Depends on what you mean by coevolution.
Co-evolution is a cop out god did it type answer.
Sorry for not being clear. I meant to request that you define co-evolution as you understand it, so I could adequately address your question.
The ability to sense and react to the surrounding environment.
Light sensitive cells.
Nerve cells
Central Nervous system
Eye pouches
Liquid filled Enclosed Eye pouches
Light reactive "pupil" (this may have formed before the enclosed eye pouches)
Brain
Lens
Differentiated areas of the brain.
Was this process actually observed? If so can this observation be provided so that the rest of us can see it? If not then this is an hypothesized answer. It's just like the video I saw on how the eye evolved. All speculation at best. What was more entertaining was how they some how could also say: This is the sight of each stage of the evolution of the eye. The variable the always forget is the vision center of the brain. If it processed sight the same way sense it started processes. Then this would be a feasible and likely conclusion for sight at each stage. But given that the vision center of the brain is evolving also, the processing of sight was probably much worse which left the life form mostly blind during the whole evolution process of the eye evolving.
No the process was not actually observed. It is deduced from a range of evidence not the least of which is the existence of these different levels of "vision" in living animals on this planet. Since these animals do quite well without all the vision capabilities of humans, it is reasonable to conclude that having a limited capability to distinguish light and shadow provides a survivability advantage over those organisms that are completely blind.
Blood, then blood vessels that functioned to move the blood, then a specialized blood vessel that function as a central pump. Why?...same as above.
So evolution is as easy as baking a pie? Poof there it is?
This seems to be an expression of your incredulity regarding the simple explanation I provided. Could you provide a response with a more applicable critique of what I wrote?
Your reference does not seem to state that the heart hurts when we lose someone near to us. Your chest hurts when under stress because that is an muscular reaction to anxiety. Unless you can show some medical reasearch that indicates the heart is directly connected to our emotions, I am inclined to believe that this is not so. Your whole body reacts to stress...in some situations people lose control of their bladder or rectum. I would not say that this means the bladder or rectum are directly attached to our emotions.
Oh,I forgot. All creationist lie unless an evolutionist confirms it. Most be why science only employs people who believe in their main theory. And fire anyone who may disagree.
This also does not seem to be a substantive rebuttal to what I said. I never said that it was a lie. I had never heard anything about the heart hurting during emotion upheavals and I had heard (and experienced) the effects of stress on the chest area. So, I was not inclined to believe it out of hand. I would think a good rebuttal to my disbelief would be a link or reference to a study that provided evidence in support of this heart hurting effect of emotional down turns. Besides, even if your information was incorrect, it would not necessarily be a lie....a lie is incorrect information provided with the intent to deceive. I never said you intended to deceive me.
Your comment about the firing of creationist believers by evolutionists seems to be a non-sequitur with regards to this particular discussion.
Nice dodge. The wuestion has nothing to do with life forms being able to survive without a heart. It has to do with the heart being able to function properly on the exact day it is needed to sustain life. There are to many variables to the heart to say that it can.
I don't see it as a dodge. Your question implies that the heart can only function in the physical condition that we have in humans. You said, "So how did this muscle evolve, and how did natural selection select it when not one offspring would have survived more than a day without such a muscle?" I provided two examples of organisms, both animals, that do survive more than a day without a heart. This makes your question and qualifying requirements moot, since the heart could have evolved in the descendants of organisms that did not originally have hearts.
Short answer: Because the babies that didn't have that ability never grew up to make babies of their own. The real source of the answer to this lies in the parts of the animal kingdom that are closely related to our common ancestors (in evolutionary theory). Do those animals have the same capabilities or limited amounts of those capabilities?
Using your logic here. The gene that causes this should have already been eliminated, because all babies before the sugery existed to save them would have died. Keeping that gene from being passed on. But that is not what we see now is it?
And I noticed that you skipped the part about the babies heart working as a parallel pump. I guess you did not have an answer to that one.
No, I wasn't specific about that particular mechanism or any of the others for that matter. Do you want me to go over the list of animals related to the possible ancestors of humans and show the variants of this mechanism in them? Should I then provide the conclusions of the biologists in regards to how this particular function likely evolved? It can be done but that would take some time. Additionally, I don't see how this is going to be worth the time. I doubt you would accept the detailed explanation since the biologists "weren't there to see it", and you could just rebut with another question about another "irreducibly complex" system like blood clotting or insulin manufacture. If this is to be an endless line of questioning then maybe you should open a thread on each question and wait until discussion on that is exhausted before opening another thread on another question.
Why do you think that seeing where something has been gives us the ability to tell where it is going to be? Also, this question implies that evolution has a "goal" or a direction. In reality, at this point in time, every extant organism is at the "peak" of the evolutionary tree. They're the ones that made it...the rest weren't "evolved" enough to make it. If the environment had been a little different at the right point in the past, then we might very well have big cats making cars instead of primates.
That does not even work, and you know it. Evolution had nothing to do whether a life form could survive a meteor impact. Because if all of a certain type were to close to impact, they died and became extinct for another reason that has nothing to do with evolution. So your broad answer here does not work.
First of all, the Theory of Evolution is all about the environmental changes' effects on the population of organisms. A meteor impact is an environmental change or causes one. Organism that have traits that help them survive the sweeping changes in the environment win the Meteor-Impact lottery and pass their genes to the next generation. You seem to want to divorce evolution from its driving force, the environment. I don't see how you can adequately discuss a theory if you must remove an element of that theory in order to debate it. From my point of view, it's like discussing gravitation theory without discussing mass.
Second, your mention of the meteor impact scenario had little to do with prediction of where evolution will take us except to maybe provide an example that could be explored.
