The Fossil Record Proves Speciation, Not Evolution of Lifeforms Observed

[DogmaHunter]

When you are wrong, you are wrong. Learn from it, dont double down.

This.

A thousand times this.

And then some.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Very well stated principles of blind evolution course. "Great Creative Powers" is given to Evolution by most Evolutionists. You present their dreamland principle well!

You mean, "you present the strawman we creationists like to put up, very well"

 

[stevevw]

So what if it is? That is how science proceeds.

I agree. At least you are willing enough to acknowledging that the standard evolutionary synthesis including natural selection is being questions. Some do not even want to acknowledge that.

 

[Speedwell]

I agree. At least you are willing enough to acknowledging that the standard evolutionary synthesis including natural selection is being questions. Some do not even want to acknowledge that.

Of course it's being questioned; everything in science is subject to being questioned and no one is denying it. Again, that's how science works. But the way you go on it's as if EES was being offered in complete opposition to the standard model and even in opposition to methodological naturalism itself. That is what we are not "acknowledging" because it is fatuous nonsense.

 

[stevevw]

Citation required.

Natural selection on acts on what has been produced by other forces and cannot create anything. The paper I posted below talks about developmental processes being more responsible for producing patterns on Moth wings. As apposed to random mutations that produce random shapes the moths or any creatures own developmenal system may produce certain shapes or features more readily than others and circular ones seem to be more prominent in many different living things. So there is probably some natural attunement to these patterns rather than random mutations trying to find the right patterrns in thousands of possibilities. The paper below covers this with development bias.

So when a moth develops an eye-like pattern on its wings, it actually intentionally creates the pattern? How does the moth do that? You've been very vague here. Why don't you go into more detail? Do you have any sources from reputable scientists that discuss this concept?

No, please refer to the above reply. Here is a paper supporting this.
https://lalandlab.st-andrews.ac.uk/files/2015/08/Publication209.pdf

This statement shows a great ignorance of what evolution actually is.

Not really, this is something that people who support evolution have said. It is a very accurate description of how natural selection works as mentioned above natural selection only acts on what variety has been produced and has nothing to do with producing anything. In fact it was a prominant scientist who coined the name random mutations in Hugo De Vries who first mentioned this.

Whence “Arrival of the Fittest”?
Whence “Arrival of the Fittest”?

Nice cut 'n' paste. How about you just post a link instead of copying great slabs of text?

Sorry, I guess I am used to people ignoring links so I post the relevant section that applies to the question asked. In this case it was about how certain features like eye spots on wings can be produced through development processes.

 

[stevevw]

Of course it's being questioned; everything in science is subject to being questioned and no one is denying it. Again, that's how science works. But the way you go on it's as if EES was being offered in complete opposition to the standard model and even in opposition to methodological naturalism itself. That is what we are not "acknowledging" because it is fatuous nonsense.

Hum, I think it is not as straightforward as this. I have had someone state that the papers I was posting were not even questioning natural selection and I believe that this is a common reaction when these topics are mentioned. It seems there are prominent supporters of evolution and a large portion of the public who only understand evolution through an overstated ability of natural selection. This seems to be a common theme in several papers who talk about the evidence that challenges the standard theory. ie

The vast majority of biologists engaged in evolutionary studies interpret virtually every aspect of biodiversity in adaptive terms.
The frailty of adaptive hypotheses for the origins of organismal complexity. - PubMed - NCBI

This comes from some prominent scientists like Dawkins who gets high media exposure and promotes the creative power of selection to be able to to do almost anything. As Lynch as stated often at the expense of the other forces of evolution. Though some have mentioned that there are other influences supporters have denied their importance and relegated these influences to the sidelines. So it is not as black and white as you say. Sometimes there is resistance and people want to protect the status quo because they have a lot invested in it.

My experience on this site for a number of years is that I have never heard a supporter of evolution state that there are any other forces involved or mention anything about the EES. When asked how certain features or behaviours have come about such as the patterns on moth wings they have always gone to great lengths to explain how natural selection produced it even though they cannot show any direct support for this.

