Evolution of the Eye

But irreducible complexity is a "just-so" story. Why can't it be refuted in kind. Saying something is impossible in principle can be refuted by showing a path that makes it possible. That simple. People believed it was impossible to fly. All you had to do was bring up Bernouli's principle to show that they were wrong without ever building an airplane. Convergence is a hallmark of evolution and very supportive. It is only a problem for supporters of Design, i.e. why reinvent the internal combustion engine for every new model of car?

Show me an example of how convergence has made phylogentic analysis IMPOSSIBLE. I would be happy to discuss it.Convergence violates nothing in the ToE. Are you trying to say it does? How does convergence violate evolution through random mutation and natural selection? Does the theory that two different species can come to the same solution through different pathways bother you in some way? Explain why?Here we have a Creationist/IDer who can pose strawmen to try and punch holes in any theory. A logical fallacy that can unexplain everything . . . I thought that kind of logic wasn't logic.

Firstly, do you want me to choose between thwart/aid or yes/no? I'm assuming thwart/aid. From that assumption, I would choose neither thwart nor aid as a generalization. Thwart means to completely stop or repel, as in the king thwarted the army's attempt to take the castle. This is why I asked you to cite an example where convergence made phylogenies IMPOSSIBLE to construct. However, I will throw you a bone and say that convergence can make some phylogenies MORE DIFFICULT to construct, but not IMPOSSIBLE. Show me the strawman. Seriously. If I made a logical error, show it to me. The strawman I saw on your part was as follows: Convergence makes phylogenies impossible to construct therefore ToE is falsified. If this is not what you are arguing let me know.So, my question to you: Does convergence support, not support, or a falsification of ToE? If none of these choices are satisfactory how would you describe the relationship between convergence and ToE?btw-I'll be gone this weekend, be back on Monday.

Good, we can start at the same point then. Good, lets start again with baffle instead of thwart.
I do not agree that convergence offers a major stumbling block. As in previous posts, convergence is usually superficial and many times only pertains to one function, not overall morphology. For instance, both vampire bats and leeches use an anti-coagulent to keep a hosts blood flowing. I would claim that scientists have no problem classifying these two animals far from each other in a phylo tree. I agree with previous posts that the largest problem would be at the genus/species/subspecies level. I can't think an example where convergence poses a large problem at the family or order level. Maybe you can suggest one example. Evolution doesn't accomodate mammalian fossils in Cambrian rock, flowering plants before the first gymnosperm, reptillian fossils before the first fish fossil, etc. What does the creationist model predict of the fossil record? From what I can tell it requires all of the above to be possible and or true. It would require that fossils should not be positioned the way they are if creation "theory" is true. False, already discussed. Simple to complex: As a generalization, true, specifically in all cases, false. Evolution is change due to random mutation and natural selection. How does the previous sentence predict simple to complex in every case? It doesn't. Read around this site a little. Horse evolution, aquatic mammal evolution, archeopteryx, just to name a few. God producing organisms: Missing In Action. We have species produced in the lab and nature and zero that have popped out of thin air. Again, read around. I know you will rant till you're blue in the face about the nylC gene (nylong digestion) but this simple reading frame mutation refutes what you just stated, even if you want to argue that information can not increase. Also, we have talked about hemC as well. Gene duplications also come to mind. STRAWMAN. Evolution did not predict acquired inheritance in a Larmarckian sense, just inheritance. Mendel correctly observed the phenomena which was non-Lamarckian. Mendel only helped solidify ToE by defining the framework of inheritance. Sorry, nice try. And by the way, no evo's today cling to Lamarckian inheritance. Name me one. Fossils discussed above. If the fossil record is so "out-of-place" why aren't the supposed numerous fossils plastered on every creationist site? As for radiometric dating, why aren't there any nuclides with a half-life under 50 million years that aren't an intermediate of longer decays or produced by readily measured processes (C14 from nitrogen in the upper atmosphere)? Did God have a special preference for nuclides with long half lives? Believe what you want to believe, it's a free country. Just don't expect to get any respect from the scientific community until you have EVIDENCE that refutes evolution or EVIDENCE that supports creation. In fact, evo's are nice enough to offer evidence in support of evolution. Why don't creationists offer evidence that supports creation outside of the realm of refuting evolution? It would be a step in the right direction.[This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 09-26-2003]