How long does it take to evolve?

I think that this was a better conversation than I thought it would be.I understand and agree with much of what has been said.I would , however , make clear at least one point of divergence.The consensus here is explaining how IC ( thanks to the one that deciphered that for me) can indeed be reduced.... I just don't buy it.Let us take the eye, as a tribute to RAZD that mentioned it.
Firstly, and most importantly, I imagine that even the most primitive light receptor is the result of a remarkable organization, be it natural or not. I do not believe that NS could have aided such organization , as each piece to the puzzle is useless on it's own (let me know if explanation is needed, I assume you have all heard this argument, feel free to link to the discussion!) and thus the monkey/weasel computer model would not apply to this first step. This logic would apply to every subsequent step as well... I would think that one mutation can not create a marginal incremental benefit, it would likely require dozens of mutations to line up per step!. (i concede to the comment made that the order of amino acids / proteins/ whatever may be of little significance, but still, pretty staggering. Of course, i guess it could happen eventually, but I don't think 14 billion years is enough time.Secondly, the light receptor is still 100% useless without a brain capable of deciphering the light in to "message". Think webcam without a computer. (this point I actually heard from someone else, who likely heard it from some creation science guy or something like that. But I think it's a great point.). There would be no reason for NS to aid in the dominance or propagation until the brain was there , (another very organized block of mush, even at it's simplest level)Thirdly, (back to my own thinking), even after deciphered in to a message, a light message requires further action from the brain. Does the light mean I should jump in to the fire, or away from the fire? A further impediment from allowing NS to help out .All this is for the simplist level of light receptor.Now, I understand that if we could get past all that I have wrote about- and if it is a PRATT, a link is fine, if it is easy to understand.I could go on, but if we have reached the point where we just agree to disagree, let's call it a quits. I have some other interesting threads in mind! Of course, if my points are easily refuted, I am not looking to be carrying around a sack of falsehoods. Edited by Lamden, : No reason given.Edited by Lamden, : No reason given.

DWISE:
please note my last comment was written before i got a chance to read your recent lengthy comment ... I fear you may have addressed some of my points. But not to worry, I am reading it now.Edited by Lamden, : No reason given.

RAZD,
Let us go step by step.
How are you addressing my first point?
You explain how things could incrementally improve. I get that. My point is, according to my understanding, every one of those steps seems to exhibit IC.
Let me explain myself .
Everything living is a result of the DNA coding. If a human cell contains 6 ft of microscopic DNA coding, let us take an arbitrary guess at how much DNA would be needed to program for a simple light receptor- let's say 1/10 of a mm. (pick your own guess) That would be far, far, more organization than the word "monkey" right there. And less likely to happen than it is to have any word formed by shaking up a bunch of letters and pulling them one by one. So maybe IC or ID is not the right word.... let's call it a statistical improbability. It is towards this first step that I do not see how NS could aid in organizing.

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 honestly thought recalled something to that effect on your page, but as you dispute it, rather than finding what I was referring to and quibbling over the meaning, I defer to the authors intent and I have edited your name out of my post. Speaking of which, you are no doubt well aware that Wise is German for "white". And I am called Schwartz. And according to Michael Jackson, "It doesn't matter if you're black or white", so I guess we can still be freinds.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2AitTPI5U0 My point was, I defer to you and all of your cronies as superior when it comes to knowledge of biology.
But biology is all good and fine. The points I am interested in are the conclusions we make from biology. It is at this point that the biologist is to present the evidence, and bow away to those that know how to think. (of course, a biologist may happen to know how to think also, but not because she is a biologist). I quote Nagel not because I endorse him, but because he is an extremely well known and respected thinker, as well as being an atheist, and cannot be accused of creationisim etc.This reminds me of a debate about medical ethics in Canada once upon a time, where there was some sort of movement to leave the decision of medical homicide up to (loose quotation ) "the ones that are qualified to make the decision....doctors) (sic).
While a doctor may be the one to diagnose someone as braindead, the decision what to do afterwards has nothing to do with medicine.Edited by Lamden, : No reason given.Edited by Admin, : Fix quote codes.

You are nit picking. Either you will bother to understand my point or not.

I saw something was wrong, but didn't want to sift thru the site till I figured it out. Practice maketh perfect

I am not here to convince you of any screwed up science, but to learn what science says.

The quote from Hawkings was just to say I don't know what he means, but it just sounds interesting and relevant to what I was saying, ( whether you like what I said or not), and would be nice if someone could explain it .Sheesh.As far as Nagel goes, here are some of the quotes. No interest in discussing, I am just pointing out than when you walk along a road that leads somewhere, you meet some people along the way. I didn't find the one I had seen, at least not on line, but here are some:I believe the defenders of intelligent design deserve our gratitude for challenging a scientific world view that owes some of the passion displayed by its adherents precisely to the fact that it is thought to liberate us from religion. That world view is ripe for displacement....Those who have seriously criticized these arguments have certainly shown that there are ways to resist the design conclusion; but the general force of the negative part of the intelligent design positionskepticism about the likelihood of the orthodox reductive view, given the available evidencedoes not appear to me to have been destroyed in these exchanges. At least, the question should be regarded as open. To anyone interested in the basis of this judgment, I can only recommend a careful reading of some of the leading advocates on both sides of the issuewith special attention to what has been established by the critics of intelligent design. Whatever one may think about the possibility of a designer, the prevailing doctrinethat the appearance of life from dead matter and its evolution through accidental mutation and natural selection to its present forms has involved nothing but the operation of physical lawcannot be regarded as unassailable. It is an assumption governing the scientific project rather than a well-confirmed scientific hypothesis.My skepticism is not based on religious belief, or on a belief in any definite alternative. It is just a belief that the available scientific evidence, in spite of the consensus of scientific opinion, does not in this matter rationally require us to subordinate the incredulity of common sense. That is especially true with regard to the origin of life.
― Thomas Nagel, Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly FalseEdited by Lamden, : No reason given.Edited by Lamden, : No reason given.

Whatever.