Is evolution a valid theory?

[Mancunian]

I wonder if Steve has ever compared the eye of a human being with the eye of a hawk and thought about why his god would give a bird a measurably better range of sight. Our eyes are shit in comparison, not what you'd expect from our daddy.
There are living creatures around with worse sight down to no sight at all, they've got better sight to look forward to.

[SaxonX]

You are missing the point in all that ad hominem rhetoric and eagerness to make irrelevant scientific points. I could grant every scientific claim you make in that post and the problem remains: it's not a question of whether convergence exists, it's about mechanisms and probabilities.

No, I'm really not missing the point. The point is that there's no basis for your claim that speciation/macroevolution can't occur. Full stop.

It has occurred and we have the documentation. Actual scientists have observed and recorded it. There isn't any debate about that in the scientific community. I've posted links to the full-text of several reputable scientific papers stating as much, but in case you missed them here they are again:

The Past and Future of Experimental Speciation (White et al., 2020)
Models of speciation: where are we now? (Gavrilets, 2014)
The ecological and genomic basis of explosive adaptive radiation (McGee et al., 2020)
Population Genomics of Adaptive Radiation (Combrink et al., 2024)

Plus you totally mischaracterize Andelin's point: He refers to three auditory genes, totaling ~20,000 nucleotide bases, that show high levels of sequence similarity in unrelated echolocating species. His argument is not about functional convergence of a single protein (which is real enough), but about the probabilistic plausibility of near-identical gene-level convergence across distinct evolutionary lineages. That's a much broader (and effective) challenge that you should be addressing.

Plus, no I totally didn't. Andelin alternately refers to "the genes that encode for the protein prestin" and "The three auditory genes of echolocation". There's only one gene that codes for prestin and a whole slew of genes that code for the ability to echolocate. If that wasn't bad enough, he cites two different papers, one of which studies the single prestin gene (Parker et al., 2013) and the other studies three different genes (Shen et al., 2012), and neither of those sequences appears to total to 20,000 base-pairs. No idea where he's getting that number, but the ambiguity in his writing makes it impossible to figure out which he's talking about and gives the impression that he doesn't know either.

You'll note how Andelin doesn't bother to actually adress the work of these scientists? How he simply says "Nuh-uh! Does not!" and hands you a big number devoid of context or even calculation? We're missing the information we'd need to even figure out how badly wrong he is. That's why this isn't a "much broader (and effective) challenge". It's an opinion with a number attached. He never actually addresses the published science because he can't.

More interestingly, these genetic sequences aren't anything like "near-identical". That should be unsurprising given that both papers plus the original Li et al. paper examine the amino acids rather than the DNA. The authors wanted to compare apples to apples, so they're analyzing the amino acids present at critical structural locations. If you analyze the genetic sequence you run up against a bunch of confounding variables that cloud the picture. In the Shen et al. paper that amounts to 22 identical amino acids out of several hundred, so not so much identical.

But hey, let's science this. Let's get ahold of the genetic sequences, align them properly, and compare the wobble codons. These are non-coding elements that are neutral with respect to selection pressures, so convergent evolution should have little effect. Evolution predicts that the bats will be much more similar to each other, less similar to the horses, and least similar to dolphins or other unrelated mammals. Similarly, dophins will be most similar to other whales, less similar to hippos, and least similar to bats and other unrelated mammals. What does your religion predict?

Finally, the analogy to the immune system is interesting but not really relevant here. What you describe is a directed, cell-internal process governed by highly evolved, built-in mechanisms, not random mutations selected across generations in a population. The immune system doesn't evolve solutions from scratch; it adapts within a framework that was already shaped by evolution. I for one appreciate the irony of you using what an incredibly complex biological system does, to illustrate how simple evolution is.

No, really no. The somatic hypermutation produced in the B-cells is entirely random and undirected. The only "framework" is the existing V(D)J recombination and even that just produces random mixing of pre-existing genetic elements. It's all down to mutation and selection in both cases. Nothing irreductible about any of it. You keep using this terminology from ID and it isn't helping you sound more honest.