Considering the possible influence these additional forces have and the amount of credit given to selection if the EES and other things mentioned prove correct then it will have a drastic effect on how we understand evolution and diminish Neo-Darwinism. Many of the supports of the EES are saying it is not just about adding some additional influences to the current theory but reconceptualizing it and replacing it.

 

[Brightmoon]

You’ve never heard anything about the other processes of evolution on this site mainly because most posters on here don’t even understand middle school science and evolution is really a graduate degree subject ( mainly because of the breadth of scientific knowledge needed to study it.)

 

[stevevw]

Is it? How come the scientific community, you know - the people that actually do the science, seems to be unaware of this?

How scientists question, dispute the modern theory comes in many forms. It does not have to be a direct challenge but can come in the many papers and articles that may mention how the modern theory is finding it hard to account for what we see and it is happening gradually. Plus if you deny it is happening then you will n

LOL!
Thanks for the laugh. I guess.

Maybe this is a sign of how you don't look for the evidence or cannot see it because you have a narrow view and only regard the adaptive view as relevant. The call for the modern theory to be expanded comes from other areas besides biology and some of these other influence happen to fall under my academic background. So this shows your willingness to deny these other influences and the academic support and anyone who supports them.

But it is not a fallacy to discard your nonsense due it being rooted in sheer ignorance on evolution theory.

You are coming in on an ongoing conversation with someone else. The point my academic background is more related to the EES and it seems that some want to reject any other qualification if it's not directly involved with what Neo Darwinism says. So I am not ignorant of evolution and perhaps have a more comprehensive understanding than most. The fallacy is that some want to reject certain qualifications because they do not suit their understanding.

 

[stevevw]

You’ve never heard anything about the other processes of evolution on this site mainly because most posters on here don’t even understand middle school science and evolution is really a graduate degree subject ( mainly because of the breadth of scientific knowledge needed to study it.)

I have not even seen a mention of these things from those with academic backgrounds. As the paper I posted states it is the evolutionary biologists who see everything in adaptive terms. They are the ones who then present a narrow view of evolution to the rest. It is also funny how the only peoples credentials are questioned are those who challenge the standard consensus.

 

[Brightmoon]

Most creationists don’t have a middle school understanding of of basic science and you want to claim that scientists who deal with evolution don’t understand their main field of study ?!?! Or are you saying that scientifically literate people on a general public website don’t understand your unique take on evolution. I’m not sure, because in either case you’re wrong about us understanding you and you’re wrong about scientists understanding their field.

 

[Kylie]

Natural selection on acts on what has been produced by other forces and cannot create anything. The paper I posted below talks about developmental processes being more responsible for producing patterns on Moth wings. As apposed to random mutations that produce random shapes the moths or any creatures own developmenal system may produce certain shapes or features more readily than others and circular ones seem to be more prominent in many different living things. So there is probably some natural attunement to these patterns rather than random mutations trying to find the right patterrns in thousands of possibilities. The paper below covers this with development bias.

So in other words, the patterns that the moth develops on its wings are a developmental process? Sure, I have no problem with that. But it's the adult moth that goes flapping about with those wings, and that's when nature selects them based on whether they give a reproductive advantage to the moth or not. If the pattern that formed during development makes the moth more obvious, then it will get picked off by predators sooner and is unlikely to pass on the genes for such a pattern to any offspring. If the pattern that formed during development makes the moth LESS obvious, then it has a higher likelihood of passing those genes on to offspring.

Do you disagree with this? Because this is called NATURAL SELECTION. You seem to think that if something happens during development, then it can't be called natural selection. That is wrong.

No, please refer to the above reply. Here is a paper supporting this.
https://lalandlab.st-andrews.ac.uk/files/2015/08/Publication209.pdf

Well, you said, "In other words, the eye patterns are produced as eyes and don't have to go through a hit and miss process of trying to evolve a useless blotch into a specific eye pattern. Natural selection may then refine this as to the best eye patterns that will be more useful."

