Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Yes each improvement must provide a stepwise improvement, and it does. There is no overall plan, no design. The complex eye came in small stepwise improvements over many many generations. Not fully formed as we have it today.That's the theory- and I agree that it works very intuitively in a thought experiment- But we have the benefit of anticipation, we can 'preserve' small advantages in anticipation of that future payoff- we spend our lives doing this! But 'nature' cannot- natural selection cannot distinguish between slight benefits and slight disadvantages - and the latter would utterly dominate if left to random mutation.
Of course farmers could not find these supposed "limits". No one has as of yet. Farmers work on a very small time scale. The sort of changes that you seem to think that are needed would actually refute the theory of evolution. In other words you are relying on a strawman.
Yes each improvement must provide a stepwise improvement, and it does. There is no overall plan, no design. The complex eye came in small stepwise improvements over many many generations. Not fully formed as we have it today.
You are right not just random mutation. Selective pressures are not random at all.
What incremental accidental mutations created eyes that would be selectable at every stage?
I am glad you have a well developed sense of critical thinking.So you just need something like the above to spontaneously appear in an individual through random mutation and you're well on your way!
So you just need something like the above to spontaneously appear in an individual through random mutation and you're well on your way!
I am glad you have a well developed sense of critical thinking.
What alternative do you have to the ToE and what critical thinking have you applied to that alternative?
[snip]
Post classical physics- apples still fall from trees, but the once 'immutable laws' no longer represent explanations for physical reality.
[snip]
Physics relies on a lot more information to be provided- determining how development of the early universe, great fusion reactors manufacturing heavier elements- that in turn provided the chemical elements necessary to build life.
[snip]
Oh great, the "irreducible complexity" argument.
Note: The single-celled organisms you cite above are the products of 3 billion years of evolutionary refinement, they do not necessarily represent the state of such features in the ancestors of living creatures.
sorry, I know it's a bit of a tough nut to crack
Yet they are cited as the simplest examples we know of- so I'll ask the question again- even if it requires the imagination more than observed reality:
What might be the steps by which an eye can be created through random mutation, with selectable advantages at every stage?
Yeah, I was wrong about that. I have things to do too. It lasted for 25 million years and took place about 541 million years ago.I just had 'Phred' tell me I didn't care about facts- and then assure me that the Cambrian explosion lasted for 541 millions years!
Again you use some sort of physics analogy for evolution:
What are you claiming about physics? (I don't care about the analogy part.) None of this makes sense.
In Kitzmiller v. Dover the judge didn't find it so very tough at all. Behe tried to present his IC argument and was reduced to admitting his argument was no better than astrology. After he testified suddenly all the other "great names" in creationism found they suddenly had other, more pressing, things to do. He was crucified. The judge in the case, a Republican, stated that, "The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy. With that said, we do not question that many of the leading advocates of ID have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors. Nor do we controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed. As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom." and "The breathtaking inanity of the Board's decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial."sorry, I know it's a bit of a tough nut to crack
Yeah, I was wrong about that. I have things to do too. It lasted for 25 million years and took place about 541 million years ago.
My point was that this "explosion" you folks are always on about lasted for millions of years. You talk as it it was a sudden appearance of life. It was 25 MILLION years.
It was an explosion of many different types of life. Which creationists latched onto as, "LOOK, CREATION!" No, LOOK EVOLUTION!Well I would have let that slide if you hadn't accused me of not being interested in facts
But I do take your point- it's interesting because it seems like yesterday that the argument was '150 million years is not sudden' then '70 million years is not sudden'
I was actually surprised to see 13-25, it was 40 last I checked!
i.e. the trend is that the explosions are getting more explosive, not smoothed out as Darwin's theory predicted- and even if this new maximum (25 my) holds, that's enough to cause secular scientists to propose radiation bombardments to help explain all the 'speed limit' violations of mutation rates necessary - you could argue with them how sudden this was in geological/evolutionary time scales
In Kitzmiller v. Dover the judge didn't find it so very tough at all. Behe tried to present his IC argument and was reduced to admitting his argument was no better than astrology. After he testified suddenly all the other "great names" in creationism found they suddenly had other, more pressing, things to do. He was crucified. The judge in the case, a Republican, stated that, "The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy. With that said, we do not question that many of the leading advocates of ID have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors. Nor do we controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed. As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom." and "The breathtaking inanity of the Board's decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial."
it's not an analogy- life is a literal continuation of chemistry which is a continuation of physics, and they all interact. But scales matter, things (we know now) do operate differently at different scales, the physical reality we still perceive to work in a classical sense, is sandwiched between subatomic physics and physics at a cosmological scale, and all 3 are distinct.
I'm simply saying that the continuing mechanism does not suddenly revert to a Victorian age reductionist model at the point of the first replicator. But it continues to develop according to large amounts of underlying information, instructions v random chance, that's a pretty clear distinction
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?