Honesty from ID advocates seems contradictory; this movement attempted to deceptively introduce religion into schools through a backdoor approach by rebranding a book of religious propaganda.

[SaxonX]

I wonder if Steve has ever compared the eye of a human being with the eye of a hawk and thought about why his god would give a bird a measurably better range of sight. Our eyes are shit in comparison, not what you'd expect from our daddy.
There are living creatures around with worse sight down to no sight at all, they've got better sight to look forward to.

Why did god allow Newts to regrow limbs but not men?

[Thumpalumpacus]

Regarding complex mutations, it's almost like @SteveII and his ilk hasn't heard of scaffolding.

Mutations for one potential benefit sometimes get repurposed for another. Feathers kept reptiles in Mongolia warmer. They also proved useful to flight. Strong muscles at the front of the chest gave forelimbs power. What happens with feathers on those forelimbs and muscles pushing hard? Legs don't work so hard, less energy maybe -- or faster getaway.

Point is that a single mutation in isolation may appear useless, but when coupled with another mutation provides another selection escape/pressure. Flight has evolved in at least three lineages, one avian, one mammalian, and one in arthropods -- and arguably in fish in terms of gliding but not powered flight. Birds repurposed feathers, arthropods repurposed chitin, and mammals have repurposed connective skins in order to (ahem) avail themselves of the air.

In all three lineages, we see that a natural-selection process for one problem gets repurposed to flight ... warmth, chitin, or living in trees. It's not just convergent evolution, it's convergent evidence. The safety of the air forced three different lineages to find three different ways to fly.

ETA: I shouldn't forget the pterosaurs, adding another kingdom to this convergent-solution soup. So now we have early reptiles, insects, late-reptiles evolving an entirely different flight-regime, and mammals coming along with flight a few tens of millions of years later.

[Paleophyte]

Convergent sequence evolution between echolocating bats and dolphins

So, this is what it looks like when a scientist publishes a short, brief communication on a novel finding. This is commonly done when you have an exciting discovery and don't want to get scooped.

Furthermore, we find evidence that these changes were driven by natural selection.

Damn, I wonder how they know that.

To investigate the causes of this convergent signal, we estimated rates of nucleotide substitutions that changed the amino acid (nonsynonymous rate) or left no change (synonymous rate) at each site, for different parts of the species tree. The ratio of non-synonymous to synonymous rates (ω) measures the strength of selection at a site, from 0 for strong purifying selection to greater than 1 for positive selection. For sites that have evolved neutrally, we found no relationship between ω and the support for convergence, whereas sites under purifying selection showed a significant negative relationship between ω and support for convergence. However, the ω for sites showing a shift in functional constraint in the echolocating whales correlated significantly with support for convergence (p ~ 0.018), and, of 33 sites predicted to fall into this category, 31 (94%) had ω values greater than one (Figure 1C, Table S2). Finally, none of these relationships were significant when sites were modelled as varying in ω within the bats showing convergence.

And this is what it looks like when somebody shows their work. From this we know that:
 - The neutral, non-coding portions of the prestin gene aren't convergent. That's the overwhelming majority of the genetic material, roughly 90% in the case of the SLC26A5 gene that codes for prestin. I'm sure that @SteveII will be able to explain why his god saw fit to use the same prestin gene but insert different junk introns.
 - The rates of change measured demonstrate natural selection. The fingerprints of god were not found.

[Paleophyte]

I wonder if Steve has ever compared the eye of a human being with the eye of a hawk and thought about why his god would give a bird a measurably better range of sight. Our eyes are shit in comparison, not what you'd expect from our daddy.
There are living creatures around with worse sight down to no sight at all, they've got better sight to look forward to.

Why did god allow Newts to regrow limbs but not men?

In related news, they're working on a vaccine for regeneration by studying how amphibians manage it. Preliminary results in mice suggest that they can inject you with an mRNA cocktail that switches the production of retinoic acid up to high gear and results in regenerative blastema rather than scarring. Results have been mixed but hopeful, with mice still showing some scarring.