This sure sounds to me that you are saying that the moth decides it wants some pictures of eyes on its wings so it makes some eye pictures and then natural selection puts the finishing touches on. This is completely false.

Not really, this is something that people who support evolution have said. It is a very accurate description of how natural selection works as mentioned above natural selection only acts on what variety has been produced and has nothing to do with producing anything. In fact it was a prominant scientist who coined the name random mutations in Hugo De Vries who first mentioned this.

Whence “Arrival of the Fittest”?
Whence “Arrival of the Fittest”?

Your article about who first used the term isn't really relevant to the discussion.

Natural selection DOES explain how the fittest animals come to be.

In every population, there are many individuals, each of them having different traits. These traits might give them some advantage which helps them survive long enough to reproduce. Of course, there will also be some individuals with traits that give them some disadvantage as well, and these individuals are more likely to die sooner and thus we will find that they don't produce as many offspring. And some variations will give neither advantage or disadvantage.

Since the individuals with the advantageous traits are more likely to survive longer, they are more likely to produce more offspring, because they have a longer lifespan in which to produce these offspring. These offspring will carry genes from their parents, and thus they are likely to carry the genes that conferred the advantageous traits on their parents. Since one individual with an advantageous trait can pass this trait on to many offspring, we will see the percentage of the population that carries this advantageous trait increase over several generations. So, if there is only a single individual with the advantageous trait in generation 1, by the time we get to generation 20, we could expect to see that the majority of the individuals carry this trait. And it is also quite possible that the least fit individual of generation 20 is still fitter than the fittest individual of generation 1, since fitness would increase over time as advantageous traits spread throughout the population and harmful traits are removed from the population.

Now, it is the random variations (very small variations, it must be said) that produce new traits. We could say, continuing your moth example, that a certain species has brown wings with a white spot in the center, and a random mutation is responsible for the addition of a black spot in the middle of the white spot, making it look more like an eye and thus making it better at scaring off predators. This new trait came about by random mutation. But it is natural selection that will allow the genes for this trait to spread throughout the population. To say that natural selection is of little importance is simply not true. Natural selection is the process by which natural pressures that face a population determine which traits are more likely to be passed on and which aren't.

Sorry, I guess I am used to people ignoring links so I post the relevant section that applies to the question asked. In this case it was about how certain features like eye spots on wings can be produced through development processes.

Yes yes, we agree that traits form during development. But the passage you cut'n'pasted seems to be suggesting that, going back to the moths again, that there is some environmental influence that acts on the moth as it is developing (either in the egg or in the chrysalis) that will encourage the production of an eyespot on the wings because it will be affected by that eyespot.

Honestly, isn't that like saying that if I squirt a cat with water from a spray bottle, then it will change that cat's eggs or sperm so it will be more likely to have offspring with a water repellent coat?

 

[stevevw]

Natural selection has zero "creative" power, since it doesn't create anything. It filters.

I never said it had any creative power. I said that some who support evolution think or give it great creative power especially those who are claimed to have the knowledge. Dawkins being one of the main offenders.

That makes no sense.
//Points at all the evolutionary biologists, geneticists, etc that are also theists and who accept mainstream evolution theory by consensus.

That's the problem they accept the standard theory because it is the consensus and do not question it. There is a difference with non-theists and theist in how they see evolution in that they believe that God installed some sort of blueprint in life or at the very least see evolution as a guided processes from God. That implies design and therefore there are more guided processes in evolution.

Whereas non-theists will try to attribute everything to naturalistic processes even if there is no support. That is why ideas like Natural selection have been given more and more ability over time as we discovery exactly how complex and varied life is and find that the standard evolutionary theory is becoming inadequate to account for what we see.

Such as?
And don't forget to explain your examples. Mere assertions aren't interesting nor convincing.

I have already explained this in the previous posts. Such as changes that come from the way creatures grow and develop. Through development bias, plasticity, niche construction, epi-genetics, HGT, symbiosis, extra genetic influences. Living things are influenced by their surroundings in give and take relationships that have an effect on them and how genes are expressed. Natural selection may come in later and refine what has already been produced.

