Hi, Robert.
Robert Byers writes:
The 'intermediate' eyes are in fact totally suitable mechanisms for seeing for these types of creatures Darwin talks about.
This seems indicative of a total misconception about what evolution is.
According to the Theory of Evolution, animals whose characteristics are not suitable for use in their environment will not be successful. By 'successful,' we mean "survive and reproduce."
So, according to the Theory of Evolution, all the 'intermediate' eyes would
have to be suitable, otherwise the organism's success is not facilitated by them.
What that means is that, not only do populations of organisms evolve gradually, in an irregular series of steps, as it were; but, every 'intermediate' step in the series also has to be viable, functional and, yes, even successful.
-----
Robert Byers writes:
Still my point was that the fossil record,
if possible to record eyes, should be swarming in intermediates and vestigial eyes.
I highlighted the operative phrase for you. I don't personally know of
any fossils of vertebrates in which the eyes are preserved. Maybe some of the other users here know of some.
Molluscs don't actually fossilize much at all (except for their shells), and arthropods seem to have evolved the basic layout of their eyes almost half a billion years ago, at a time when the fossil record is, in general, very poor.
So, from what I can gather, I don't see how we could realistically expect
anything from the fossil record in regards to the evolution of eyes.
-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.