If science cracks this one then the old, "Why can't god regrow limbs?" question will get really pointed.

[SYZ]

The fact that he's trying to use John B. Andelin, an ideologically driven hack who has no business discussing evolution, let alone thinking he can contribute to the field, is absurd.

Andelin in his first few (YouTube) claims makes a classic error
of logic. He says that atheists make the presupposition that
God does not exist, and use that to argue evolution from a
purely naturalistic or solely material standpoint.

At the same time he cleverly avoids acknowledging that theists
make a similar presupposition that a supernatural entity they've
named "God" does exist in the real world—and which provides
an unassailable foundation for their claims of intelligent design.
Which is of course nothing more than a worthless non sequitur.

Rather than spending all his (obviously limited) mental energy
attempting to shoot down atheists and ridiculing evolutionary theory,
he should be—firstly—providing empirical evidence that supports
his belief in his God.

[TheGentlemanBastard]

I wonder if Steve has ever compared the eye of a human being with the eye of a hawk and thought about why his god would give a bird a measurably better range of sight. Our eyes are shit in comparison, not what you'd expect from our daddy.
There are living creatures around with worse sight down to no sight at all, they've got better sight to look forward to.

Self reflection and introspection are not tools I've ever seen Stevie use. He'll never examine his faith in any meaningful way.

[SYZ]

...Self reflection and introspection are not tools I've ever seen Stevie use. He'll never examine his faith in any meaningful way.

I'd go as far as to guess Steve has some sort of minor
intellectual impairment.    He seems merely to parrot a
lot of stuff which he gleans from numorous Google searches,
but has very little, if any, original thoughts of his own.

   Copy pasta is writ large on his slate.   

[Deesse23]

Mostly disappointed. There is no longer a critical mass of people here that want to have interesting debates with a modicum of respect. I am far from stupid, inarticulate, or fringe; I am patient when asked questions. So the near constant condescension from most of you has more to do with a lack of character than anything. That is tiresome.

As far as my thoughts on you. You are smarter than I am. You are more rhetorically gifted than I am. But just because you can win rhetorical points does not mean you should do so at every opportunity. That is also tiresome.

Perhaps I should find a new hobby.

Thank god!
Steve might just about to convince me a god exists, if he really is going to leave the forum.
Praise Allah, and his prophet, Mohammed (pbuh).

[Szuchow]

I wonder if Steve has ever compared the eye of a human being with the eye of a hawk and thought about why his god would give a bird a measurably better range of sight. Our eyes are shit in comparison, not what you'd expect from our daddy.
There are living creatures around with worse sight down to no sight at all, they've got better sight to look forward to.

Why did god allow Newts to regrow limbs but not men?

You ever heard about newts blaspheming or committing any sins whatsoever? Neither did I. Thus answer should be clear.

[Huggy Bear]

I wonder if Steve has ever compared the eye of a human being with the eye of a hawk and thought about why his god would give a bird a measurably better range of sight. Our eyes are shit in comparison, not what you'd expect from our daddy.
There are living creatures around with worse sight down to no sight at all, they've got better sight to look forward to.

Funny thing about eyes is they require light to work and can adjust to the level of present, which kind of suggest it was designed for a specific purpose, kinda like how a watch is designed to measure time. The reason a hawk has excellent eyesight is simply because it needs it. Humans being created in the image of God are also creators (to a lesser degree) and have the ability to make instruments that can see farther than said hawk.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I wonder if Steve has ever compared the eye of a human being with the eye of a hawk and thought about why his god would give a bird a measurably better range of sight. Our eyes are shit in comparison, not what you'd expect from our daddy.
There are living creatures around with worse sight down to no sight at all, they've got better sight to look forward to.