What is produced is not just the result of random mutations but from processes that produce certain well suited outcomes that help life adapt to changing environments. Living things are affected by their environment, their experiences and the relationships with others and this influences the development process by turning on and off certain genes or how genes are expressed.

Living things also have the ability to change form without changing genes (plasticity) so they can fit into environments or change their environments which will also affect others around them. This process is very active and not passive where all living things and their environments affect each other and this has an influence on the status of living things and how they change. It takes a holistic view rather than the isolated and narrow view of adaptive evolution.

As one paper states
We hold that organisms are constructed in development, not simply ‘programmed’ to develop by genes. Living things do not evolve to fit into per-existing environments, but co-construct and co-evolve with their environments, in the process changing the structure of ecosystems.

Particularly thorny is the observation that much variation is not random because developmental processes generate certain forms more readily than others3. For example, among one group of centipedes, each of the more than 1,000 species has an odd number of leg-bearing segments, because of the mechanisms of segment development3.

This ‘niche construction’, like developmental bias, means that organisms co-direct their own evolution by systematically changing environments and thereby biasing selection7.
Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

Why?

These mechanisms would have to have been around from the beginning as they have also produced certain forms such as all the major body plans. There are only a small set of amino acids which all life is build from.

So far, you have only been asserting this.

Not really, if life has these abilities to produce certain outcomes that help them adapt and survive then this does not rely on a process that is random and self creating but puts the mechanisms as part of life itself. The question is how did life get these abilities. Supporters of evolution want to attribute everything to a self creating process where simple can create complex to account for what we see. Maybe life has always been complex in some way and has more ability to influence things. They are both assertions as evolution has never verified its claims of how life has evolved complexity.

That makes no sense and hints towards you not actually understanding what natural selection (and by extension, evolution) is really all about.

I understand natural selection. Put simply it is the creatures that are better adapted to their environments that will survive and reproduce. The surviving populations get to pass on their genes. My statement speaks more about what others have claimed about natural selection at the expense of other forces mentioned above. This gives selection more ability than it has and makes it seem as though it can easily produce the right stuff when along with random mutations it is hit and miss.

What explanation singles out natural selection as being the sole "cause" of what, exactly?

Take the eye for example. The standard explanation is that the skin patch turns into a complex eye with a few simple explanations of how this happens by selection picking out the logical working steps. When in reality there are 100s of complex steps many needing several parts working together at the same time. This makes out selection can easily build an eye when no one has ever explained or supported this in the other 99% of steps needed to do this.

 

[Brightmoon]

he I never said it had any creative power. I said that some who support evolution think or give it great creative power especially those who are claimed to have the knowledge. Dawkins being one of the main offenders.

That's the problem they accept the standard theory because it is the consensus and do not question it. There is a difference with non-theists and theist in how they see evolution in that they believe that God installed some sort of blueprint in life or at the very least see evolution as a guided processes from God. That implies design and therefore there are more guided processes in evolution.

Whereas non-theists will try to attribute everything to naturalistic processes even if there is no support. That is why ideas like Natural selection have been given more and more ability over time as we discovery exactly how complex and varied life is and find that the standard evolutionary theory is becoming inadequate to account for what we see.

I have already explained this in the previous posts. Such as changes that come from the way creatures grow and develop. Through development bias, plasticity, niche construction, epi-genetics, HGT, symbiosis, extra genetic influences. Living things are influenced by their surroundings in give and take relationships that have an effect on them and how genes are expressed. Natural selection may come in later and refine what has already been produced.

What is produced is not just the result of random mutations but from processes that produce certain well suited outcomes that help life adapt to changing environments. Living things are affected by their environment, their experiences and the relationships with others and this influences the development process by turning on and off certain genes or how genes are expressed.

