The design argument

Originally posted by C Hess
Maybe we're sliding ever so slowly off the point I was trying to make there, like it's evolving, or something.

There are obviously many possible reasons why an individual may not get to reproduce, and in no way did I mean to imply that such an organism couldn't still play a vital role in preserving the existing gene pool (for some species this is part of ...[text shortened]... population, or if (at a later time) it prevents other potentially good mutations from spreading.

Yes - I assumed you agreed with the point I was making - I was trying to clarify for the "others". 😀

Originally posted by C Hess
If I understand you correctly, you're saying that because some organs are interdependent (like the heart, lungs and the rest of the circulatory system), they must have evolved at the same time, and they must have evolved in leaps (because half a heart is not a heart at all), something evolution cannot do, therefore you assume that evolution can't explain something as complex as the circulatory system. Is that correct?

Independent pieces of a system as well as independent systems do not just
occur, nothing about the computer/laptop/smart phone you are using
suggest that they could just arise without a of balancing acts between all of
the hardware and software being used. You have pieces of a system being
built that actually function in a specific manner and its physical design also
matches the needs to keep life going as well as its actual function so the
hardware and software of life are always in line, this through random
mutations? You are a creature of great faith!

Originally posted by C Hess
Let me clarify that. What determines whether a specific mutation is good, bad or neutral is circumstances (whether or not it's part of an activated gene, and whether or not that activated gene is good for the individual and/or the group).

It is important to note that many mutations are most beneficial when they are in only a proportion of the population.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Independent pieces of a system as well as independent systems do not just
occur, ...

Could you give any specific example of such an independent piece of a system that could not occur? Or are you going to continue to hide behind vagueness?
For any claim you make about an independent piece of a system that could not occur without the rest, I can probably find a life form that demonstrates that you are wrong. In fact, I believe I have done this in the past, but you apparently just put your hands over your ears.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Independent pieces of a system as well as independent systems do not just
occur, nothing about the computer/laptop/smart phone you are using
suggest that they could just arise without a of balancing acts between all of
the hardware and software being used. You have pieces of a system being
built that actually function in a specific manner and its physic ...[text shortened]... e of life are always in line, this through random
mutations? You are a creature of great faith!

Read this Wiki, it shows just that, totally independent evolution of very similar traits, there are three kinds, Convergent, parallel, and divergent lines explored there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_evolution

Originally posted by KellyJay
Independent pieces of a system as well as independent systems do not just
occur, nothing about the computer/laptop/smart phone you are using
suggest that they could just arise without a of balancing acts between all of
the hardware and software being used. You have pieces of a system being
built that actually function in a specific manner and its physic ...[text shortened]... e of life are always in line, this through random
mutations? You are a creature of great faith!

A simple yes would have sufficed.

Like lemon lime, you are comparing a biological system that consists of two basic building blocks capable of replicating themselves to form tissues and organs, with a manmade system consisting of hundreds of non-replicating, purpose-built parts. It's a useless and limiting analogy.

There is absolutely nothing about observed biology that opposes the idea of an incremental build-up all the way from prokaryotes to mammals. There are however plenty of evidence suggesting that indeed life did evolve incrementally. Let me tell you the story of the heart.

From the viewpoint of anatomical complexity, we can observe in nature all forms of life in between simple invertebrates with open circulatory systems, all the way to mammals and birds. This let's us know that incremental evolution of complex systems is indeed possible (half a heart is better than no heart if the rest of your body doesn't require more). But what's more, it's been discovered that the very same gene (TBX5) codes for the development of the heart walls in both frogs, turtles and mammals. Frogs have three chambered hearts, turtles also have three chambered hearts (but a more pronounced wall in their only ventricle) and mammals and birds have four chambered hearts. When the heart forms, the only real difference between frogs, turtles and mammals is the amount of TBX5 proteins that form, and where. Tiny changes in a single gene, and you go from three-chambered heart to a transition between three and four chambered heart to a four chambered heart. So, don't tell me that tiny mutations cannot be beneficial and accumulate into larger changes with time. It's a statement that doesn't match with what we observe.

Knowing that there's nothing observed in nature that prevents simple organisms from evolving into more complex forms, the irreducible complexity argument falls down like a house of cards. You can always fall back to the fact that we haven't watched evolution on this grand scale with our own eyes, but what you can't do is claim that it's unlikely evolution produced all the biodiversity we see today from much simpler beginnings. Everything we know about nature today suggests an incremental development from simple to more complex.

Irreducible complexity is a fantasy maintained by the most fanatic deniers of evolution only. It has no empirical evidence speaking for it.

Originally posted by C Hess
A simple yes would have sufficed.

Like lemon lime, you are comparing a biological system that consists of two basic building blocks capable of replicating themselves to form tissues and organs, with a manmade system consisting of hundreds of non-replicating, purpose-built parts. It's a useless and limiting analogy.

There is absolutely nothing about obse ...[text shortened]... ned by the most fanatic deniers of evolution only. It has no empirical evidence speaking for it.

This post of yours should show you why peer review process will always
remain blind to that which would show evolution as a process that cannot
do what people proclaim.

Originally posted by KellyJay
This post of yours should show you why peer review process will always
remain blind to that which would show evolution as a process that cannot
do what people proclaim.

Brilliant argument Kelly! Let's see those evolutionist fools recover from that riposte!

Originally posted by KellyJay
This post of yours should show you why peer review process will always
remain blind to that which would show evolution as a process that cannot
do what people proclaim.

?

Originally posted by twhitehead
That video clearly states that eye color is determined by 'genetic factors' ie mutations. If you are going to learn only from YouTube, then at least learn how to listen properly.

If on the other hand you can handle a bit of reading, try Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_color

In 2008, new research tracked down a single genetic mutation that leads to blue eyes.

Genetic factors do not have to be mutations, which sometimes result from copy errors that are not corrected.

Originally posted by twhitehead
That video clearly states that eye color is determined by 'genetic factors' ie mutations. If you are going to learn only from YouTube, then at least learn how to listen properly.

If on the other hand you can handle a bit of reading, try Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_color

In 2008, new research tracked down a single genetic mutation that leads to blue eyes.

Nope. That is a mistake in interpretation and is only an opinion. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
Genetic factors do not have to be mutations, .....

Yes, they do. You clearly do not even know what a mutation is.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yes, they do. You clearly do not even know what a mutation is.

A mutation is a mistake in biological replication.

Human Physiology : What Is Mutation?

YouTube

Originally posted by KellyJay
This post of yours should show you why peer review process will always
remain blind to that which would show evolution as a process that cannot
do what people proclaim.

do you belief science gets many things wrong? does the peer review process fail in other areas? or just ones that conflict with your god?

Originally posted by RJHinds
A mutation is a mistake in biological replication.

In biology, a mutation is altered DNA, and there are many different ways through which this can happen (not just through a replicative deviation). To call it a mistake might be a bit too simplistic, given that some of these mutations turns out to be beneficial.