Funny thing about eyes is they require light to work and can adjust to the level of present, which kind of suggest it was designed for a specific purpose, kinda like how a watch is designed to measure time. The reason a hawk has excellent eyesight is simply because it needs it. Humans being created in the image of God are also creators (to a lesser degree) and have the ability to make instruments that can see farther than said hawk.

Question-begging.

[polymath257]

Yeah, no, you claimed the mechanisms ["a successful mechanism (or basket of them)"] were insufficient, not that they haven't been shown to be sufficient.   Those are very different claims, the former of which has a burden of proof.   To be precise, you made not one but a whole slew of claims about how the currently hypothesized mechanisms were not capable of explaining various functional species of biological change.  You apparently don't understand the words coming out of your own mouth.  I predicted last night that you would reply as you have, moving the goalposts from where you began with your replies today.   If there's one truism about stupid people, it's that they're rather predictable.  

This will serve as my answer to everyone who replied to my most recent post.

Two things:

1. I'd prefer to approach evolution from a philosophical angle, since many of the difficulties I have stem from unexamined assumptions embedded in the methodology.
2. But fine, I did make that claim so I will say something about that and perhaps we can get to the above. Specifically, my strongest claim was:

"This isn't just a matter of missing details or "we don't yet know how," it's that the mechanisms we do know about--as currently understood--lack the theoretical and functional capacity to bridge the explanatory gap between small-scale change and large-scale innovation. In other words, it's not just a knowledge gap, but a mechanistic insufficiency."

While random mutation and natural selection are well-documented in producing microevolutionary change (e.g. shifts in allele frequencies, antibiotic resistance, etc.), the issue arises when these same mechanisms are extrapolated to explain the origin of entirely new body plans, complex organs, or novel capabilities. Most people don't understand the the effect of multiplying very small percentages together over and over. Because you will need a way to check my claims, I am going to summarize parts of a paper on the subject: SCIRP article by J.B. Andelin (2022)

More to the point, the validity of multiplying these small numbers together to estimate probabilties is the issue. For this to be valid, each step needs to be probabilistically independent, which is definitely NOT the case when natural selection is involved in any way. The upshot is that a false calculation is done which yields absurdly small probabilities that have nothing to do with reality.

It is *easy* to model a system with random mutation and selection that finds a 'random' string of length 200 from a possible alphabet of 20 symbols. While a 'purely random' estimate that simply multiplies probabilities would show that finding a 'target string' should be almost impossible (20^{-200) as the probability), in practice selection allows the string to be found in fewer than 1000 generations.

• Nilsson and Pelger’s Eye Evolution Model:
* A frequently cited model by Nilsson & Pelger (1994) proposes that a simple light-sensitive patch could evolve into a full camera-type eye in about 1,829 incremental steps.
* However, the theoretical model does not attempt to quantify the genetic probability of achieving each of those steps through random mutation.
* Andelin performs such a calculation, assuming:
---1,829 beneficial mutations
---Human-like genome size (\~1.5 billion base pairs)
---Realistic mutation and fixation rates
---A viable population (\~20,000 breeders)
* Result: The probability of obtaining all 1,829 mutations within the model’s time frame is ~1.5 × 10⁻¹⁴²³, which effectively rounds to zero

Does this look at selection pressures? If not, the calculation is meaningless. And, given the numbers quoted, I would highly doubt that selection pressures are considered at all.

• The Improbability of Independent Molecular Convergence
* Molecular convergence refers to cases where unrelated organisms evolve nearly identical genetic sequences or proteins independently—despite having no recent common ancestor with those traits.
* A key example: the gene prestin, essential for echolocation, appears in both echolocating bats and dolphins with strikingly similar DNA sequences.
---These animals are distantly related, and echolocation is believed to have evolved independently in each lineage.

This ignores the fact that prestin is used in almost all mammals for hearing. It is widely distributed and essential for normal mammalian hearing.
The differences here are specific mutations for hearing very high frequencies. Again, given selection pressures, even a fairly small mutation rate can give major convergence if only a few sequences actally give the higher frequency hearing.

