The ID argument has issues also.
What it has is a viable mechanism that can produce FI and as a result irreducibly complex structures from DNA code.
It can be easily positioned as a non Gaps argument. There is also a naturalism of the Gaps argument so all these criticisms cut both ways.
This is not supporting your claim that the Darwinian mechanism can produce an eye.
Why arenât evolutionary mechanisms viable?
Where is the evidence for your proposed mechanisms operating in the past? Where are the falsifiable tests for these mechanisms?
It does support common ancestry and evolutionary mechanisms operating on genomes in the past.
Again, your argument is like someone claiming that the Civil War did not happen because no one can give all of the shoe sizes for General Leeâs soldiers. We have mountains of evidence for evolutionary mechanisms shaping the genomes of past lineages. Finding a lack of specific details for the evolution of one feature in one lineage does not make this evidence go away.
No, this is a false analogy. A correct analogy would be identifying the cause of the civil which can be supported with historical information.
I am simply asking for direct support of your claim of the Darwinian evolution of the eye without circular reasoning.
Regarding Theobald,
In reality this paper is old and there are problems with it including more recently discovered multi function of cytochrome c. I also find his argument trying to separate an objective nested hierarchy form a subjective one weak.
Why do you keep saying this term?
It is still the public mechanism of record as evidenced in the textbooks. Also very respected guys like Joe Felsenstein are still defending it. While I agree with you that neutral theory has taken over as the"null hypothesis" as Koonin describes it natural selection is still a big part of the overall theory and this is the Darwinian mechanism which allows some direction after the undirected change whatever that may be.
Where does Joe Felsenstein argue that non-Darwinian mechanisms are not important? Where does he argue that all steps must be selected?
I would then reject your proposed cause because you couldnât tell us the shoe sizes of every soldier in the Confederate army.
I already addressed that. We can evidence common ancestry and the mechanisms of evolution independently of they evolution of the eye. This establishes that evolution did occur. Therefore, we can make other inferences from evidence based on the already established common ancestry, such as the distribution of different eyes in different lineages.
To use an analogy, erosion is a big part of geology. However, arguing that erosion plays a large part in specific geologic formations like canyons and valleys does not mean that you have to reject the possibility of sedimentation occurring elsewhere. It isnât neutral drift OR natural selection. Both occur.
No because only part of the nested hierarchy is explained by common ancestry. You need to establish the mechanism that can ultimately create the hierarchal structure. Your mechanism, ancestry, explains the similarities only. Joe Felsenstein understands this very well in my opinion.
Again, you need to establish a change mechanism that can account not just for origin of the eye but the multiple origin events.
[quote]=âT_aquaticus, post:151, topic:1334â
It isnât neutral drift OR natural selection. Both occur.
[/quote]
I agree but what is your mechanism fixing new features that require new FI in the population. Dr. Felsenstein would argue it is natural selection and he is very highly regarded population geneticist.
So you came all the way up the mountain top of PeacefulScience.Org so that you could dispute un-guided evolution with an Atheist? Really?
There is a whole bunch of us here who think God was a part of the creation of the eye.
But if you need the âworkoutâ by debating with a non-believer ⌠have at it.
What part is that?
The other mechanisms are vertical inheritance and random mutation. I have already discussed this multiple times now, so I donât know why you keep acting as if it is a mystery.
Until you can objectively measure FI there doesnât need to be a mechanism to produce it.
Just for the record, I limit the âun-guidedâ part to what science can show. I have no problem with philosophical or theological positions that include guidance in evolution. When I say that mutations are random with respect to fitness I mean that there is no statistically significant signal linking what the organism needs with the mutations that it gets. There is no way to disprove the idea that God is guiding mutations in such a way that it is not detectable by our scientific tests.
Ok, but you cannot establish them with nested hierarchy as they are required to produce it. Youâre reasoning is circular as you have not established your assumptions.
Your claim fails as you have not established mutation as a creative force that can create the hierarchy that we are observing.
I can most certainly establish random mutagenesis with evidence which I have discussed many times now. The bias towards transitions and CpG mutations is the evidence for random mutations.
https://biologos.org/blogs/guest/testing-common-ancestry-its-all-about-the-mutations