camanintx #97

“Maybe you should tell the Murex snail or the Nautilus that their less than complete eyes do not work.”

Showing less complicated eyes is like showing less complicated mousetraps.

Thank you for refuting the concept of Irreducable Complexity.

(to camantix)

“The snail and nautilus have complete vision systems.

So what the heck are you talking about?”

I believe his/her point was that the eyes of a nautilus are much simpler than our are, and represent an earlier stage in the development of eyes. Remember gradualism? At every stage, the eye has to be functional. 50% of an eye has to be better than 49% of an eye. Well, from our point of view the nautilus DOES have 50% of an eye. And it works. Just not as precisely as ours. It is nevertheless more use than 49% of an eye.

I suggest you take another look at the link he/she cited:

http://media-2.web.britannica......F00EE8.jpg

[from 106}

“I asked for SCIENTIFIC evidence for natural selection designing something from scratch.

For that Ritchie presents lenski which isn;t anytrhing from scratch but something from an already existing organism.

From SCRATCH Ritchie.”

You do realise, I hope, that evolution cannot produce something from absolutely nothing at all? It can only adapt what is already there? So asking for something FROM SCRATCH is a bit unfair, because that is not how evolution operates. Small mutations simply produce small differences, which eventually become big differences. Macroevolution from microevolution. That was the relevance of the links I posted.

Nevertheless, I assume you are talking about big features such as eyes or limbs. Those work for me. I’ll cite the eye then as evolution producing something ‘from scratch’ (though technically not true, it is what I presume you are asking for). Here’s a link to help:

http://www.scienceagogo.com/ne....._sys.shtml

“And again EVOLUTION is NOT being debated.”

No? Then why do you not see it as amply sufficient to explain all the species, and all the features of all the species we find in nature?

That you are still confused about this demonstrates you do not undersatnd the debate.

For that Ritchie presents lenski which isn;t anytrhing from scratch but something from an already existing organism.

From SCRATCH Ritchie.

And again EVOLUTION is NOT being debated.

That you are still confused about this demonstrates you do not undersatnd the debate.

The snail and nautilus have complete vision systems.

So what the heck are you talking about?

So what makes the free decisions (moral or not) if it’s not the brain itself? Something that’s not fragmented for starters, something uncomposed or simple. Some substance deeply integrated in the body, but immaterial. The dreaded word – a soul.

Complex adaptive systems can exhibit some very interesting behavior, can’t they?

“Showing less complicated eyes is like showing less complicated mousetraps.”

You are missing the point. The fact that ‘simpler’ eyes work mean that complicated ones can evolve from them. Complicated eyes are not irreducibly complex! Nor are simple eyes, by extension.

StephenB [from 102]

“Dr. Hunter agrees that “things are different now than they were in the past,” which is the way BarryA defined “evolution.””

BarryA may define it so, but who else does? That is simply not the biological definition of evolution.

Dr. Hunter agrees that “things are different now than they were in the past,” which is the way BarryA defined “evolution.”

Just so we are clear, I am certain that everyone who posts at this site believes evolution is a fact (or fact! fact! fact! as some of our more breathless opponents prefer).

I had assumed that Dr. Cornelius Hunter disagrees that ‘evolution is a fact.’ Many of Dr. Hunter’s posts object to scientists saying or implying that evolution is a fact.

“Maybe you should tell the Murex snail or the Nautilus that their less than complete eyes do not work.”

Showing less complicated eyes is like showing less complicated mousetraps.

Thanks for the link. In the article summary you provided “this delay presumably reflects the operation of a network of high-level control areas that begin to prepare an upcoming decision long before it enters awareness.” (emph. mine)

The word “presumably” indicates an hypothesis or theory for the existence of (a complex rearrangement of matter into) “high-level control areas” (of the brain), not certainty.

Unfortunately biological parts, or a complex rearrangement of them, do not know the difference between desiring to be a good investigator (as opposed to being incompetent) or answering questions truthfully (as opposed to dishonorably), persons do.

So what makes the free decisions (moral or not) if it’s not the brain itself? Something that’s not fragmented for starters, something uncomposed or simple. Some substance deeply integrated in the body, but immaterial. The dreaded word – a soul.