Living things also have the ability to change form without changing genes (plasticity) so they can fit into environments or change their environments which will also affect others around them. This process is very active and not passive where all living things and their environments affect each other and this has an influence on the status of living things and how they change. It takes a holistic view rather than the isolated and narrow view of adaptive evolution.

As one paper states
We hold that organisms are constructed in development, not simply ‘programmed’ to develop by genes. Living things do not evolve to fit into per-existing environments, but co-construct and co-evolve with their environments, in the process changing the structure of ecosystems.

Particularly thorny is the observation that much variation is not random because developmental processes generate certain forms more readily than others3. For example, among one group of centipedes, each of the more than 1,000 species has an odd number of leg-bearing segments, because of the mechanisms of segment development3.

This ‘niche construction’, like developmental bias, means that organisms co-direct their own evolution by systematically changing environments and thereby biasing selection7.
Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

These mechanisms would have to have been around from the beginning as they have also produced certain forms such as all the major body plans. There are only a small set of amino acids which all life is build from.

Not really, if life has these abilities to produce certain outcomes that help them adapt and survive then this does not rely on a process that is random and self creating but puts the mechanisms as part of life itself. The question is how did life get these abilities. Supporters of evolution want to attribute everything to a self creating process where simple can create complex to account for what we see. Maybe life has always been complex in some way and has more ability to influence things. They are both assertions as evolution has never verified its claims of how life has evolved complexity.

I understand natural selection. Put simply it is the creatures that are better adapted to their environments that will survive and reproduce. The surviving populations get to pass on their genes. My statement speaks more about what others have claimed about natural selection at the expense of other forces mentioned above. This gives selection more ability than it has and makes it seem as though it can easily produce the right stuff when along with random mutations it is hit and miss.

Take the eye for example. The standard explanation is that the skin patch turns into a complex eye with a few simple explanations of how this happens by selection picking out the logical working steps. When in reality there are 100s of complex steps many needing several parts working together at the same time. This makes out selection can easily build an eye when no one has ever explained or supported this in the other 99% of steps needed to do this.

You want detailed info on how stuff like limbssnd eyes develop. You need to ask a developmental biologist like PZ Myers . He has a blog at Scienceblogs where he explains that giving the genetic details . I’m quite sure this is going to ignored by the pseudoscience crowd . PZ has a blog at Freethought blogs too . That’s not the one. I usually just type PZ in google and they both show up . The name of both blogs is Pharyngula

Developmental biologists know this stuff but you creationists like to pretend that they don’t . Pretend is the operative word here along with denial

 

[Brightmoon]

The genetic details about how spots and stripes develop has also been worked out by developmental biologists

 

[VirOptimus]

I never said it had any creative power. I said that some who support evolution think or give it great creative power especially those who are claimed to have the knowledge. Dawkins being one of the main offenders.

That's the problem they accept the standard theory because it is the consensus and do not question it. There is a difference with non-theists and theist in how they see evolution in that they believe that God installed some sort of blueprint in life or at the very least see evolution as a guided processes from God. That implies design and therefore there are more guided processes in evolution.

Whereas non-theists will try to attribute everything to naturalistic processes even if there is no support. That is why ideas like Natural selection have been given more and more ability over time as we discovery exactly how complex and varied life is and find that the standard evolutionary theory is becoming inadequate to account for what we see.

I have already explained this in the previous posts. Such as changes that come from the way creatures grow and develop. Through development bias, plasticity, niche construction, epi-genetics, HGT, symbiosis, extra genetic influences. Living things are influenced by their surroundings in give and take relationships that have an effect on them and how genes are expressed. Natural selection may come in later and refine what has already been produced.

What is produced is not just the result of random mutations but from processes that produce certain well suited outcomes that help life adapt to changing environments. Living things are affected by their environment, their experiences and the relationships with others and this influences the development process by turning on and off certain genes or how genes are expressed.

Living things also have the ability to change form without changing genes (plasticity) so they can fit into environments or change their environments which will also affect others around them. This process is very active and not passive where all living things and their environments affect each other and this has an influence on the status of living things and how they change. It takes a holistic view rather than the isolated and narrow view of adaptive evolution.

