The problem Gxg is that this is NOT macro-evolution. These colors are not the survival of the fittest. They are not change based upon species-perceived necessary mutation.
They changed because of intelligent design.
Of course colors are not survival of the fittest, ABM. The point, of course, is that gradual changes over time are a build up of rapid changes that DO happen with survival of the fittest. Happened even with human kind when it comes to certain features taking more dominance over another as time went on and the previous features were eradicated (with lighter skinned Blacks becoming more dominant in many places as interracial mixtures occurred.
And this is what other believers for evolution have noted: It is NEVER outside of Intelligent Design or God's guiding hand, as God sustains everything in the existence of the universe and nothing (be it humans in some places developing the technology to make guns/conquer one area or certain animals surviving during an environmental shift whereas others die off) is not done without Him being in control since it takes Him animating all of existence as it does what He designed it to do (Hebrews 1)- with random mutations being under his guidance and only appearing random to us. It's art to God and designed, whereas to us it seems random - in the same way the JPG would seem like it came out of nowhere unless you realized there was a Designer....and of course, there are tecnhiques where machines also have colors mixed at random and they do change in degrees over time. No need for caricatures....or placing words in my mouth/others.
I see design clearly when it comes to the facts of creation - a
s do others in the world of science (Stephen Myers, Francis Collins of the Human Genome project, etc.).
I'm glad for other believers such as Francis Collins (who was the head of the Human Genome project) who broke the issue down:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGu_VtbpWhE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPxGnN7RV1Y
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EoS-OG7R5cM#t=13
And outside of that, I do agree with others such as Michael Behe of
Darwin's Black Box - even though I have reservations. When it comes talk about evolution in Behe's context, he's about disproving Darwin's evolution , which is what he feels the atheist has embraced. Of course, even Behe was noted for having given SUBSTANTIAL room to those in the camp of Evolution whenever saying that things had to somehow have an Artistic hand behind it all.
But his work is very substantial. Very reasonable/understandable info on some parts, as it relates to discussing the problems associated with macroevolution at the level of biochemistry and molecular biology. The author of the book disagrees with the concept of macro-evolution and used the example of the formation of the blood-clot to make his case.
The argument for irreducible complexity goes that with blood clotting, we still have factors involved that have no other reason to exist in the chain prior to when they are applied in a very complex chain. ..with others thinking that we're still at a point today where all the factors involved would have had to have "dropped into place suddenly" for this complex function to even exist. Others also feel that this does not even mention the possibilities that the AMOUNTS of the factors need to be near perfect, or the whole does not function as desired. With the bleeding factor, others have argued that the bleeding would destroy the clot; the clot would occur in a closed system and stop blood flow...and thus, for many, On and on are the detriments of a system that is not quite perfect and they conclude that with a non-perfect system, the host dies and does not get a chance to mutate to something more useful. In their minds, it simply could not have evolved and had to have had a guiding hand.
I myself disagree on some points with the arguments aforementioned. For with the author of "Darwin's Black Box", the author (Behe ) was docked for over-simplifying/not presenting incorrectly what Darwin said in many of his views at some points...if keeping up with the many debates on the matter. Many within Intelligent Design communities EMBRACE Darwin's views of evolution since much of it was never a matter of God not existing AND Thus its a caricature to say that Darwisn' evolutionary views go against the Creator fully. For Intelligent Design does not go counter to Evolutionary thought...unless dealing with Secular Evolutionary thought.
With Darwin, even he was open to the reality that not all things in Evolutionary theory could explain complex occurrences. For in his work "Origin of Species", Darwin argued that biological life forms arose via descent with modification. And this is something that Miller docked Behe on when bringing up example in chapter 5 of his book with existing animals such as starfish and sea cucumbers that have a simpler blood-clotting mechanism, contending that they prove the viability of intermediate forms...amd that things are not as Behe stated where in certain things, if one component is missing, all breaks down.
Kenneth Miller gave a WONDERUL explanation of the issue elsewhere---as seen in
"Life's Grand Design"( )
And for others you can go online/look up:
And as Darwin wrote at length on the human eye in the 6th chapter called "Difficulties on Theory", marveling at its complexity:
Organs of extreme perfection and complication. To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree. Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real.
Again, I have some disagreements with others thinking that blood-clotting is something that could not have involved God utilizing "Evolution".
Where I stand, considering all that we deem to be random in the cosmos....if it really is God intervening, then what we see as random, God sees as not random. And in addition, this is so because He is directly causing it.
