining to you why your wrong and don't understand what your talking about only to have you repeat the same failed points over and over. Thus it's not counterintuitive and yes it is my right . This will be my last comment here.

[LostLocke]

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.

[John 6IX Breezy]

It is useful and takes far less energy too cut through the BS and simply state your wrong and your idea's have long been refuted then spending hours potentially days in futile back and forth of explaining to you why your wrong and don't understand what your talking about only to have you repeat the same failed points over and over. Thus it's not counterintuitive and yes it is my right . This will be my last comment here.

The sad part is that nothing I said is controversial or even wrong. It is not uncommon for veterans to hear the sound of firecrackers and assume they are bullets.

[The Valkyrie]

Complexity.

The eye.

Bees.

Obvious design.

Check mate, evolutionaries.

[Abaddon_ire]

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.

What a load of old bollox. How do you account for species that have evolved to dispense with vision altogether? Even though they previously had vision?

[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.

 

Hmmm...okay, lets try this again.

First, I disagree that any part of an organic being is just "A relatively simple structure." whether you compare parts on one creture with various parts of the same crature or comparing parts of one creature with various parts of another.

Again, I ask if you've seen the various vidoes that succinctly detail the possible path through which gradual change might bring about an organ whos funciton is vision?

Cheers.

Not at work.  

[Nakara]

https://www.nature.com/articles/eye2017226

A long read, but this might help you understand the subject a lil better @OP.

[downbeatplumb]

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.




 

What makes you think it didn't evolve the neurons and behaviour? 
Do you think only one thing evolves at a time? 
can you be that ill informed? 
uneducated or delusional?

Are you American? Because that would explain it.

[John 6IX Breezy]

https://www.nature.com/articles/eye2017226

A long read, but this might help you understand the subject a lil better @OP.

I found the paper to be insightful and a useful reference. However, it also mostly emphasizes the evolution of the eye rather than of vision, which is what I find problematic in Dawkins account. That being said, the paper does seem to acknowledge in parts that there is more to the story than the eye. For example, it mentions in puzzlement that Dinoflagellates have no brain; but perhaps most importantly it mentions this towards the end of the paper:

"Trichromacy requires more than the necessary visual photopigments in the cones and cone concentration; the neurologic mechanisms to interpret and compare these signals must be in place as well. This adds further evidence to the principle that the eye (and other sensory mechanisms) drives the brain and not the reverse. Either the two must evolve in tandem, or the sensory mechanism evolves first and co-opts other neurologic machinery."

That last sentence mirrors what I said in the OP (and which has been called bullocks by other users): that the eye must simultaneously evolve the neural accessories for processing and implementing the sensory information. That said, I find the alternative explanation they presented to be very interesting: "the sensory mechanisms evolves first and co-opts other neurologic machinery." The reason why this is interesting is because developmentally we see the opposite in humans. The retina emerges and extends from the brain, not the other way around.

The claim that the eye evolves first and the brain follows also makes me wonder how they believe the inverted retina that produces the blind spot emerged. In modern vertebrates this inversion is a result of, precisely, the retina emerging from the brain during development.