Posted: Jun 24, 2014 3:12 pm
by DavidMcC
halucigenia wrote:Come on, admit it, you were making this up all along. :nono:

No, I damn well wasn't! Dawkins reson for publishing the simulation scheme already mentioned was that he saw parallels between them and various actual eye types. The problem was that all except the last were, or could have been, mollusc eyes, whereas the final one was a vertebrate eye (the penultimate being an octopus eye)! The gross structural difference between those last two was masked by the vagueness of the diagrams.

EDIT: In short, I am saying that Dawkins was so keen to show what a "bad idea" the vertebrate eye is, that he failed to realise the big advantages over any invertebrate eye that it had, not withstanding the smaller problems associated with the more complex layout. Loss of vision is a bigger problem than the snags with vertebrate eyes, which are two "expensive" to simply throw away and replace every few years.