Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)

[The Grand Nudger]

There is no isolation, no scaffolding, and no “catching up”.

Just like your previous problem being some seeming gap, these are you problems, not problems with evolutionary biology.

[John 6IX Breezy]

At work.

Wait.

Is Mr Breezy now asking how all the different bits of the eye (Though they really should specify which one or 'Type'. Molusc, Insect, Trilobite, Nautilus, Mammal etc so people at least have a ghost of a chance for giving an answer.) came about?

Jus' sayin'.

Yes and no; I am interested in how all the different bits of the eye came about, so long as the rest of the visual system is accounted for. I am interested in the human eye, but don't mind discussing any other's for simplicity.

So in general, I was expecting two different responses from the forum. The first are people arguing that you don't need the rest of the visual system for the eye to evolve, making Dawkins-like narratives good reference. The second are people that agree with me that its misleading and the whole system needs to be accounted for together, and want to present any paper that outlines the evolution of vision not just the eye, or wants to present their own hypothesis of how it happened

Sadly, I didn't realize how shell-shocked the forum would be with religion; so a simple, straight-forward conversation on the evolution of vision has been difficult.

---

No I meant traits literally being carried over to the next generations regardless of their adaptive functions.

So anyway what is the problem then again? Or has your challenge been successfully met?

I think you did a good job of addressing the topic and not straying away even if we disagree on certain things. I basically made this thread to test the forum out and get acquainted with the layout and its members, so there really wasn't a challenge of any kind. Just a simple claim that there's more to the evolution of vision than the eye. 

Hopefully by the end of the week I'll have time to post a thread critiquing evolutionary psychology. I'll present more clear-cut arguments and problems then, along with any supporting references.

[The Grand Nudger]

A simple, straightforward conversation on the evolution of eyes has been made difficult for your inability to contain yourself to facts.

If this situation has been created by your religion, that’s a problem with your religion. If, however, this situation is wholly your own responsibility, it’s a you problem.

At no point does this become a problem for evolution, or the board’s problem.

Ofc there’s more to vision than eyes, in species that possess the specific “more” you’re referring to, but in species that don’t....there isn’t.

[John 6IX Breezy]

A simple, straightforward conversation on the evolution of eyes has been made difficult for your inability to contain yourself to facts.

If this situation has been created by your religion, that’s a problem with your religion.  If, however, this situation is wholly your own responsibility, it’s a you problem.

At no point does this become a problem for evolution, or the board’s problem.

Ofc there’s more to vision than eyes, in species that possess the specific “more” you’re referring to, but in species that don’t....there isn’t.

I don't understand what you're talking about again.

But let me ask you this then, how can those species that lack "more" get "more?" Take a species of your choosing, and tell me what you think the next evolutionary step should be, if they were to evolve human-like eyes.

[The Grand Nudger]

There aren’t any “next steps”. There is no goal, no destination.

There isn’t even a guarantee that human beings would evolve human like eyes if we wound the clack back and let it go again. We’d simply call whatever has happen “human like”, as we have.

---

If, by “human like” you mean eyes that interact with a central nervous system, we absolutely don’t expect a creature with eyes and no cns to evolve a cns on account of how it has eyes.

There’s no known step or process by which this would occur, things don’t evolve to “get” anything, or more of anything, this is simply not something that we observe happening.

[John 6IX Breezy]

There aren’t any “next steps”.  There is no goal, no destination.

Then this is why that argument isn't useful. Because the forum begins with a discussion on the evolution of human vision (or any visual system that has "more"). So you shouldn't bring up other species with "less" unless you think their mechanisms are in someway analogous to a step in our evolutionary past, or the past of some other visual system with "more"

History already happened. Its written in stone, and we already know what the present end-result of our visual system is. So you should be able to trace the steps from A to B. That's what Dawkins does in his video. If you're not able to do that by pointing to other species that have "less" then what good are they to the discussion?

So take a species with "less," copy paste them into our evolutionary past, and tell me what you think the next step should be.

[The Grand Nudger]

There are no discrete next steps. No goals. There are only so many times and ways this can be explained to you.

Even the idea of “less” is absurd in context. The simplest creatures have just as much ( and sometimes more) evolutionary development under the hood.

[John 6IX Breezy]

There are no discrete next steps.  No goals.  There are only so many times and ways this can be explained to you.

Even the idea of “less” is absurd in context.  The simplest creatures have just as much ( and sometimes more) evolutionary development under the hood.

You're the one that brought the less/more comparison, I'm just rolling with your words lol.

An yes, there are discrete steps; unless you think history changes on us behind our back.

(But I should clarify that by steps I'm talking at the phenotypic level, where selection can occur. I'm not interested in every little genetic mutation that occurred).

[The Grand Nudger]

The only thing remotely close to your persistent destination crutch is that, in species with visual systems which are connected to the nervous system which is connected to motor systems, an abnormality in the nervous system which grants it increased ability to process information -may be- beneficial, and -may be- hereditary. If it is, then we would expect selection to preserve that abnormality.

[brewer]

No way. You are claiming that an evolutionary "destination" exists. Therefore it is your burden to demonstrate such a destination exists. Put up or shut up.

Certainly, given that a destination can be identified by some state of rest, you can observe these states in many difference places. For example, this video of e. coli and antibiotics. Each stage of antibiotic concentration, leads to a new possible or ultimate destination. Some of the bacteria can't go further, because the antibiotics messes with their homeostatic balance, killing the bacteria. Their end state goes only as far as whatever concentration they can tolerate. Other bacteria that are more resistant find their state of rest at a higher concentration. They are in essence pushed there by en excess in the population at lower concentrations, and an absence of population at higher concentration, mixed with the internal adaptation to survive at that concentration. Hope that helps you understand selection and adaptation, and how they result in states of balance.

That one of the more ignorant explanations for micro evolution I've heard.