* The gene in question is around 20,000 nucleotides long.

This is the whole presting gene, which as I said is common to all mammals. The question is what mutations are required for the high frequency hearing of dolphins and bats. If only a few sequences can manage that and selection pressure is high, we *would* expect evolution to discover these sequences fairly quickly (in a matter of a few thousand generations).

---Even if convergence only involved 100 nucleotides, the number of possible combinations is ≈ 1.6 × 10⁶⁰.
---The probability of two such sequences matching by chance is effectively zero.

While correct, this is an example of making the wrong computation. By ignoring selection pressures and mutations over  generations, you falsely arrive at a probability that is unrealistically low.

Result: Random mutations in two separate evolutionary lines cannot reasonably be expected to hit on the same complex sequence unless something non-random is at work.

This is correct. The non-random 'something' is selection pressure towards high frequency hearing.

• The Human Eye as a Case of Interdependent Complexity
* The human eye does not function in isolation—it depends on multiple interrelated systems:
--- Cornea, lens, iris, optic nerve, eye muscles, fluid regulation, and visual cortex must co-function for sight to occur.
* Andelin argues that evolving ten specific, coordinated changes necessary for such an integrated system—*before* natural selection can act—is statistically hopeless.
* Mathematical estimate: The chance of ten specific nucleotide changes occurring together in one individual = ~1 in 10⁹⁹.
* To put that in perspective: that’s about as likely as choosing one atom in the entire known universe, divided by ten quintillion

Another example of computing the wrong probability. While all of those systems are necessary *today*, they were not so in the past. In particular, the original vision system for the human line was long before there were mammals. And we can see *by actual species we see today* that the different systems do NOT have to all be functioning for workable vision.

Also, once again, the probabilities are simply multiplied, which assumes probabilistic independence, which is simply false in a population undergoing natural selection.

• Incremental Change Cannot Traverse the Complexity Gap
* Evolution by cumulative selection assumes each intermediate step confers a selectable advantage.
* But as Andelin argues, most random mutations do not improve function, and complex features often require multiple components to be present simultaneously to yield any advantage.
* Without functional intermediates, natural selection has no effect—meaning the raw mutations must occur in coordination, which drives the probability down to essentially zero.

This ignores much that is known about how our genetic system operates. For example, it is common for genes to duplicate, which allows for the original function to remain while also allowing changes in the duplicate. It ignores the fact that there are often multiple alleles of a gene that allow multiple different functions, all slightly different. It ignores the effects of genetic drift.

Do you know how many times these odds would need to be overcome to make a human with consciousness given the known mechanisms? Something is missing.

Yes, that something is selection. Mutation is random: it increases the variety in a population (in effect, it increases the standard distribution in a population). But natural selection changes the average allowing for changes over multiple generations. In essence, natural selection changes the mean in a population.

BOTH mutation and selection are required in evolution. To ignore selection (which is done in the calculations mentioned above) is to ignore the driving mechanism.

The conclusion: Macroevolutionary mechanisms as currently understood do not have the capacity to explain the origin of novel, complex biological systems. This is not a "gap of knowledge"--it is a mechanistic and probabilistic failure.

Bring on the metaphysical speculations...

No, the conclusion is that doing bad statistics with bad models leads to absurd probabilities. Whether this is deliberate (actual lying) or simple misunderstanding of the modern models of evolution, it is intellectually dishonest in the extreme.

[SaxonX]

There’s no valid reason humans can’t have vision as sharp as a hawk’s. The idea that God only gives creatures what they need is ridiculous, and the notion that a supernatural being is limited by something as basic as light physics is absurd. The claim that humans are made in the image of a timeless, spaceless, immaterial being is even more nonsensical. The height of absurdity is believing such a being would make us go through countless unnecessary steps instead of including everything in the original design.

[Paleophyte]

There’s no valid reason humans can’t have vision as sharp as a hawk’s. The idea that God only gives creatures what they need is ridiculous, and the notion that a supernatural being is limited by something as basic as light physics is absurd. The claim that humans are made in the image of a timeless, spaceless, immaterial being is even more nonsensical. The height of absurdity is believing such a being would make us go through countless unnecessary steps instead of including everything in the original design.