With Irreducible complexity, as it is the concept promoted by proponents of Intelligent Design, stating that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved from simpler, or "less complete" predecessors, through natural selection acting upon a series of advantageous naturally-occurring, chance mutations. , natural selection can lead to complex biochemical systems being built up from simpler systems, or to existing functional systems being recombined as a new system with a different function. If God is behind it all, the artistic design makes sense...
Going alongside that is the reality of how the author of "Darwin's Black Box" used the mousetrap as an illustrative example of his concept ...for a mousetrap consists of five interacting piecesthe base, the catch, the spring, the hammer and the hold-down bar.
And all of these must be in place for the mousetrap to work, as the removal of any one piece destroys the function of the mousetrap. With this in mind, the author asserted that biological systems required multiple parts working together in order to function....and because of this, it was assumed that natural selection could not create from scratch those systems for which science is currently unable to find a viable evolutionary pathway of successive, slight modifications, because the selectable function is only present when all parts are assembled.
To me, what Behe said would make sense
.....if we served a God who is limited to doing things in sequence only. But as He turned WATER to wine, multiply Bread, make FISH Coins appear in the mouths of Fishes, turn the rivers of the Nile to Blood, Strike the Ground/make Gnats like He did in the Exoudus saga --and can do practically anything---saying that all things cannot be made from "scratch" seems a stretch.
For with evolution, one must keep in mind the reality of miraculous acts of creation, And within scientific terms, its not impossible either. Especially as it concerns rearranging matter and making crazier things from simpler ones. In example, Biologist Kenneth R. Miller challenged Behe's claim that the mousetrap is irreducibly complex...as seen in his 2008 book "Only a Theory"
Miller observed that various subsets of the five components could be devised to form cooperative units, ones with different functions from the mousetrap and so, "in biological terms, could form functional spandrels before being adapted to the new function of catching mice." As seen in pp. 5455 in his book, Miller recounted how one of his classmates..:
struck upon the brilliant idea of using an old, broken mousetrap as a spitball catapult, and it worked brilliantly....It had worked perfectly as something other than a mousetrap....my rowdy friend had pulled a couple of parts --probably the hold-down bar and catch-- off the trap to make it easier to conceal and more effective as a catapult...[leaving] the base, the spring, and the hammer. Not much of a mousetrap, but a helluva spitball launcher....I realized why [Behe's] mousetrap analogy had bothered me. It was wrong. The mousetrap is not irreducibly complex after all
That made alot of sense when reading it. With the Blood Clotting issue, I know others have disagreed with Behes stance since one of the clotting factors that Behe listed as a part of the clotting cascade was later found to be absent in whales, demonstrating that it is not essential for a clotting system...and many other purportedly irreducible structures can be found in other organisms as much simpler systems that utilize fewer parts. These systems, in turn, may have had even simpler precursors that are now extinct.
Be it with the example of Blood-Clotting...or other complex things like the Human Eye..so complex that others doubt it couldn't have just come out of nowhere "randomly", God's hand involved always makes the difference. Lets assume that evolution is totally random. To we , who are fallible humans, it is completely random. But to God it's completely non-random..as He may've orchestrated something with a grander scheme in mind. And in our own terms, when He does do something we cannot explain, its a miracle. Where I stand, considering all that we deem to be random in the cosmos....if it really is God intervening, then what we see as random, God sees as not so "random".
Conveying in words what many of the scientific minds do often is a bit difficult--so if cool, here are some articles I think others would be interested in...if investigating/researching them under their respective titles:
And on a side note, in the event it wasn't clear, I want to be clear on what is meant by the term "Intelligent Design". For in the event you're unaware, most people assume that anything even remotely using the phrase "Intelligent Design" automatically equates to one saying they're against evolution...and that may be more so due to how often the phrase has been hijacked by others for that purpose. Where there may be a need for clarity is on how "Intelligent Design" can have differing conotations, just as it is with the concept of Evolutionist...as seen in those who are SECULAR evolutionists/humanists and Theistic Evolutionist......for there's diversity within the camp. From the "National Center for Science Education" is an article you could investigate for yourself entitled
"The Creation/Evolution Continuum" . Additionally, for peer-reviewed papers supporting Intelligent Design, one can go online and look up the ministry of "God and Science", under the name of
Evolution vs. Design: Is the Universe a Cosmic Accident or Does it Display Intelligent Design?
It saddening whenever it seems that people may assume "Intelligent Design" is to be equated to one thing. The truth is that there are large numbers of working biologists who do believe in God and in divine creation, while at the same time believing evolutionary theory. In example, one can go online and look up something under the name of
"Finding Darwins God: a scientists search for common ground between God and evolution" by Kenneth R Miller
(BTW, so glad to see that it was a .JPG and that you didn't spend the time to go in and change those colors by hand. Whew!!!)
That would take way too much time
