quote:
As I see it, you need lots of new coding for new structures before selection can decide what works best.
Why? A considerable amount of change can be caused by relatively small mutations. Why would selection not work on these changes?
quote:
You would need quite a few beneficial mutations at once to produce a benefit in a higher level life form.
Why at once? Animals carrying harmful versions of genes die, and thus don't reproduce. Or the mutations in some other way cripple the organisms ability to reproduce. Either way, detrimental mutations disappear and beneficial ones accumulate.
quote:
You have to have the entire genetic information base increasing at orders of magnitude levels.
No you don't. Mutations occur in the copies as well. Over time 'duplicte' genes no longer look the same. That means they carry different information.
quote:
A designer... in my case, God.
I realize that this is what you want to see, but why? There is no need for such an entity.
quote:
Since they do not show up fully formed, can you explain to me how half a lung (or claw, or flipper) could present a clear advantage for natural selection to act upon.
Because lungs don't evolve from half-lungs. Lungs-- or anything else-- evolve from other structures that had/have different functions. Lungs could evolve from a swim bladder or a stomach, for example.
quote:
His work puts an upper limit of merely 3 million years for its duration!
He appears to be attempting to demonstrate this, but whether he is correct or not, the main question remains.
truthlover writes:
...if it happened, then how could it be too small a time?
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
™ Version 4.2