I'd have said that the height of the absurdity was the notion that we were made in god's image, as if the All-Mighty had bad eyesight.

[Szuchow]

There’s no valid reason humans can’t have vision as sharp as a hawk’s. The idea that God only gives creatures what they need is ridiculous, and the notion that a supernatural being is limited by something as basic as light physics is absurd. The claim that humans are made in the image of a timeless, spaceless, immaterial being is even more nonsensical. The height of absurdity is believing such a being would make us go through countless unnecessary steps instead of including everything in the original design.

I'd have said that the height of the absurdity was the notion that we were made in god's image, as if the All-Mighty had bad eyesight.

He looks old here so bad eyesight isn't out of question:

[Rhythmcs]

It never ceases to amaze me that IDiots pick eyes as a hill to die on. There are very few structures that we understand better from a mechanical and evolutionary standpoint.

The Original Purpose™ of the structures that became eyes wasn't for seeing at all. The possessing organisms had no need of sight and no way to process visual information anyway. They were single celled photosynthetics. It;s still a productive strategy in living creatures today, and gave rise to a massive array of structures and behaviors which we would only identify a vanishing fraction of as sight.

[SaxonX]

This will serve as my answer to everyone who replied to my most recent post.

Two things:

1. I'd prefer to approach evolution from a philosophical angle, since many of the difficulties I have stem from unexamined assumptions embedded in the methodology.
2. But fine, I did make that claim so I will say something about that and perhaps we can get to the above. Specifically, my strongest claim was:

"This isn't just a matter of missing details or "we don't yet know how," it's that the mechanisms we do know about--as currently understood--lack the theoretical and functional capacity to bridge the explanatory gap between small-scale change and large-scale innovation. In other words, it's not just a knowledge gap, but a mechanistic insufficiency."

While random mutation and natural selection are well-documented in producing microevolutionary change (e.g. shifts in allele frequencies, antibiotic resistance, etc.), the issue arises when these same mechanisms are extrapolated to explain the origin of entirely new body plans, complex organs, or novel capabilities. Most people don't understand the the effect of multiplying very small percentages together over and over. Because you will need a way to check my claims, I am going to summarize parts of a paper on the subject: SCIRP article by J.B. Andelin (2022)

More to the point, the validity of multiplying these small numbers together to estimate probabilties is the issue. For this to be valid, each step needs to be probabilistically independent, which is definitely NOT the case when natural selection is involved in any way. The upshot is that a false calculation is done which yields absurdly small probabilities that have nothing to do with reality.

It is *easy* to model a system with random mutation and selection that finds a 'random' string of length 200 from a possible alphabet of 20 symbols. While a 'purely random' estimate that simply multiplies probabilities would show that finding a 'target string' should be almost impossible (20^{-200) as the probability), in practice selection allows the string to be found in fewer than 1000 generations.

• Nilsson and Pelger’s Eye Evolution Model:
* A frequently cited model by Nilsson & Pelger (1994) proposes that a simple light-sensitive patch could evolve into a full camera-type eye in about 1,829 incremental steps.
* However, the theoretical model does not attempt to quantify the genetic probability of achieving each of those steps through random mutation.
* Andelin performs such a calculation, assuming:
---1,829 beneficial mutations
---Human-like genome size (\~1.5 billion base pairs)
---Realistic mutation and fixation rates
---A viable population (\~20,000 breeders)
* Result: The probability of obtaining all 1,829 mutations within the model’s time frame is ~1.5 × 10⁻¹⁴²³, which effectively rounds to zero

Does this look at selection pressures? If not, the calculation is meaningless. And, given the numbers quoted, I would highly doubt that selection pressures are considered at all.

