Now, to get to the heart of the matter, we need to talk about the irreducible complexity issue by picking something else to which one could apply such arguments. In other words, forget about evolution for a second. Is there any other highly complex system in the world that has come about by diversification, selection, and adaptation such that great complexity has arisen from something simple?
Well, yes. There are many examples, but I'll cut to the chase and name the best example: language.
Charles Darwin himself wrote, in his Origin of Species, that the evolution of the eye by natural selection at first glance seemed "absurd in the highest possible degree". However, he went on to explain that despite the difficulty in imagining it, it was perfectly feasible:
[INDENT]...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.
[/INDENT]He suggested a gradation from "an optic nerve merely coated with pigment, and without any other mechanism" to "a moderately high stage of perfection", giving examples of extant intermediate grades of evolution.
Darwin's suggestions were soon proven to be correct, and current research is investigating the genetic mechanisms responsible for eye development and evolution.
The genetic machinery employed in eye development is common to all eyed organisms. The only unique prerequisite for vision is the use of vitamin-A-related chromophores in the visual pigment, and this is also found in bacteria. Even photoreceptor cells may have evolved more than once from molecularly similar chemoreceptors, and photosensitive cells probably existed long before the Cambrian explosion.[
The eyes of many taxa record their evolutionary history in their "imperfect" design. The vertebrate eye, for instance, is built "backwards and upside down", requiring "photons of light to travel through the cornea, lens, aquaeous fluid, blood vessels, ganglion cells, amacrine cells, horizontal cells, and bipolar cells before they reach the light-sensitive rods and cones that transduce the light signal into neural impulses - which are then sent to the visual cortex at the back of the brain for processing into meaningful patterns."  This reduction in efficiency may be countered by the formation of a reflective layer, the tapetum, behind the retina. Light which is not absorbed by the retina on the first pass may bounce back and be detected.
The camera eyes of cephalopods, in contrast, are constructed the 'right way out', with the nerves attached to the rear of the retina. This means they do not have a blind spot, and their vision is marginally clearer.
No one claims that either the eye or human life popped up overnight by random chance.
If you take what life on earth was like 3 billion years ago, the probability of evolving into humans and tulips and mushrooms and all the life here in this moment is indeed infinitesimally small.
But the probability of making various random small changes in one generation was extremely high. And this has been true for every generation over billions of years. Selective advantages bias the small changes that are preserved versus lost.
You need to extrapolate that concept to the sheer number of organisms, sheer number of generations, and sheer amount of time to understand what evolutionary biologists are talking about.
The eye is the same way, and there are ancestral common forms that are much simpler.
As far as I know modern evolution belief is that changes came more from advantageous mutations rather than small adaptions over immense time spans.
these small changes "might be tiny" forced changes made by a great consciousness, who is interested in his great Petre dish experiment. Maybe there is some great eye looking at us through its equivalent of an electron microscope?
I think at times in a non religious way that there must be a consciousness that is timesless, unlimited by space and you and I receive information in flashes of intuition, in a moment like some sort of osmosis coming directly into our mind. I am sure this has happened to you, you battle with a problem and during sleep eureka you have the solution
Most of the evolutionary change we see in the world is NOT because of selective advantages. It's because of finite population sizes, geographical isolation, and nonrandom mating. If you have 1 million people, who have all sorts of genetic variants, then take 100 of them and isolate them on an island for 10,000 years, those offspring will be genetically distinct from their ancestral population because they are 1) no longer genetically mixing and 2) a small, non-representative subset. Non-random mating is another mechanism of evolution -- i.e. people preferentially reproducing with those from a similar cultural / religious identity or a similar appearance. Those traits that DO confer selective advantages will become predominant in a population very quickly -- in proportion with the advantage, in fact. This is why the sickle cell gene, which in carriers is very protective against severe malaria, has independently arisen at least five times in the last 10,000 years
Sickle cell mutation has help African people survive the terrible plagues of malaria , but as you know that other than that this advantage, it also comes at a huge price to the individual who has to suffer from auto immune and other diseases because of it.
There has been no real evolutionary change in the human species for over 100 thousand years. Indeed Homo Sapient appears to be unaltered from the moment of the most ancient skeleton evidence
Will we have sufficient time to evolve towards Homo Superior and migrate out into the vastness of the universe before that happens?
