The Greatest Show from Darwin to Dawkins. 11- Eye

To the beginning: http://proza.ru/2022/06/26/1108

11. Eye.

I must admit a complete fiasco. No, theory has nothing to do with it, it's all about my mental abilities.
Evolution is a fact, and there can be no two opinions. The theory of the leading role of natural selection is also very beautiful. I think the book "The Greatest Show on Earth: Evidence of Evolution" is to blame for everything. Apparently, Richard Dawkins, for one reason known to him, picked up exceptionally complex examples. They are good, but very difficult. In any case, I have not been able to substantiate their connection with the theory in any convincing way. Of course, if Dawkins or another biology professor had just looked at the difficulties that had arisen, they would have been easily solved.
But what should we do now? Or maybe take a swing at William Shakespeare himself? I mean, Charles Darwin. It can't be that all the examples are as complex as the ones we have already considered.

Let's take at least the classical statement about the evolution of the eye. For the resurrection from memory, and in order not to bother the reader with the search for the cherished quote, I quote again the great words of Charles Darwin:
"The assumption that the eye, with its most complex systems - changing focus to different distances, capturing different amounts of light, correcting spherical and chromatic aberrations-can be formed as a result of natural selection-may seem, as I can easily imagine, largely absurd. Nevertheless, reason tells me: "if it is possible to show the existence of numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to a complex and perfect eye, and each step is useful for its owner, and this is beyond doubt; if, further, the eye has ever varied and variations have been inherited, and this is just as certain; if, finally, such variations could be useful to an animal with changes in the conditions of its life - in this case, the difficulty that arises when thinking about the formation of a complex and perfect eye by natural selection, although insurmountable to our imagination, cannot be recognized as refuting the whole theory."

Rereading these words over and over again, looking at each one, all put together in a non-random way into a certain logical statement, I try to understand it, but for some reason the meaning of the statement escapes.
On the one hand, here we are talking about the inheritance of useful gradations "from a simple and imperfect eye to a complex and perfect eye," on the other, about insurmountable difficulties to imagine this, and on the third, about doubts about the possibility of the eye being formed as a result of natural selection, although insurmountable, but not refuting the theory.
Think about what can prevent natural selection from improving an imperfect eye if it is useful to its owners? It's self-evident! But along with other statements, the general meaning of the quote does not become clearer.
Let's analyze it more carefully.

This quote is an outstanding example of a logical statement in which there is a statement (as if disputed) and the following proof. Omitting the secondary, we leave the bare statement: "the eye ... can be formed as a result of natural selection" and the justification: "the existence of numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to a complex and perfect eye ..."
Didn't it get easier? Then even shorter: "the eye ... can be formed ... from a simple and imperfect eye ...".

It is easy to notice that in the phrase "the eye ... can be formed ... from a simple and imperfect eye ..." there is no more sense than in the assumption that someone or something comes from himself, that someone gave birth to himself, etc.

It is the same as if Sergey Pavlovich Korolev decided to realize his dream of space flights in the following way: instead of creating a rocket, he would tell his colleagues that they just need to take a bad rocket and improve it.
Where can I get something that doesn't exist yet? How to improve what is not yet in nature?

Difficulties of translation or not, but even in such a wonderful book as "The Greatest Show on Earth: Evidence of Evolution" (published in English), no - no, we meet with such logic. And in the arguments about the evolution of turtles and anglerfish, for some reason, an already formed creature, but only slightly underdeveloped, is taken as the beginning of the analysis.

Need to trace the evolution of a turtle?
You are welcome! We take a turtle with a one-sided shell and…

Need to speculate about the origin of anglerfish?
There is nothing easier! We take an angler fish with a bad-looking rod and…

Most likely, this is caused only by the desire not to overload the readers' brains too much. It's just a pity that such simplifications do not bring us one step closer to the truth.


next: http://proza.ru/2022/07/09/1314