i have one little problem with your beginning argument sir. Mr Hall's experiments eliminated the power of IC machines to prove anything. 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.
the idea is simple, and i do agree that micro evolution can do such things, but if you remove one piece of a Lego building, any moron can try every piece until one fits correctly, but try removing 5 or how about all of them?
The point is this; natural selection by its very nature will eliminate parts that do not benefit the organism immediately so unless all of the parts evolved simultaneously natural selection itself would have gotten rid of them.
if you have 99% of the parts of a machine in working order, i can imagine that under "the correct circumstances," whatever that means, evolution can fill in the rest, but if you have 1% of the machine, can evolution fill in the difference?
This is not true. Consider, for example, A and B are parts of a simple "IC" system. Then C is added -- C is not necessary, but it does help make the process a little bit better. ABC is better than AB alone. But then a mutation turns A into A'. A' works with the combination BC much, much better than A did -- A'BC is much, much better than ABC. The only problem is, if you take away C then A'B doesn't work at all. Thus, it appears as if A'BC is completely irreducible. But it's not -- you just don't currently see how A'BC evolved from simpler, reducible precursors.
So it is not really the case that you can look at a system and tell that it absolutely could not have evolved.
you still havent given me what ive asked for sir. using your terminology, im asking for a system where an organism exists and ABC would make it work better, but it does not yet exist. and where ABC is IC. i deify you to show me that the living thing can come up with ABC on its its own. remember, it starts with nothing not A or B or C.
Sure. If that 1% works just good enough to impart a reproductive advantage to the possessor, then it will be selected for.
I think I understand, and i agree; if A adds an advantage on its own, and AB will work better together then i see how evolution would work, but what if A adds nothing B adds nothing C adds nothing AB adds nothing AC adds nothing and BC adds nothing, but only ABC then i dont see at all how it would work; consider the bacterial flagellum
Great! You have just disproved the "Living organisms are made of Legos" theory. And so science advances.
I hope you know as well as i do that I was making an illustration in an attempt to help you understand a simple concept that you seem to miss i was simply trying to illustrate the difficulty in what your suggesting.
But evolution doesn't start with nothing. It starts with an existing organism that adapts to changing ecologies & opportunities or dies.
nothing was in reference to the machine not the organism
And when we switch the topic to abiogenesis and the development of a possible first life, with only the requirements for a very simple self-replicating system, then you would have to show that an IC system would be required for that (and which could not come together with the same processes that developed life). And we won't know that until life is generated eh?
isnt that an origin of life topic?
This is precisely what is falsified by the experiment. Natural selection eliminates parts that are deleterious or lethal, but it is indifferent to ones that are neutral.
This is completely not true. thus why evolutionists claim that we are losing "unnecessary" biological parts
survival of the fittest means eliminating everything that isnt fit, and by its very nature eliminating parts that dont benefit the body immediately
Life is not machines. If you have 1% of an organism, but it is independently alive and can replicate then it will continue to evolve. Look at what "machines" evolved from the basic prokaryotes (after a billion years slow start).
youre making statements based on your assumptions! that would be like me saying look at how great God is because He made all of this; while this is what I believe i dont make that statement because you dont believe He did, so it means nothing to you.