OrderAndChaos30 wrote:
LePetitPrince wrote:
^not at all , evolution is a part of science and evolutions theories follow the regular scientific methods.
It is clear that populations of organisms adapt to their environment in response to external pressures. This fact is the very basis of civilization, the ability to mold the traits of domesticated life forms. Naturally Darwin's observations on this point are well known. But the finches where all still the same species in spite of specializations in specific populations.
However where is the explanation for the origin of any complex system? Where is the example of anything that is not a modification of a previously complete and functional biological system? One of the most fundamental principles in engineering is that a simpler but complete system is going to accomplish a task more reliably them a complex but incomplete system. How can an incomplete system, say an aerodynamic wing, be a survival benefit against a simpler but more complete solution?
Based in this draw the conclusion you want. I am simply citing points that even casual acquittance with any engineering discipline raises, not even to start into the demonstrated principles of statistics and thermal dynamics. I am not even interested in a lengthy Evolution v. Creationism debate. I leave thinking through these points as an exercise of the reader. My only point I am making in this is that the Atheist/Evolutionist mind set can be as closed minded as any religiously motivated point of view.
I choose to draw conclusions based on demonstrated fact rather then assertions based on "insert fantastically unlikely event here" explanations. Regarding the scientific method, the occurrences required to explain evolution are about as reproducible as divine intervention. So based on application of Occam's Razor I favor a creator verses unobservable violations of probability and directly experienced principles of designing dynamic systems. Draw what ever conclusions you choose.
Actually, the most abundant lifeforms are bacteria so yes, the simplest organisms are completely dominant - the simpler designs are indeed reliable, and multi-cellular organisms are, by numbers, a (bulky) sideshow. even among land animals, non-insects (with their fancy extras like, in the case of mammals, being war-blooded) are a sideshow. bacteria are indeed more successful at the task of survival. I don't see how an aerodynamic wing is less complete than an less perfect wing. Occasionally a mutation could produce something more complex that still managed to survive (it is indeed more improbable, otherwise bacteria wouldn't be dominant). There are no violations of probability involved, the probabilities are low (hence evolution doesn't happen overnight, even though mutations occur all the time) but not zero (and don't violate the laws of thermodynamics).
Actually, the occurrences required to explain evolution are perfectly reproducible - lab experiments have been carried out on how colonies of bacteria evolve to adapt to new conditions due to natural selection. likewise, experiments have been performed on, for example, survival of the fittest in animals (in fruit flies, snails, etc). There is hard evidence for survival of the fittest, for complex organisms having simpler ancestors (the fossil record), mutations, the emergence of genetically distinct populations due to survival of the fittest, etc. Occam's razor does not eliminate these facts, and there is nothing unobservable about them.
As expected you are showing the blind spot that adherents of Evolution have and the question I asked fell squarely into it. Adaptation of complex living systems is an established, even obvious fact. But that does not answer the question about what crosses the monumental gap between modification of an existing system and the appearance of a complete unique and functional biological system. I am aware of the science and the evidence all that has ever been demonstrated but where is the emergence of any unique biological system?
28 Oct 2007, 9:18 pm