As one paper states
We hold that organisms are constructed in development, not simply ‘programmed’ to develop by genes. Living things do not evolve to fit into per-existing environments, but co-construct and co-evolve with their environments, in the process changing the structure of ecosystems.

Particularly thorny is the observation that much variation is not random because developmental processes generate certain forms more readily than others3. For example, among one group of centipedes, each of the more than 1,000 species has an odd number of leg-bearing segments, because of the mechanisms of segment development3.

This ‘niche construction’, like developmental bias, means that organisms co-direct their own evolution by systematically changing environments and thereby biasing selection7.
Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

These mechanisms would have to have been around from the beginning as they have also produced certain forms such as all the major body plans. There are only a small set of amino acids which all life is build from.

Not really, if life has these abilities to produce certain outcomes that help them adapt and survive then this does not rely on a process that is random and self creating but puts the mechanisms as part of life itself. The question is how did life get these abilities. Supporters of evolution want to attribute everything to a self creating process where simple can create complex to account for what we see. Maybe life has always been complex in some way and has more ability to influence things. They are both assertions as evolution has never verified its claims of how life has evolved complexity.

I understand natural selection. Put simply it is the creatures that are better adapted to their environments that will survive and reproduce. The surviving populations get to pass on their genes. My statement speaks more about what others have claimed about natural selection at the expense of other forces mentioned above. This gives selection more ability than it has and makes it seem as though it can easily produce the right stuff when along with random mutations it is hit and miss.

Take the eye for example. The standard explanation is that the skin patch turns into a complex eye with a few simple explanations of how this happens by selection picking out the logical working steps. When in reality there are 100s of complex steps many needing several parts working together at the same time. This makes out selection can easily build an eye when no one has ever explained or supported this in the other 99% of steps needed to do this.

Man, you are seriously just rambling.

The eye? We know how that evolved. Learn the basics.

Your religion is showing, as is your ignorance on even basic science.

 

[Brightmoon]

I have not even seen a mention of these things from those with academic backgrounds. As the paper I posted states it is the evolutionary biologists who see everything in adaptive terms. They are the ones who then present a narrow view of evolution to the rest. It is also funny how the only peoples credentials are questioned are those who challenge the standard consensus.

evolutionary biologists have to have an understanding of geology, paleontology detailed anatomy of the lineage they study, basic anatomy of lineages they don’t study, radiodating , geochemistry biochemistry , taphonomy, genetics and statistics. What makes you think that “ evolutionists” as you call them don’t understand the processes of evolution. By the way I was given to understand that evolutionist is a job title in Britain not an veiled insult

 

[Speedwell]

My experience on this site for a number of years is that I have never heard a supporter of evolution state that there are any other forces involved or mention anything about the EES. When asked how certain features or behaviours have come about such as the patterns on moth wings they have always gone to great lengths to explain how natural selection produced it even though they cannot show any direct support for this.

Wrong. Absolutely wrong. I am sufficiently familiar with the "evolution supporters" on this site to be able to state with confidence that they have said no such thing. Natural selection does not "produce" anything, it selects from what has already been produced. It selects from randomly distributed variants in the species population. A number of scientists believe that the mechanism which produces that variation is more complex than previously supposed. That's all.

 

[stevevw]

Saying a designer designed life is pseudoscience. You see patterns and you think that they need to be designed by something or someone. Snowflakes are patterned but they aren’t designed.

I think there is a distinction between design and natural processes that may result in something that looks designed. Erosion will never create a distinct design where you can definitely say it had some intelligence behind it as compared to a rock sculpture.

A snowflake is not a totally random shape. It is the result of underlying mathematical laws of physics. The basic hexagonal shape conforms to physical laws and the branches may be subject to a range of conditions associated with water molecules, temperature, air pressure and many other factors. Research is still ongoing, but it may turn out that there is also underlying rules which the entire snowflake follows.

