Yes, this is a good admission following a good discussion. However, in what follows, you write:
I would have written, more cautiously, "… then it plausibly evolved by natural selection, since no other known evolutionary force is capable of assembling a complex adaptation.
(That’s what I’d write if I were trying to write from your position. Writing for myself, I’d have been even more cautious, since I don’t consider it demonstrated that natural selection is “capable of assembling a complex adaptation.” But of course, much depends on what is meant by “complex”, not to mention what is meant by “demonstrate”.)
By the way, I missed the start of the discussion somehow – what book of yours are you referring to?
I am. We know for a fact that non-Darwinian mechanisms are important too. Natural selection is important, but it is not the only mechanisms required. In molecular evolution is not even the dominant mechanism.
You actually give a nod to this in your story about how an eye might plausibly evolve by natural selection.
“In solving one problem, the new design has caused another.” - p.40.
And of course there is your Chapter 5. Peaks and Valleys.
In order to find the story you present in your book in chapter 4 plausible, wouldn’t a person already have to accept the premise that natural selection can bring about complex adaptations such as the eye?
But isn’t that exactly the point in dispute? Does the argument then not beg the question?
I agree about the importance of non-Darwinian mechanisms of evolution. These are central to my own research. I would not gloss this as “Darwinism is dead”, but that is just a semantic quibble. I think we agree on substance.
I have read several biology and genetic textbooks but have never read anything about anyone demonstrating that natural selection can produce any complex adaptations. My bet is that Timothy cannot support his claim.
Neither Darwin nor Miller has ever shown that irreducible complexity can arise via stochastic processes. And no one has ever shown that any vision system could evolve from populations that never had one.
Natural selection is an elimination process. The less fit get eliminated over time. It has never been shown to produce anything of note- a loss of functionality, yes- loss of eyes, for example.
Also showing that there is a variety of complexity in existing vision systems does not mean one evolved from the other. You need to connect the changes to the genetics and no one has ever done such a thing. We, ie science, is still trying to determine how eyes develop. So we clearly don’t know how nor if they could have evolved.
Just to get a functioning nerve requires quite a bit. First and foremost you need a source for the electricity. In copper wires it is the free electrons. But electrons are by far too small to use in the nervous system so two ions are employed (Na and K). But that isn’t enough as there also needs to be pumps along the way that carry the signal down the length of the nerve. But wait there also needs to be neurotransmitters that carry the meaning of the signal across the synaptic cleft to an awaiting docking site and then the electric signal is picked up again and the transmission continues. Then after all of that the nerves need to be reset so that any new signals can be detected.