• The Improbability of Independent Molecular Convergence
* Molecular convergence refers to cases where unrelated organisms evolve nearly identical genetic sequences or proteins independently—despite having no recent common ancestor with those traits.
* A key example: the gene prestin, essential for echolocation, appears in both echolocating bats and dolphins with strikingly similar DNA sequences.
---These animals are distantly related, and echolocation is believed to have evolved independently in each lineage.

This ignores the fact that prestin is used in almost all mammals for hearing. It is widely distributed and essential for normal mammalian hearing.
The differences here are specific mutations for hearing very high frequencies. Again, given selection pressures, even a fairly small mutation rate can give major convergence if only a few sequences actally give the higher frequency hearing.

* The gene in question is around 20,000 nucleotides long.

This is the whole presting gene, which as I said is common to all mammals. The question is what mutations are required for the high frequency hearing of dolphins and bats. If only a few sequences can manage that and selection pressure is high, we *would* expect evolution to discover these sequences fairly quickly (in a matter of a few thousand generations).

---Even if convergence only involved 100 nucleotides, the number of possible combinations is ≈ 1.6 × 10⁶⁰.
---The probability of two such sequences matching by chance is effectively zero.

While correct, this is an example of making the wrong computation. By ignoring selection pressures and mutations over  generations, you falsely arrive at a probability that is unrealistically low.

Result: Random mutations in two separate evolutionary lines cannot reasonably be expected to hit on the same complex sequence unless something non-random is at work.

This is correct. The non-random 'something' is selection pressure towards high frequency hearing.

• The Human Eye as a Case of Interdependent Complexity
* The human eye does not function in isolation—it depends on multiple interrelated systems:
--- Cornea, lens, iris, optic nerve, eye muscles, fluid regulation, and visual cortex must co-function for sight to occur.
* Andelin argues that evolving ten specific, coordinated changes necessary for such an integrated system—*before* natural selection can act—is statistically hopeless.
* Mathematical estimate: The chance of ten specific nucleotide changes occurring together in one individual = ~1 in 10⁹⁹.
* To put that in perspective: that’s about as likely as choosing one atom in the entire known universe, divided by ten quintillion

Another example of computing the wrong probability. While all of those systems are necessary *today*, they were not so in the past. In particular, the original vision system for the human line was long before there were mammals. And we can see *by actual species we see today* that the different systems do NOT have to all be functioning for workable vision.

Also, once again, the probabilities are simply multiplied, which assumes probabilistic independence, which is simply false in a population undergoing natural selection.

• Incremental Change Cannot Traverse the Complexity Gap
* Evolution by cumulative selection assumes each intermediate step confers a selectable advantage.
* But as Andelin argues, most random mutations do not improve function, and complex features often require multiple components to be present simultaneously to yield any advantage.
* Without functional intermediates, natural selection has no effect—meaning the raw mutations must occur in coordination, which drives the probability down to essentially zero.

This ignores much that is known about how our genetic system operates. For example, it is common for genes to duplicate, which allows for the original function to remain while also allowing changes in the duplicate. It ignores the fact that there are often multiple alleles of a gene that allow multiple different functions, all slightly different. It ignores the effects of genetic drift.

Do you know how many times these odds would need to be overcome to make a human with consciousness given the known mechanisms? Something is missing.

Yes, that something is selection. Mutation is random: it increases the variety in a population (in effect, it increases the standard distribution in a population). But natural selection changes the average allowing for changes over multiple generations. In essence, natural selection changes the mean in a population.

BOTH mutation and selection are required in evolution. To ignore selection (which is done in the calculations mentioned above) is to ignore the driving mechanism.

The conclusion: Macroevolutionary mechanisms as currently understood do not have the capacity to explain the origin of novel, complex biological systems. This is not a "gap of knowledge"--it is a mechanistic and probabilistic failure.

Bring on the metaphysical speculations...

No, the conclusion is that doing bad statistics with bad models leads to absurd probabilities. Whether this is deliberate (actual lying) or simple misunderstanding of the modern models of evolution, it is intellectually dishonest in the extreme.

