Define "mega-evolution"
--Extreme macro-evolution, wherein morphological changes necessarily violate harmonious physiological systems within the organism(s) and wherein expected detrimental mutational changes somehow produce hopeful monsters. In YEC terms, it would be kinds switching. Of course such evolution violates pre-existent physiological parameters and must be viewed as preposterous.
Define "exquizitely-complexifying organism".
--Higher ordered harmonious complexity and inter-dependencies devoloping. "Exquisite" is does denote a higher percieved order and excellency (harmony symmetry, and proportion) of overall function.
Analogies: A watch vs. a rock.
Define "Exquisitely complex".
--See above
Define "higher animal".
(--As per Linnaein taxa schemes)
(Any and all enzymes and enzyme systems have barriers that cannot be broken, else catalytic active sites become extinct...)
This is irrelevant. Just because a particular existing enyme pathway is necessary for a particular function, does not mean that
someenzyme pathway might have arisen instead.
--I'm speaking of detrimental effects of enzyme evolution as barriers. What mechanism could possibly overcome such barriers? Enzyme pathways (e.g., Kreb's cycle) are different and may allow for minor evolvements, in my perception.
All the ToE predicts is
an outcome, not neccessarily a
particular outcome.
--How can catalytic active-sites fall into place then when there is no
guiding (particular) mechanism, unless it is pre-existent/APRIORI.
quote:
Neurolytic receptors as such cannot mega-evolve nor mega-devolve without detriment.
Define "mega-evolve".
--(Above)
Define "mega-devolve".
--The formation of vestiges which encumber an organism to the point of detriment, hence, impossible.
Define "detriment" in this context.
--Detriment is less survivability.
quote:
b. Higher Animal Immune systems with all their pre-arranged cascading events, critically harmonious interactions, while able to adapt to antigens via their pre-situated physiology, are fixed and maximally fine-tuned.
Unless you have infinite knowledge of the future, you cannot say that ANYTHING in nature is "fixed and maximally-fine-tuned."
--I agree that variations may be tolerated to a minimal extent, then stop (as is Drosphila studies).
quote:
c. Musculo-skeletal systems are critically harmonious, with fulcrums, levers, axial joints, etc. that may never be violated without detriment.
Irrelevant. Evolution is simply change; some changes to the genome be for the better, a few for worse, and most to no effect. Whther it is "detrimental" is dependent upon the environment. There is no barrier to macroevolution here.
--As a podiatric surgeon, I could never surgically take a human foot whose biomechanics are in the norm and improve upon the musculo-skeletal complexity of functions. Its all dead-end and fixed biomechanics even for the greatest foot surgeon. How much less could it evolve more beneficially.
This is basic stuff, Philip, that we have been over before.
--...
quote:
d. Cardio-Circulatory systems, while similar in many taxa, require specific heart types, fixed-communicating arteries, arterioles, etc. that defy beneficial change toward new additions as well as more exquisitely complex ones.
Care to provide evidence that circulatory systems do not change?
--Monkey heart transplants have failed in humans. If successful they will never benefit past a human heart; surely you can see.
A great deal of variation does occur with vascular channels, however, in the arterioles especially. In fact, my identical twin's vasculature is drastically different than mine in arterial and venous stemmings.
But, the main arteries (as per Grey's Anatomy) are set-in and cannot be perfected, only worsened. Designing or evolving a better Grey's vasculature is not viable on physiological grounds.
quote:
e. The same holds true for Epithelial and dermatological systems, Lymphatic systems, Head, Eye, Ear, and Nose systems, Heart, Lung, Hepatic, and Renal systems, not to mention the extremely exquisitely complex boundaries of reproductive, embryological, endocrine/harmonal systems, and their evidently dead-end complexity as systems communicate with systems: I.e., How could a retinal system interact more beneficially with the ocular-epithelial system (without wearing glasses), genetically? It can not! The boundary is apparent.
When nearsighted people get eaten by tigers again, evolution will have a greater influence on human eyesight.
--Only true if spectacles were not designable. But, methinks it would not increase complexity of the Grey's anatomy of the eyeball, because this organ is indeed harmoniously dependent upon its parts.
What strict limits you wish to require of both science and nature!
Not trying to be a pessimist regarding the ToE, but morphological kinds of organisms a limited in regards to change.
There are limits because Philip says there are limits. I understand now. What was I thinking? How foolish of me.
--My less than meager humble opinion(s).
How do you explain the immunity or resistance to HIV that some people (whose ancestors survived the Black Plague) have? The Plague was also an auto-immune disease which tricked the body into killing it's own lymphocytes, just like HIV does.
--Hypothetically, God's grace pre-enabled certain gene pools to mercifully allow the ToE to operate in some (this is not a theistic ToE I'm advocating nor god-of-the-gaps mechanism, please don't confuse this). But the pre-existent elements were in place in certain genomes to mutate or code resistance in the DNA itself. Surely, this is miraculous (unless I'm missing something) when there were so few people on earth during the black plague to invoke a substantial mutational ToE effect.
Nature selected, through a random mutation, these people to survive through their slightly different immune system.
--Perhaps, we'll luck-out with AIDS, too? Monogomy will probably have to increase/stablilize the nuclear family via social pressures, SANS a genomic-ToE here.
quote:
2) Developmental stages are gross barriers to evolution; violate a preceding stage and find detrimental ramifications upon the rest.
So what? The ToE doesn't predict that systems came about suddenly, but were a gradual development of additions and deletions and redundancies.
--Right, Shraf, but there's too many complex developmental stages ramifying one on the other. Perhaps there is genetic flexibility here but I would be careful to exaggerate such.
quote:
) To accept a macro-ToE is to place faith in spontaneous atomic re-arrangements and repeated abiogenesis-like phenomenon.
You are, once again, ignoring NATURAL SELECTION.
--You are nearsited, always invoking NS; I am farsighted, always invoking harmonious interdependencies, catalytic active sites in proteins, and other ICs and redemptive phenomena.
--Of course there's NS SANS changes in Taxonimically classifiable Kinds.
You really do have a profound misunderstanding of how evolution works.
--You really have a profound misunderstanding of how evolution works.
Don't make me become Borg-like at this point in counter-rebuttals.
(I'll bypass this one)
quote:
Abiogenesis/Spontaneous generation of organelles, organs, tissues, harmones, enzymes, systems, intellect, and finally God-consciousness, are barriers to macro-evol.
STRAWMAN!!!
--I do have a profound misunderstanding of what you mean by the scarecrow.
The ToE does not postulate that ANY of these things sprang up spontaneously!
Gosh, haven't you learned this yet? I swear I have told you this a dozen times if I have told you once, and that is just me!
--Nag nag nag. At least one of us is lying. The Mega-ToE is merely a nearsited spontaneous generational theory, in my opinion.
You sure write a lot of words, Philip, but maybe if you read a bit more about the subject you are denying, you would make a lot more sense.
--Appeal to emotions? Appeal to the APRIORI fallacies?
You know, quality over quantity?
--Don't even try to confuse these two realities (like the insanely confused Dawkins in Blind Watchmaker)
Sincerely,
Philip
™ Version 4.2