FcOULD nATURAL sELECTION REALLY pRODUCE THE cOMPLEX eYE WE hAVE?

tHINKING ABOUT NATURAL SELECTION AS dAWKINS PRESENTS IT IN THE EXAMPLE OF THE EYE, IF i'M REACLLING THT ARGUMENT CORRECTLY.  tHE FACT THAT THERE ARE ALL THE PARTS OF A VERY COMPLEX EYE OF THE SORT WE POSSESS SCATTEROUED AROND THE TEAXONIMC TRE, AVARIOUS FUNCTIONS OF IT SHOWING UP IN DIRRFERENT CREATURES, NTHOUGH NOT IN ANY LINEAGE FROM ONE TO ANNOTHER OR TO OUR OWN EYE./.  tHE ARGUMENT IS THAT IF ALL THE PARTS ARE THERE IN NATURE, ALTHOUGH SCATTERED AS THEY ARE, THIS IN ITSELF IS SOME IIND OF EVIDENCE THAT THE EYE EVOLVED THROUGH ALL THOSE FUNCTIONS TO THE CURRENT COMPLEX EYE WE POSSESS.  wHILE IT IS AN INTERESTING PLAUSIBILITY, IF YOU TRY TO APPLY NATURAL SLEECTION TO EACH PHASE IT RAISES FAR MORE QUESTIONS THAN IT ANSWERS.

fIRST OF ALL, TO BE SELECTED, A TRAIT MUST BE PRESENT.  iN A CREATURE POSSESSING A PARTICULAR FUNCTION IT'S BEEN WELL ESTABLISHED ALREAYD , LAREADY SELECTED AS IT WERE AND PUT INTO ITS USEFUL PLACE IN THE ORGANIZSM.  aSSUMING THE EVOLUTIONARY EXPLANATION OF COURSE.    bUT TO GET TO THE NEXT PHASE OR STAGE TOWARD THE COMPLEX SYSEYE AS dAWKINS PUTS THE PICTURE TOGETHER REQUIRES THAT THAT NEXT PHASE COME UP PRESENT IN THAT ORGANISM.   bUT HOW IS IT GOING TO COME UP.  tHROUGH MUTATION?  mUTATION OF WHAT?  mUTATION IS AN AERROR IN REPLICATION OF THE dna, RIGHT?  wHICH GENE IS GOING TO BE MISREPLICATED AS IT WERE TO PRODUCE THIS NEW FUNCTION?  tHE ONE THAT CODES OF RTHE TRAIT THAT PREDCEDES IT IN THIS SUPPOSED PROGRESSION THROUGH THE SGTAGES TO MODERN COMPLEXITY?  bUT THAT WOULD DESTROY THAT TRAIT.  sO IT HAS TO OCCUR IN A DIFFERENT GENE.  tHE GENE HAS TO BE THERE ARE ALREADY WHATEVER IT IS.  wHAT ELSE IS THERE FOR MUTATION TO WORK ON?   iT WOULD HAVE TO CODE FOR SOMETHING ALREADY ATTACHED TO THE EYE TOO.  iT ISN'T GOING TO DO ANY GOOD TIF A GENE FOR SAY THE EAR PARTS GOT MUTATED INTO THIS NEW PHASE IN THE EYE EVOLUTION, WOULD IT?  sAY THE NEW SEQUENCE OF CHEMICALS THAT MUTATIONJ PRODUCED REALLY DID GIVE A BETTER LENS OR WHATEVER THE NEW PHASE OF THE EYE SHOUILD BE, IT WOUDLN'T HELP UNLESS IT WAS A GENE THAT ALREAYD JOINED WITH THE OTHER GENES THAT BULD THE EYE.  bUT WHAT GENE COULD BE SPARED FOR THAT PURPOSE?   hOWE OFTEN DOES dna COME UP WITH A GRANAD NEW GENE?  i THINK IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE POSSIBLE ALTHOUGH HARD TO IMAGINE THAT A WHOLE NEW SEQUENCE OF THOUSANDS OF CHEMICALS WOULD JUST INSERT ITSELF BETWEEN A COUPLE OTHE GENES WHERE IT HAPPENS TO BE NEEDED , OR MIGHT TURN OUT TO BE USEFUL,AND HOW DOES THAT HAPPEN ANYWAY?

sO THEN LET'S SAY YOU GET THIS NEW FUNCTION IN THE RIGHT PLACE AND SO ON,  IT WOULD HAVE TO BE IN SOMETHING LIKE A HUMAN BRING OR SOMETHING CLEARLY PRECURSOSR TO THE HUMAN BEING AND NONE OF TEH XAMPLES IN THE SCATTERED COLLECTION OF EYE FUNCTIONS IS IN THAT LINEEAGE.  iT ISN'T GOING TO HELP IF IT SHOWS UP IN SAMY THE OCTUPOUS CLAN SINCE  ALTHOUGH THE OCTOPUS MIGHT BENEFIT FROM A BETTER EYE IT ISN'T GOING TO GET US TO THE EYE dAWKINS HAS IN MIND.

i USUPPOSE i'M GEING NAIVE OR SILLY IN SOME WAY BUT i'M REALLY SERIOUSLY TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW SELECTION WOULD DO THE JOB dAWKINS SAYS IT DOES.  

