nothing was in reference to the machine not the organism
Here's the original quote:
the point isn't for an already working machine to rebuild itself, the point is that starting with nothing, a machine of that complexity cannot evolve.
I'm not clear what distinction you are drawing between "organism" and "machine".
If a cell is considered a "biological machine", then an organism, which is composed of cells, is a "biological machine" as well.
The mechanisms by which cellular "biological machines" (e.g. ribosomes or bacterial flagella) developed thru evolution are well understood (contrary to Behe's assertions).
survival of the fittest means eliminating everything that isnt fit, and by its very nature eliminating parts that dont benefit the body immediately
An "unnecessary" part (e.g. eyesight in a cave dwelling animal)
is a deleterious part.
A great deal of biological "energy" is used in constructing "useless" parts. That "energy" expenditure could be used in others ways and thus is deleterious to an animal with an "unnecessary" part.
I'd also like to point out that the author of the 30 year old paper you cited, Philip J. Regal, is a zoologist.
http://biosci.umn.edu/~pregal/curriculum_vitae.htm
If you look at his CV you will see that evolution is not his forte.
youre making statements based on your assumptions!
What assumptions do you think RAZD is making?
He is simply saying that if you have a self replicating molecule it will evolve.
Let's use a virus as an example. A virus is nothing more than a tiny piece of DNA encased in an envelope. It is a very simple self replicating molecule. And a virus, when it replicates, mutates.
A good example of this is HIV's response to the AIDS cocktail. Over the years, resistant strains of HIV have developed thru the viral mutations.
™ Version 4.2
