So, there's no question about the science of it.

[gluadys]

I think that a reasonable formal way to state this challenge is: can you show that out of all possible random evolutionary paths that begin from a simple eye-spot, there is not one single one that would culminate in the eye designs we see today?

A person cannot swim across the Atlantic because he/she would run out of energy. But what does the natural selection mechanism "run out of" so that it cannot reach the modern eye design?

Thanks, that is a good way of formulating it.

Another consideration to keep in mind is that in an evolutionary scenario we are not dealing with just one "swimmer", but with generation after generation of "swimmers". So the analogy would be more like a relay in which a fresh swimmer replaces the one who has reached the point of exhaustion. That way, even human swimmers could swim the Atlantic.

 

[Smidlee]

A person cannot swim across the Atlantic because he/she would run out of energy. But what does the natural selection mechanism "run out of" so that it cannot reach the modern eye design?

Hall's experiments with E.Coli has shown natural selection is fact does "Run out of energy" in a matter of speaking. Natural selection only comes into play if there's just a few mutation from a benefit gene. In another words natural selection doesn't come into affect in you are about at the coastline. natural selection is powerless (no energy) throught large neutrel mutation gaps where total randomness is the guide. Another example would see natural selection as Micheal Jordon who can dunk a basketball still can't jump over the Grand Canyon and a lot of small jumps won't cut it. Most evolutionists doesn't deny that natural selection is very limited. As it been said natural selection is all about "survival of the fittest" and doesn't explain the "arrival of the fittest." So evolutionist is missing their mechanism that's suppose to flying across between huge mutations gaps.

 

[gluadys]

Hall's experiments with E.Coli has shown natural selection is fact does "Run out of energy" in a matter of speaking. Natural selection only comes into play if there's just a few mutation from a benefit gene. In another words natural selection doesn't come into affect in you are about at the coastline. natural selection is powerless (no energy) throught large neutrel mutation gaps where total randomness is the guide. Another example would see natural selection as Micheal Jordon who can dunk a basketball still can't jump over the Grand Canyon and a lot of small jumps won't cut it. Most evolutionists doesn't deny that natural selection is very limited. As it been said natural selection is all about "survival of the fittest" and doesn't explain the "arrival of the fittest." So evolutionist is missing their mechanism that's suppose to flying across between huge mutations gaps.

I think any evolutionist will grant that natural selection is not the only mechanism that creates changes in the frequency of alleles from one generation to another. The simple fact that of those born in any generation only a sub-set will go on to become parents means there is a 'selection' of alleles that will be passed on to the next generation, but this 'selection' is not based on better adaptation.

It is also well-known that in small populations this random selection, known as genetic drift, may have a greater impact than classical natural selection, which is based on fitness.

Gene flow, bottlenecks and founder's effect are other ways in which allele frequences can be changed more or less at random as well.

Then there is the impact of assortative mating aka sexual selection.

So, agreed, natural selection is not the only game in town.

What I think ID is overlooking is that all these other forms of changes in allele frequency can help in crossing the "ocean" as well.


I also think we spend too much time assessing whether or not a gene is beneficial. Strictly speaking genes are not harmful, neutral or beneficial. They only become so in relation to a particular environment. And the environment changes. This is analogous to the coastline changing so that the width of the ocean varies.

 

[shernren]

I'm not sure how you are showing that a single leap from eye-spot to mammalian eye cannot be resolved into a few thousand small hops from eye-spot design A to eye-spot design B to ...

In your Michael Jordan analogy, there is no safe path by small hops across the Grand Canyon. Most of these paths end in an abrupt brutal death at the bottom. But I have not seen any evidence that there is a similar limiting mechanism of evolution. The only one I can think of is that any out-branchings will belong in the same taxon of the ancestral species, which poses no problem to common descent.

 

[Smidlee]

I'm not sure how you are showing that a single leap from eye-spot to mammalian eye cannot be resolved into a few thousand small hops from eye-spot design A to eye-spot design B to ...

In your Michael Jordan analogy, there is no safe path by small hops across the Grand Canyon. Most of these paths end in an abrupt brutal death at the bottom. But I have not seen any evidence that there is a similar limiting mechanism of evolution. The only one I can think of is that any out-branchings will belong in the same taxon of the ancestral species, which poses no problem to common descent.

what mechanism of evolution are you referring to? What? random and genetics drifting which is suppose to be the results of all the complexities we see around us? It's make be possible that the eye evolved randomly no matter how bad the odds are (Even with this the scientist still had no idea how it evolved geneticly) yet to say this randomness produce all the complexities in madness. Complex organs are not the exception but the norm in nature. Evolution matches perfectly with the story of "The Emperor new Clothes" which deals with human nature.The wise men in the story of course knew better yet they would rather go along than to be called a fool yet it's was a child that proclaimed the obvious.

 

[gluadys]

what mechanism of evolution are you referring to? What? random and genetics drifting which is suppose to be the results of all the complexities we see around us? It's make be possible that the eye evolved randomly no matter how bad the odds are (Even with this the scientist still had no idea how it evolved geneticly) yet to say this randomness produce all the complexities in madness. Complex organs are not the exception but the norm in nature. Evolution matches perfectly with the story of "The Emperor new Clothes" which deals with human nature.The wise men in the story of course knew better yet they would rather go along than to be called a fool yet it's was a child that proclaimed the obvious.

Why is it madness? We know complex organs are the norm. But we don't know of any mechanism other than evolution which will produce this complexity. And I don't know of any reason why it cannot produce this complexity. I don't know what odds you are referring to, since all the odds I have seen re evolution from IDists or creationists simply miss the point at so many levels they are worthless.

Show me why the intermediate steps cannot exist, and you may have something. But proclaiming unbridgeable gaps that are not there gets us nowhere.