For do thy stars comandth themselves, to shine?
For do thy stars comandth themselves, how to shine?
For do thy stars comandth themselves, when to shine?
No, for the laws comandth the stars to shine, and how to shine, and when to shine.
For what hath comandth the laws to comandth the stars to shine, and how to shine, and when to shine?
For a law hath not the intelligence, nor the power to make and uphold a law.
For man nor woman hath the power to make a law that comandth to stars.
For such laws hath been casted...
For it takes intelligence to make a law, and it takes power to uphold that law...
So, for what intelligence with such power hath casted such laws that comandth all?
If you are going to quote a post, make sure that your reply is relative to what the person is talking about.
So, for what intelligence with such power hath casted such laws that comandth all?
There need not be a, "Who done it?!"; patterns or the notion of *things so finely tuned* can be explained, or at the least, theorized, without any question of, "Who done it?!".
Those laws exist as words, for they are not the laws that make the thing do what it do.
:listening:There are a limited amount of configurations of line's, so what allows there to be a limited amount and prevents an unlimited amount?
Now, you're right that sickle cell heterozygosity comes at a price, namely the risk of having offspring with sickle cell anemia. But this sloppy solution is EXACTLY why the idea of "intelligent design" makes no sense for this scenario -- which is the most rapid and powerful human evolutionary phenomenon in the last 10,000 years
Regarding Anthropic Principle:
"If there were a large number (possibly infinite) of different physical laws (or fundamental constants) in as many universes, some of these would have laws that were suitable for stars, planets and life to exist. The anthropic principle could then be applied to conclude that we would only consciously exist in those universes which were finely-tuned for our conscious existence. Thus, while the probability might be extremely small that there is life in most of the universes, this scarcity of life-supporting universes does not imply intelligent design as the only explanation of our "existence."
evolution has not done a very good job with malaria as millions still die of this disease every year.
I think you misunderstood me about chimp human genetics. I was not referring to the similarity between 'human and chimp' NDA but the small genetic DNA diversity between human ad human extreme and the much greater diversity between chimp compared to chimp
In other word we humans have only a small genetic pool. I am not swearing that I an correct about this , maybe you can check this out or bring me up to speed where I have gone wrong
There seems to be a stubborn stance that "I will not believe in "intelligent designer" even if you can prove it to me'.
the Cartesian test is, 'doubt anything which can be doubted'. the courts do not apply this test, the churches do not apply this test and the materialists do not apply this test when testing their own beliefs.
If there were an infinity of universes each differing in some way then it is logical, too me anyway that out universe could have happened by mere chance.
But if the is only one universe the God had to get it right the first time and in the relatively short cosmological time that our universe has existed
"God" notion aside, we're leading back to the Anthropic Principle
On a guess I would say you are a Biologist /geneticist or anthropologists
I have difficulty using Occam's razor as a resolver of the possibility of the truth or falsehood of an ID.
I think my contribution to this topic has not been bad especially from a technical guy like me, who is basically a Mechanical Engineer
I do I do I am an astronomer and look out at the unimaginably beauty and order of the cosmos.
Go onto a mountain and you will see beauty all around you, YOU HAVE TO LOOK CAREFULLY TO FIND THE UGLY IN NATURE
If there were no creator the whole universe would be absolutely chaotic and disordered.
Alright, so the world is incredibly beautiful...there is beauty everywhere...there is order everywhere...agreed. Here is the question; have you ever been anywhere but the world, or experienced anything other than the world? If not, then why would you assume that something other than the world must be responsible for the world? How could you know that the world would be chaos without a creator, if you have only ever known the world you live in, which as you say, is orderly
To generalise, to a creationist the world is the way it is so that it may be of use to us. To an evolutionist we have evolved to best make use of the world the way it is. Your 'case' for ID has been along the lines
of the former which, as I said before, is essentially a stance of arrogance. I don't mean that in an offensive way: it presupposes our inevitable and absolute existence, passing all necessity onto the universe for our comfort, pleasure, requirements, etc, i.e. it bestows as a starting assumption something special about humans as distinct from any other physical system
*I've never met an anti-evolutionist who didn't believe in some divine creator or consciousness. What does that tell you?