How Does Biological Evolution Deal With This?

[scd]

@T_aquaticus

You need evidence to back this assertion.

@Mercer

Why would we assume that?

i think that its a generous assumption that base on what we see in the real world. for instance: we have billions of people in the wrold. and we never seen someone who evolved say a new organ part like a part of a wing or a new part of an eye etc. so the chance to get a new anatomical part is probably lower than few billions. at least from what we can see in the real wrold. do you agree or disagree?

@RonSewell

Are you familiar with the ninth commandment? Thou shall not bear false witness that thou only speakest science when what thou verily believest is special creation of each and every kind.

sorry but im not sure what is your argument here. maybe i miss something so please explain again your point.

@evograd

We go with the best possible explanation, in this case the one that we can actually observe - a natural evolutionary process

we never observed a complex biological system evolving in front of our eyes of course.

@evograd

Or do you reject the utility of paternity testing on the basis that the sequence similarity between 2 people could also be the result of “natural design”?

i think that you are mixing between genetic similarity and genetic identity. as far as i remember if the sequence (between two people) is a bit different then you cant use it at court anymore. even that all people share a common descent. also: have you forgot about convergent genetic evolution?

@Faizal_Ali

First, do it this way: Throw all three and, if any show 6, keep it, and throw the remaining ones. Keep doing until all have come up six.

that is the problem: you cant do that if the new mutation is neutral. in the dice case you choose your goal and ignore all the other results. this cant happen in nature.

@Mercer

You’re also ignoring the primary mechanism for light/dark changes.

i do talking about that. how such a system that can control color change evolved?