The interesting thing is research shows that the intricate branching of snowflakes is similar to how dendrites extend out from nerve cells. So just like eyespots seem to conform to certain shapes in living things and other patterns we see that follow certain numbers or shapes there may be a bias in development and nature that is predetermined by some underlying law or code. Naturalistic influences like natural selection may come in over the top of this and refine things but the basic forms seem to follow some sort of pre-set rules.

Snowflake Growth Successfully Modelled from Physical Laws
Snowflake Growth Successfully Modeled from Physical Laws

On the Modelling of Snowflake Growth Using Hexagonal Automata
https://math.mit.edu/research/highschool/primes/materials/2014/Li-Jessica.pdf

There is a pattern to living organisms as well. We refer to that pattern as the tree of life and we understand that every organism is kin to every other organism on it. We normally call that pattern evolution/ common descent.

That is right, but it is not necessarily showing Darwinian evolution. There are a lot of other factors that go into the tree of life. In fact, some prominent scientists say it is not a tree of life but a forest of life as there are other influences such as HGT and symbiosis and influences mentioned in the EES can also produce similarities that do not originate by genes.

Even so this does not discount there being some underlying laws of codes that govern things. This would make sense in that all living things follow a similar basic code of life and all the additional variation can derive from a basic toolkit which would link all life together and back to that code for life.

That pattern evolved ultimately out of the chemical structure of a few elements (Abiogenesis) even though that chemical structuring is not part of evolution.

That is an unsupported claim and an impossible claim to verify. Scientists cannot account for how life began nor how simple life evolved from that very simple start of life into more complex life. Just because scientists can break down and understand the components of something does not mean that this is also how it actually came together. I think this is the big assumption.

Belief in a deity has very little to do with science. As I’ve stated before I’m quite comfortable with natural phenomena being, well, natural.

I agree and that is why I am focusing on processes rather than any supernatural creation.

 

[stevevw]

You want detailed info on how stuff like limbssnd eyes develop. You need to ask a developmental biologist like PZ Myers . He has a blog at Scienceblogs where he explains that giving the genetic details . I’m quite sure this is going to ignored by the pseudoscience crowd . PZ has a blog at Freethought blogs too . That’s not the one. I usually just type PZ in google and they both show up . The name of both blogs is Pharyngula

Developmental biologists know this stuff but you creationists like to pretend that they don’t . Pretend is the operative word here along with denial

I have read PZ Myers stuff before. I get my info from researching indpendent sources. Though I respect PZ Myers qualifications I am a bit skeptical of him as he is also known for rideculing and dismissing people with religious views and being rigid in his views about evolution.

 

[stevevw]

Wrong. Absolutely wrong. I am sufficiently familiar with the "evolution supporters" on this site to be able to state with confidence that they have said no such thing. Natural selection does not "produce" anything, it selects from what has already been produced. It selects from randomly distributed variants in the species population. A number of scientists believe that the mechanism which produces that variation is more complex than previously supposed. That's all.

Well, that has been my experience and you cannot know what I have experienced on this site. Nevertheless, it is also the lay people who believe this and they must have learnt this from somewhere. If they have not then it only shows how it is easy to assume things with evolution. As Lynch mentions
Evolutionary biology is treated unlike any science by both academics and the general public. For the average person, evolution is equivalent to natural selection, and because the concept of selection is easy to grasp, a reasonable understanding of comparative biology is often taken to be a license for evolutionary speculation.
The frailty of adaptive hypotheses for the origins of organismal complexity

It is not just that the variation is more complex but that it may be more biased to produce certain types of variation. This then brings up the point why are certain features produced over others and points to a non-random process. In fact, there is support for non-random mutations providing evolutionary change. I understand natural selection does not produce anything. But the way some present it as with Dawkins and his book the Blind Watchmaker it causes people to think selection can easily create intricate and biological complexity equivalent to a watch from a blind process.

This is often at the expense of other forces that are more responsible. If there are processes that produce certain features like the eyespots on moth wings which prove to be a benefit then it is easier for selection to set that feature in populations. So it means the process is not so blind and more directed.