aS i WAS ARGUING RECENTLY, VARIATION OCCURRS IN THE GENOME ITSELF AS ALREADY CONSTITUTED, IT DOESN'T WLRK ON SOMETHING NEW BECAUSE THERE'S NO WAY FOR SOMETHING RULY NEW TO OCCUR, UNLESS YOU MEAN THE OCCASIONAL SUPPOSELY GENEFICIAL MUTATIONJ.  aGAIN IT WOULD HAVE TO BE A KTUATION IN   aGAIN IT WOULD HAVE TO BE MUTATION IN A GENE ALREADY PART OF THE EYE, SO LET'S GET THAT SAID.  

ok, i GIVE UP.  iT SORTA COUNDS GOOD AS THEORY BUT IN PRACTICAL REALITY IT JUST CAN'T HAPPEN.  aND i DON'T THIJK dAWKINS EVENCAME CLOSE TO SUGGESTING HOW IT COULD, HE JUST KEEPS MARVELING OVER THE SEEMING UTILITY OF NATURAL SELECTION FOR THE PURPOSE.

wELL, GO BACK TO dARWINS DOMESTING BREEDING FOR A MOEMTN.  hE GOT SOME DRAMATIC CHANGES IN HIS PIGEONS BY SELECTING THEM FOR PARTICULAR TRAITS.  THE TRAITS WERE ALREAYD THERE, HE SIMPLY PICKED THEM AND MATED THEM WITH OTHERS WITH THE SAME TRAIT.     iS THIS EYE FUNCTION THAT FOLOLOWS WHATEVER STAGE OF EYE A PARTICULAR CREATURE HAS ALREADY PRESENT?  HOW COULD IT BE?  

i GUESS i HAVE TO GIV P AGAIN.  i'M SURE dAWKINS CAN MANIPULATE ALL THIS TO MAKE IT SEEM PLAUSIBLE FOR HIS CASE BUT i THINK THAT'S THE BEST HE CAN DO.  i DON'T THINK IT'S POSSIBLE IN REALITY AT ALL.

hERE'S HOW VARIATION REALLY WORKS IN REALITY.  tHE VARIATION IS A VARIATION ON SOMETHING THAT IS ALREADY PRESENT, A DIFFERENT EYE COLOR ON THE EYE COLOR GENE, A DIFFERENT FUR TEXTURE ON THE FUR GTEXTURE GENE AND SO ON.  IT'S A FUNCTION THAT IS ALREADY THER EIN THE GENOME AND DOESN'T HAVE TO BE MADE NEW.  THAT IS OF CORUSE THEY THINK INSIST ON MUTATION SINCE IT DOES COMPLETELY CHANGE AHTE SEQUENCE OF THE GENE CODE, USUALLY FOR THE WORSE WHICH THEY DON'T  BOTHER TO MENTION, OR TO NO PURPOSE AT ALL SINCE NOTHIHJG CHANGES IN THE PHENPOTYPE, BUT IF SOMETHING NEW REALY WERE TO HAPPEN THAT'S THE ONLY WAY IT COULD BECAUE NORMAL VARIATION VARIATION IS JUST AN ALTERNATIVE EXPRESSION OF SOMETHING AHT IS ALREAYD PRESENT IN THE ANIMAL'S COLLECTION OF CHARACTERISTICS.  

wE HEAR A LOT OF THEORY ABOUT HOW MUTATION COULD HAPPEN AND GET SELECTED AND SO ON BUT IT REMAINS THEORY.  YES IT DOES, IT NEVER BECOMES FACT.

Later  Don't think I got it said vey clearly, not sure I can do better now, but 

Domestic breeding, Darwin's pigeons etc., just works on traits that rae already pret in the animal, whih can be greatly enlarged by repeated breeding of the same trait.  this is what happened with the pod mrcaru lizards.  and wht happened with Darwin's exaggerated chests in pigeons.  

And from there the idea of natural selection took off.  

The problem is that evolution requires new traits, not the preexisting traits that Darwin and other breeders work with.  Something tht does not occr in the genome of the species,  brand new gene etc.

Mutation changes an existing gene.  Some traits are apparently coded for by may genes working together.  How is that oging to happen?  It's rare enough to get one useful mutation, but many in a number of different genes and the right kind and so on, no.

besides how is theis really something new?  Changing the sequence in a n existing gene doesn't change what that gene normally produces, it just varies how it produces it, or tomething fairly superficial in its appearance.  You mgith get a new color on the fur color gene but surely it would be a change in the fur color and onot some other function, just fur color.    How do you get a new function from a mutation of a preexisting gene?  

I haven't run awcross an answer to these quetsions anywwhere.  maybe it's out thre somewhere but I doubt it.  Dawkins seems content to point out tht natural selection seems to be a viable mechanism for change in an organis without addressing these questions, change yes but Darwin didn't get any changes outside the given trait already present in the organism, but evolution requries that.   You can't select a gtrait that isn't in the genome, nd there doesn't seem to be any way to bring abour a really new trait in an organism.  Mutation isn't going to accomp,.luish that, it's jut going to vary an existing trait at lbest.

Etc Etc Etc.