Why complex form requires an Intelligent Designer

RickJB writes: The assumption here is that what worked in an initial environment could continue to be selectable in a different environment. If a new or differing environment meant that the previous form was no longer selectable and thus requiring a change of form to become selectable then how did it live long enough for mutation to provide for the right combination of form to be found in an infinite selection set of possible forms so that it would then be selectable for the diffent environment?
Thus we see that unless random mutation could have provided a specifically selectable form for each environmental change when the environmental change occured then the existing form would have been selected out causing extintion.Edited by KBC1963, : No reason given.

type [qs]quote boxes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:True. And a fish that develops the ability to breath air as well as use gills can move into areas were the oxygen level in the water is reduced due to being overpopulated with oxygen breathing microbes or other organism or from silt and mud. It opens up new areas for it to obtain food and to escape predators, so it will survive and reproduce.Likewise a fish that develops bones in it's fins so that it can propel itself in muddy areas like tidal flats and swamps increases it's ability to obtain food and escape predators.And then it becomes able to move onto land, tentatively at first, but then with more assurance as those bones and muscles and lungs develop further.Curiously this is what the fossil record shows. Gogonasus
TiktaalikThus your conclusion that such things cannot happen by an evolutionary path is invalidated by the evidence.Evidence checkmates assertion every time.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : added qs info

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

You must have read several posts that have this information by now:type [qs]quote boxes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:It is an easy, simple concept to implement. Then the organism dies. If all the organisms in a species are so affected then they go extinct.The fossil record is littered with extinctions (evolution explains these extinctions as lack of fitness for a changed environment, design on the other hand has no excuse for failed species).The point though is that SOME life will survive the change, and that life will then evolve within the new environment.That is all that is necessary for life to exist in the new environment.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

The evidence we have shows that it can. You must remember that the changes we are talking about are very gradual. Fish didn't evolve limbs in a single generation. This is a straw man assertion - evolution makes no such claims.Tiktaalik (Tiktaalik - Wikipedia), for example, was an aquatic creature with strengthened fins that could be used to support its own weight during terrestrial locomotion whilst retaining their usefulness underwater - a classic transitional form. We see similar adaptations (operating in reverse) in pinnepeds (seals, sea lions, and walruses). Again, we're not talking about a change within the lifespan of one individual, we are talking about subtle changes over many thousands of generations.
Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

quote:

---

natural selection can only choose for a specific instance where a form fits specifically ro a specific environment.

---

Not quite. Natural selection chooses those individuals that are more likely to survive and reproduce than others. "Fitting specifically into a specific environment" is not really an accurate description since, first, any organism one can think of, there are better "designs" that would fit better into the specific environment, and, second, as the example of invasive species shows, some species will fit in pretty well into other environments than the one it was in initially.-

quote:

---

Thus as environmental parameters change natural selections parameters would change as well.

---

And they do. That is why we see the diversity that exists in the world today.-

quote:

---

If as you feel it was capable of eliminating possibilities then as the environmental parameters changed to require a different form NS would have already eliminated the possibilities required to fit within the new environmental parameters based on a previous different parameter set.

---

Not really. At each point in time, there are still an incredible number of mutations possible. With a large number of individuals in the breeding population, many of these mutations do occur, each one the beginning of a new direction. Natural selection then eliminates most of these other directions, and allows only a very small number to actually produce progeny in the next generation. But, again, in the next generation, a very large number of mutations (and previous not-yet-eliminated variations) will exist, each one leading to a new direction, to be acted on by natural selection.-

quote:

---

Simply because my analysis of probability differs from yours is no reason to personally attack me or my educational background.

---

You are quite right. It was uncalled for me to attack your educational background. It was due to a fustration on my part in not really understanding what your argument and claims are. I still do not understand what your argument is.-On the other hand, nothing in your post says anything about the multitude of evidence that exists in many different fields of biology and geology using a variety of different investigative techniques that all indicate a consistent picture of the way that life on earth has evolved over three and a half billion years old. The evidence exists, despite whatever analysis you or anyone provides, and the logical deduction of that evidence remains that life has evolved over three and a half billion years old.Therefore, it is clear that your analysis is flawed in some way. That could be because scientists do not yet have a complete understanding of the realities of the biological world to be able to answer these types of questions, or it could be because you, as an individual, do not understand biology or evolutionary science to see how your analysis is flawed.Another possibility is that an intelligent agent has directed the evolution of life on earth over three and half billion years.

