How long does it take to evolve?

That's actually you putting an argument into someone else's mouth. I think you've lost track of your own argument. In nature we see certainly do see reuse of designs. Your original position is that a intelligent designer would not reuse designs because he need not do that. And I believe I've provided examples of evolution coming up with diverse solutions, which is what you originally argued (wrongly in my opinion) that an intelligent designer should often do. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Uh, no. Octopus retinae place the photorectors in front of the bloodvessels and nerves supporting them. Do we see any vertebrate eyes adopting that? No. So why don't they? It is most certainly a more efficient way for an eye to work, so why doesn't any vertebrate eye work like an octopus eye does? Why does not vertebrate eye work like an invertebrate octopus' eye work?Why wouldn't an "intelligent designer" both to make use of the far superior octopus's eye?

This seems like an unwarranted criticism. Wasn't it precisely Faith's argument that the designer would have no need to go back to the drawing board, that all the DNA ever needed was seeded into life at the beginning? Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see where DWise1 had this as an "original position." Creationist positions vary all over the map, and all one can do is customize one's arguments to the particular creationist argument of the moment.--Percy

OK, so you are postulating a supernatural creator whose every single initial decision was precisely the exact correct one to have been made.So just exactly where does that put us?Edited by dwise1, : clean-up

Surely 'Faith said it' is not the standard for what constitutes a reasonable argument.I see your point. People do use that argument, so it is justified to for someone to repeat it and criticize it. But in my opinion, the argument is both unnecessary to explain reuse and incredibly silly. Yes, attack the argument when someone uses it, but as a method of demonstrating that God would not reuse a design or must resuse a design, the argument stinks.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

removedEdited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Hi DWise1,My message was a response to NoNukes, so if you're replying to what I said to NoNukes then I guess your reply has me confused. You didn't quote anything, so is it possible you clicked "reply" for the wrong message?If you *were* replying to me then I guess I'd have to say that, no, I'm not "postulating a supernatural creator...etc..." I was just telling NoNukes that when he said you were putting arguments in someone else's mouth that it seemed to me you were just generalizing around Faith's argument.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

What I thought I said was that DWise1 was raising an argument along the same lines as Faith, not putting words in anyone's mouth. The argument is not a reasonable one, and few creationist arguments are. I interpreted DWise1 as arguing against design reuse, based on the fact that we never see it. To elaborate on DWise1's argument, if every creature was designed then why do we never see octopus eyes (in the sense of placement of the blood vessels) in vertebrae? Was there truly not a single vertebrae that would have been improved with an octopus eye? Another example is the laryngeal nerve, whose path in most vertebrae is adequate, but which in the giraffe is absurd and cries out for borrowing a better design from some other creature. At the heart of this is the fact that we never see homologous structures in unrelated species, only analogous ones.If I seem to be missing your argument then perhaps you're making a subtle distinction that I'm just not seeing, but then would a creationist see it either.--Percy

To what NoNukes had said. Sorry about that.

You guys really got me to use the noodle. Unfortunately, my time, biological education, and brain power are limited, but this is what I have come up with so far.Regarding the eye:
A) Even if we accept the notion of gradual evolution.... is each gradual stage not the product of i) a change in DNA code , to ii) gather a different arrangement of amino acids, to iii) form a new variation of protein, to iv) form a new cell, to v) form a new type of tissue, to vi) form a new, improved, 2016 model organ . No matter how slight the improvement is, is that not an astounding chain of events? Even the most miniscule, subtle improvement would require a huge degree of organization. And all this has to happen millions and millions of times, in a limited amount of time.B) Even if we work with the assumption that such organization could happen, I find it difficult to fathom how the finished product we see today (I know you don't accept that concept, but listen to the point) could have been followed a lineage of constant improvement. For example, imagine you are a manufacturer, assigned to making a car. You can take as long as you want, with as many stages as you desire, but each change you make must be incrementally better than the stage before. That would be a huge handicap, perhaps even crippling. Similarly, The wonders of the eye as we know it seems to good to have overgone such a handicapped development process. I do not want to digress from the subject matter in order to maintain the integrity of the thread, but this applies to all of life.C) An analogy was made to a centipede multiplying its feet through mutations. Without any intention to be disrespectful, it seems amateurish to simplify so drastically . So much is required for something like that to happen, I am not so sure it makes it any easier to understand. But I can understand why Dawkins would use it to promote his point.D) Even if there is a beneficial mutation somewhere somehow, they are so rare that by the time it happened, the beneficial species would be outnumbered a trillion to one. By the time the effects of its beneficial mutation started to increase its population, the other trillion cousins , at all far flung parts of the world, would have multiplied to 1 trillion times ( insert some big number), and have their own representation of beneficial mutations. Repeat. And repeat. And repeat. Life as we know it ought to be far more diverse than it is today.E) Someone attacked me for being incredulous to science. Er, I accept all of science for what it is, namely, the systematic study of the world we live in. The conclusions we make from our observations is a different story- perhaps we could call it philosophy. ( I actually read somewhere that Hawkings predicted that "science would surpass philosophy- I am thinking about starting a thread for an explanation of what he meant)
Over the weekend, I have discovered a blurb from none other than Thomas Nagel himself decrying the portrayal of Darwinism as gospel. Had I known about it earlier, I certainly would have drawn from such a celebrated name. Although he remains an atheist for reasons that he admits amount to a convenience, his statement as a philosopher is notable. Edited by Lamden, : No reason given.Edited by Lamden, : No reason given.

