But evolution isn't random mud-flinging. That's a strawman. So your rejection of evolution on that basis, and your subsequent acceptance of ID, is under false pretenses.
Upvote
0
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.
But evolution isn't random mud-flinging. That's a strawman. So your rejection of evolution on that basis, and your subsequent acceptance of ID, is under false pretenses.I claim that this fact makes it clear to rational thinkers that we are the product of design, not random mud flinging.
You
My point, which appears to have gone over your head, is that an eardrum and anvil are both necessary, along with many other components, in order for us to hear.
Given that evolutionary theory states that beneficial mutations are kept, while wasteful mutations are discarded, it makes no sense that either an anvil, eardrum, etc. would have been created as a mutation and then kept. These multiple components can only be beneficial if they operate as a group, ie. a multi component tool engineered for a specific purpose.
Surprise, surprise:You misread my post, apparently.
You write:
(So, something that was never the case, makes it clear to rational thinkers (cough cough) that we are the product of design?)
My point, which appears to have gone over your head, is that an eardrum and anvil are both necessary, along with many other components, in order for us to hear.
Given that evolutionary theory states that beneficial mutations are kept, while wasteful mutations are discarded, it makes no sense that either an anvil, eardrum, etc. would have been created as a mutation and then kept. These multiple components can only be beneficial if they operate as a group, ie. a multi component tool engineered for a specific purpose.
Yes, mutations are random, but they are acted upon by a non-random agent that is natural selection. That is to say, evolution works by non-randomly weeding out randomly-generated mutations. So, again, evolution is not random despite the fact that it works with randomly-generated building material. Please let go of that tired YEC strawman.(But evolution isn't random mud-flinging. That's a strawman. So your rejection of evolution on that basis, and your subsequent acceptance of ID, is under false pretenses.)
Mutations are random.
I never said they weren't. What I said was that evolution (which is not the same thing as mutation) is not random. Please don't misrepresent me.I'm glad you now concede that mutations are random.
I don't understand what you mean by this. Perhaps you can rephrase. Are you implying that natural selection doesn't happen?Now, given that mutations are random, and natural selection weeds out useless mutations, how do you explain multiple component functions that require a long series of useless mutations?
Yes, very nice.A nice summary on what we know about the evolution of vertebrate eyes here:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/12/evolution_of_vertebrate_eyes.php
I assumed you were referring to evolution because when you made your "mud-flinging" analogy, you quoted my post discussing evolution (no mention of mutation). Moreover, saying we are (or are not) a product of mutation alone (rather than evolution or natural selection) makes no sense whatsoever. No scientist would ever say that. So please forgive me for not reading your mind.You misrepresented me. I think I made my point clearly enough. My mud flinging analogy applied to mutations, you assumed I was referring to evolution.
Michael Behe -- a leading proponent of ID -- seems to think so. He has no problem accepting the fossil and genetic evidence for common ancestry.No. I think natural selection can be well demonstrated in many cases. However, it cannot explain the development of many complex systems.
I asked you to rephrase yourself and you just spat the same thing back out to me.Now, given that mutations are random, and natural selection weeds out useless mutations, how do you explain multiple component functions that require a long series of useless mutations?
Ah. Now I understand what you're talking about when you say "useless intermediary steps." You assume that intermediate component parts maintain the same function throughout their evolution (i.e. "What good is half a wing?). This assumption is wrong.Yes, very nice.
However, this doesn't answer the question of why so many useless intermediary steps survived.
YOu post:I assumed you were referring to evolution because when you made your "mud-flinging" analogy, you quoted my post discussing evolution (no mention of mutation). Moreover, saying we are (or are not) a product of mutation alone (rather than evolution or natural selection) makes no sense whatsoever. No scientist would ever say that. So please forgive me for not reading your mind.
Michael Behe -- a leading proponent of ID -- seems to think so. He has no problem accepting the fossil and genetic evidence for common ancestry.
Regardless, we can see the evolution of the mammalian ear in the fossil record. See the diagram shernren posted earlier. You're welcome to believe that God created each of those jaw systems independently, and in such an order as to just coincidentally appear like gradual evolution. But please don't promote such an ad hoc argument as being more scientifically sound than evolutionary theory. Scientists have dealt with the notion of irreducible complexity and moved on (summarized here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity#Response_of_the_scientific_community).
I asked you to rephrase yourself and you just spat the same thing back out to me.
What do you mean by "multiple component functions that require a long series of useless mutations"? In what way do you think, say, the evolution of the mammalian middle ear requires "useless mutations"?
((What do you mean by "multiple component functions that require a long series of useless mutations"? ))YOu post:
Regardless, we can see the evolution of the mammalian ear in the fossil record.
Are you saying that early mammals could not hear?(I'm not being sarcastic, I just want to understand your point)
No. The derived mammalian ear is simply better at trasmitting sound than the reptilian condition (the latter rely, at least in part, on detecting vibrations in the ground).Are you saying that early mammals could not hear?(I'm not being sarcastic, I just want to understand your point)
Fine.No. The derived mammalian ear is simply better at trasmitting sound than the reptilian condition (the latter rely, at least in part, on detecting vibrations in the ground).
You write:
(Furthermore, you are making a judgment call on "wasteful" mutations. I think you are referring to neutral mutations, ones that have no significant harmful or beneficial effect.)
Not accurate. Any growth requires blood, oxygen, and energy. If this growth serves no purpose, it is not neutral, but negative, if only slightly.
However, it is statistically "impossible" for multiple component biological systems to have come into existence through random mutation or evolution.
Please keep in mind that an perfectly functioning anvil and eardrum are useless for hearing without man other components.
At what point would you concede that design is the more likely explanation for these complex functions?
As I've explained above (post #34), the intermediary stages (what you call "useless mutations") are not useless at all. This assumption is demonstrably false. So I would caution against rejecting evolution on that basis.I find that it does not explain multiple useless mutations that end with the construction of something useful.
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?