---

"My country is the world, and my religion is to do good." -- Thomas Paine

You're assuming that something gives a damn, so you're screwed from the start. Only if the environment is static. And which form is determined by environment.

No. The shape of an organism's femur, to take your example, can only come from a combination of the genetic information it receives from its parents at the time it is created, together with the different shapes that may result from one or more mutations of that information. It is your assertion that such combinations can create any of an infinite number of shapes. It is therefore incumbent upon you to provide proof of this assertion.I do not take at face value your claim that such is the case, and you have provided no reason for us to believe so, beyond your naming of some various shapes. The mere fact that a shape can be named or described is no evidence whatsoever that such a shape can actually ever be produced by the combination of genetic information from two individuals and the mutations that might possibly occur is such information.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

No it doesn't. Nope. The number of dimensions a shape can really take up is limited to the number there really are. And, once you run out of things with which to make a shape, you can no longer add more things to it.Reality is quite confining. No, it can't.
Take, for example, a shape that's so complex that, if you coded it chemically, you'd have a structure with so much mass that it'd collapse into a neutron star.
There'd go your code.You obviously don't have a handle on either math or the limitations imposed by reality. Try again once you do.Edited by DominionSeraph, : No reason given.

It doesn't have to be entirely coded. Anything that the universe will take care of can be left out.

So far, you've yet to address the most critical refuation of your "specifics", that is, your argument is predicated on the misunderstanding that DNA encodes bone shape.It does not. DNA encodes the amino acid sequences of protiens, as well as provide for the regulation of their transcription.No argument based on DNA encoding bone shapes can be meaningful, because DNA is not a code of bone shapes. It's a code that specifies amino acid sequences.

Isn't KBC's whole argument just the same old misunderstanding of the nature of evolution as gradual change Vs the wholesale change argument put forward by proponents of ID everywhere? Isn't the OP effectively jumbo jets in junk yards again with jazzed up and overly complicated details?KBC seems to be saying that a femur (in this case) could spontaneously become any one of an infinite number of bizzarrely shaped bones in one single jump between successive generations. He concludes that because there are only an impossibly small number of conceivable shapes that could be deemed useful that ID must be true!!!Nobody is claiming Evolution works like this. A single mutation may result in a slight change in size, density, shape or any other physical attribute of the femur in question. That slight change may give a slight advantage to the survival and mating prospects of that individual organism which they then pass onto their offspring. And so we go on.Nobody is claiming that randomly shaped bone structures appearing in randomly located bodily positions is any sort of method of evolution except KBC. The fact he then asserts that evolution cannot realistically take place by this method is trivially obvious to all!!!!!!Either I have got the wrong end of the stick regards the OP or I don't get why the discussion is getting so bogged down in details when the whole premise of the OP is just the usual ID silliness seen time and time again.

Pretty much. This has been pointed out by myself and others. But "ID silliness" is ALWAYS lacking in details. One useful way to reveal the limitations of such arguments is to mount a challenge based on detail. Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

Fair enough. You have more patience than I do obviously.To KBC I would just say - Nobody is claiming that single random major changes to particular bones (or anything else for that matter) are the mechanism by which evolution occurs. Your whole argument aginst random mutation rests on these sorts of dramatic physiological changes. Therefore all you have "demonstrated" (I use the term loosely) is that an obviously false mechanism of biological change that we would all agree is impossible is indeed impossible. Nobody is claiming otherwise. Congratulations for that.
Does your essay have anything to say regards small graduated changes to existing physiological structures? If not it has nothing to say about evolution by NS.

Ever noticed how all stars, planets and moons are spherical/oblate spheroids? In this case gravity severely limits the possibilities.

Actually almost all shapes are precluded. Any shape (or other physical characteristic) of the body part affected by mutation must by definition be based on the original body part of the parent.