I understand that you are using hyperbole, but what species has a trillion members? A new phenotype only has to compete with those animals within its own environment. Sometimes that is a completely new niche in which its peers cannot easily compete with the advantaged phenotype.If you are going to declare that something is mathematically not feasible, at least get your scenario qualitatively in line with reality.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

My favorite argument in this line is that you can take the octopus eye and the mammal eye and combine them to create a zoom-lens ability, and never need glasses.Enjoy.

Enter: the Hox genes.They control whole body sections, which can cut out a few of your i)'s and shorten the chain into something less astounding to your point, granted it just shifts the astound to something else.That links was great, you should check it out. This link isn't as awesome, but it better relates from Hox genes in general, to more about how they can be involved regarding the eye.

Stretching is good, except when mental gymnastics are required to make facts fit previously held convictions, rather than leading one to revise convictions that are ... inadequate.The question is what paradigm do you use to determine what concepts are valid, and what concepts are invalid. How do you test your opinions? Your beliefs? Nope. As noted we have evidence of many many many organisms that exhibit all these intermediate sensory abilities, and this demonstrates unequivocally that those intermediate stages are both viable and beneficial in allowing these organisms to survive and breed. And yet every automobile corporation is engaged in just this process, year after year. Cars as an example, actually counter your argument, with this caveat -- your opinion of what is better doesn't count, what counts is whether the new model is successful. Do you understand what the differences are between a beneficial mutation, a neutral mutation and a deleterious mutation? I ask because I don't think you do. What a person says does not become true because that person says it, if it is true it is true independently, and a person saying it is just reflecting that truth, no matter who it is. To cite someone, as validation of a position, is known as the logical fallacy of the appeal to authority.Enjoy

So you're imagining that evolution would produce a new organ, like a kidney? Why? When mammals first evolved, they already had kidneys. Mammals evolved from reptiles, and when reptiles first evolved they already had kidneys. Reptiles evolved from fish, and when fish first evolved they already had kidneys. Whatever fish evolved from may or may not have had kidneys, but whatever the case, kidneys go way back in evolutionary time, as do other organs. (I'm oversimplifying evolutionary history, by the way.)New organs aren't expected to evolve very often. Hearts and livers and kidneys and lungs (or gills) all go way, way back in evolutionary time. They originated in incipient form as just a specialized cell or few cells that provided a small survival/reproductive advantage, and they became more specialized and adapted over generations.But new organs *can* evolve. The baleen whale evolved a new organ in its mouth that helps it feed, though we don't know the specifics of how or when. Not better than before, just better adapted than before. The eyes of blind cave fish are not better than their evolutionary predecessors, but they *are* better adapted to living in a lightless cave. Better is a relative term. Each human child averages around a hundred mutations. Over a hundred million children are born every year, so that's at least 10 billion new mutations. Every year. Year after year. If only one out of a billion mutations are advantageous, that's 10 new advantageous mutations. Every year. Year after year. I don't know the actual rate of favorable mutations, I'm just trying to help you see that the odds are much better than you think. If I could quote you from your opening, when it comes to evolution your "biological education...[is] limited." You're right to be skeptical about the things you believe to be true about evolution, but you're misinformed.--Percy