Oh, please. You claim that it is not. If it's not, then you must attribute life as we know it to some other mechanism.
Haven't evoked God once. I want him to use science to show that mutation and selection is up to the task.
Just so we're clear. Speciation is observed fact and I have no problem with it. I think I've been specific and clear in what I'm asking for.
When evolution skeptics want to attack Darwin's theory, they often point to the human eye. How could something so complex, they argue, have developed through random mutations and natural selection, even over millions of years?
If evolution occurs through gradations, the critics say, how could it have created the separate parts of the eye -- the lens, the retina, the pupil, and so forth -- since none of these structures by themselves would make vision possible? In other words, what good is five percent of an eye?
Darwin acknowledged from the start that the eye would be a difficult case for his new theory to explain. Difficult, but not impossible. Scientists have come up with scenarios through which the first eye-like structure, a light-sensitive pigmented spot on the skin, could have gone through changes and complexities to form the human eye, with its many parts and astounding abilities.
Through natural selection, different types of eyes have emerged in evolutionary history -- and the human eye isn't even the best one, from some standpoints. Because blood vessels run across the surface of the retina instead of beneath it, it's easy for the vessels to proliferate or leak and impair vision. So, the evolution theorists say, the anti-evolution argument that life was created by an "intelligent designer" doesn't hold water: If God or some other omnipotent force was responsible for the human eye, it was something of a botched design.
Biologists use the range of less complex light sensitive structures that exist in living species today to hypothesize the various evolutionary stages eyes may have gone through.
Here's how some scientists think some eyes may have evolved: The simple light-sensitive spot on the skin of some ancestral creature gave it some tiny survival advantage, perhaps allowing it to evade a predator. Random changes then created a depression in the light-sensitive patch, a deepening pit that made "vision" a little sharper. At the same time, the pit's opening gradually narrowed, so light entered through a small aperture, like a pinhole camera.
Every change had to confer a survival advantage, no matter how slight. Eventually, the light-sensitive spot evolved into a retina, the layer of cells and pigment at the back of the human eye. Over time a lens formed at the front of the eye. It could have arisen as a double-layered transparent tissue containing increasing amounts of liquid that gave it the convex curvature of the human eye.
In fact, eyes corresponding to every stage in this sequence have been found in existing living species. The existence of this range of less complex light-sensitive structures supports scientists' hypotheses about how complex eyes like ours could evolve. The first animals with anything resembling an eye lived about 550 million years ago. And, according to one scientist's calculations, only 364,000 years would have been needed for a camera-like eye to evolve from a light-sensitive patch.
How does this show that mutation and selection could actually achieve each step? Lining extant eyes up and telling stories isn't a demonstration that mutation and selection is adequate.http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html
Evolution of the Eye:
Here's examples of each step
The gene you're talking about is Wnt-3a. It isn't a "tale gene" really, it appears to just stops the development of the spine during gestation. Sometimes this breaks and the spine keeps growing. There is no "tale gene". Genes code for individual proteins not for appendages. Two separate species having this gene doesn't prove common descent between the two species.
Why are you saying evoke?Haven't evoked God once. I want him to use science to show that mutation and selection is up to the task.
Explain how you think it meets my demand.
I think I said that I couldn't believe that you thought it did. I asked for a demonstration of the power of mutation and selection to produce jellyfish, pine trees, and people from some form of self replicating molecule.No. I already ponied up. You said it didn't meet your demand. Surely you have a reason that you are capable of explaining, right?
You know excatly what you are looking at, I have shown you how simple iteration over time can construct large and unpredictable, infinite, patterns... all you have to do is apply this to the e.coli case and dinosaurs is what you get. You know this. You understand this. Somehow you childhood sunday school is having too big of a hold on you to come around. I am sorry for you, break free man.I know how addition works. This isn't our problem.
Belief won't make it true. Run it through the scientific method and let us know how it goes.I'm not trying to verify my "so called facts" with you. I said I believe it is fact.
How does this show that mutation and selection could actually achieve each step? Lining extant eyes up and telling stories isn't a demonstration that mutation and selection is adequate.
- OR he is that odd strain that somehow survives the next cataclysm that eradicates the rest of us.. Evolution works in mysterious ways. (too much?).You're a useless buffoon. The country would be better off if your line finished at you. Paratus has the patience of a Saint to keep this up with you, after the last 3 or 4 years of your knumbskullery, ...
Can't you see that the slight changing of an active site shape on an enzyme is never ever going to add up to the creation of nervous systems?You know excatly what you are looking at, I have shown you how simple iteration over time can construct large and unpredictable, infinite, patterns... all you have to do is apply this to the e.coli case and dinosaurs is what you get. You know this. You understand this. Somehow you childhood sunday school is having too big of a hold on you to come around. I am sorry for you, break free man.
Belief that mutation and selection could actually do what your theory requires won't make it true either.Belief won't make it true. Run it through the scientific method and let us know how it goes.
Alternatively, scientists will continue to search for what is....because that's what they do.
Your source of beliefs has not changed and will not change. Science has the advantage in this case, as we don't know everything and as new evidence is discovered, and reviewed, theories can change after verification.
Belief that mutation and selection could actually do what your theory requires won't make it true either.
Do you have the first clue why you believe this theory or is it just what you've been told?This thread makes me think of this quote:
"Never argue with an idiot. They will bring you down to their level and beat you with experience."
Lets see the evidence then.Of course belief alone doesn't prove a scientific theory. But, unlike religious beliefs, science pushes forward intent on proving or disproving concepts. Religion is stuck where it is, the book you have is all you will get.
Lets see the evidence then.
Quite the admission.After you. I'll even break out the dusty old Bible to read along with you.