There are only two possibilities: it either happened or it didn't. Everything else reflects humanity's reluctance to accept that the universe is indifferent to how unlikely we consider something.

[Paleophyte]

Mostly disappointed. There is no longer a critical mass of people here that want to have interesting debates with a modicum of respect. I am far from stupid, inarticulate, or fringe; I am patient when asked questions. So the near constant condescension from most of you has more to do with a lack of character than anything. That is tiresome.

As far as my thoughts on you. You are smarter than I am. You are more rhetorically gifted than I am. But just because you can win rhetorical points does not mean you should do so at every opportunity. That is also tiresome.

Perhaps I should find a new hobby.

Thank god!
Steve might just about to convince me a god exists, if he really is going to leave the forum.
Praise Allah, and his prophet, Mohammed (pbuh).

Unlikely that we should be so blessed. This is just the usual apologist sulk when their bullshit gets called.

[Huggy Bear]

It never ceases to amaze me that IDiots pick eyes as a hill to die on.  There are very few structures that we understand better from a mechanical and evolutionary standpoint.  

The Original Purpose™ of the structures that became eyes wasn't for seeing at all.  The possessing organisms had no need of sight and no way to process visual information anyway.  They were single celled photosynthetics.  It's still a productive strategy in living creatures today, and gave rise to a massive array of structures and behaviors which we would only identify a vanishing fraction of as sight.

It never ceases to amaze me how idiots never consider that a reply to a post might be just that... a reply to a post...Did I bring up eyes or did the poster I responded to bring them up?

How about wings? Airfoils are a specific design to generate lift which took humans how long to figure out even though working examples existed in nature. A tiny insect instinctively knows how to use wings, but if you took a human child and let it grow in isolation with a hang glider would never figure out it's purpose well into it's adulthood.

[Rhythmcs]

Yes, yes, your silly thoughts are someone else's fault. Insects and hang gliders employ distinctively different methods for generating lift. If an intentional designer wanted things to fly and had at it's fingertips the full panoply of known and possible options... which method do you think they select?

Trick question, ofc..the answer is neither. The apparent truth is that the natural world doesn't possess abilities or achieve behaviors by employing the best of what even we lowly human worms can think up..so unless The Grand Nudger is dumber than we are.....it's exactly what it looks like..everything you see is literally what's left, and ability is achieved by being good enough within that and many other thoroughly natural constraints, not by being well designed.

Birds and eyes, case example. fuck the wings. Visual identification at altitude, speed and angles is notoriously unreliable - leading to the adoption of different mechanisms in intentionally designed equipment and..not for nothing, a pretty abysmal success rate for birds of prey. Peregrine falcons? 14%. Shaheed drones of shoddy russian provenance....15%. Speaking of silly thoughts, it's absurd to me that I have to point this out specifically. If the natural world is as IDiots imagine it to be we'd still be using horses to draw plows...but even the lowliest creationist probably understands why that's dumb....right? Right....? You do get that the entire reason we engineer things is to provide an advantage over the natural world, yes? That, in the context of superstitious beliefs about creator spirits..things as simple as a hammer and a nail are improvements to The Design.

If things "get what they need"....then why is there such a thing as a roof?

[Paleophyte]

How about wings? Airfoils are a specific design to generate lift which took humans how long to figure out even though working examples existed in nature. A tiny insect instinctively knows how to use wings, but if you took a human child and let it grow in isolation with a hang glider would never figure out it's purpose well into it's adulthood.

Humans don't instinctively know how to fly, therefore god. 

[SaxonX]

A creature naturally knows how to use its own, while another struggles to grasp something it wasn’t evolved to possess—like magic. Huggy just enjoys calling others dumb. Also, there’s no reason humans shouldn’t have hawk-like eyesight for tasks other than flying, as such vision would be incredibly useful for people.

[Paleophyte]

The longer I think about it, the dumber it sounds. I wonder how long Huggy thinks you'd need to leave an insect with a hang glider before it figures out how to use it.