Why haven't we observed mutations of new body parts?

Actually, this forum gives the illusion of an evolutionist majority. I assure you that this is not the case at all. The creation side far outnumber the evolution side. The thing is most creationists usually just pull information out of their asses to make bullshit arguments with the 2 words they remembered from their high school biology text books. When they realize that most of us here are actually professionals and have worked for a number of years on the very subject we are discussing, they declare victory and run away.The evolution side, on the other hand, actually know what we are talking about and therefore are not afraid to stay and confront the bullshit arguments. If you stay here long enough, you will see what I mean.It goes like this. For ever 1 new member who believes in evolution, there are 10 new members who are creationists. But for every 1 creationist who actually stays a quasi-permanent member status, 10 people who believe in evolution stay. Did you know that Darwin was making out with Satan? I saw it once on The Simpsons.

---

Disclaimer:

​

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

​

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

Irreducible complexity is a bullshit term coined by creationists/IDists to deceive the gullible.For a starter, you could ask him what he means by irreducile complexity is, considering that everything we know now were one time too irreducibly complex for people to understand. The circulartory system was once irreducibly complex. Orbital mechanics was once irreducibly complex. The atom was once irreducibly complex.But you see, we do make progress. We do try to figure out the complex part of whatever the mechanism we are exploring and after we are done it is no longer irreducibly complex.By saying something is irreducibly complex and therefore it is an indication of design is like saying goddunit so we could never know what's behind the wall. I highly recommend people never to talk about things that are over their heads. After all, you don't see me talk on and on on geology topics. In fact, you don't see me post very often in geology threads.I'm not saying you shouldn't talk to him. I'm saying he's using the typical creationist tactic of demanding the impossible from his opponent and declare victory.I once attended a live debate between an astronomer and a creationist. The subject was about astronomical evidence in regard to the age of the universe. Since I have a background in this subject, it became apparent to me from the beginning that (1) the astronomer was not a very good debater even though he was a smart guy and (2) the creationist knew nothing about astronomy.The creationist attacked the astronomer by asking him question after question about geology. If I was the astronomer, I would have pointed out that the subject wasn't about geology. But you see, even though he knew all his stuff about astronomy, it didn't occur to him to point this out. Stage fright probably had something to do with it. After the creationist appeared to have torn the astronomer to pieces with geology questions, the crowd cheered for the creationist and it appeared to the layman that the astronomer was way over his head. It never occurred to anyone else but myself that the creationist appeared to win because he was taking the debate into territory he knew the astronomer wasn't familiar with.Don't take the bait. Talk about things you know well. Unfortunately, the regular Joe's vote weigh just as much as your vote and my vote. We can't afford to keep falling into the trap the creationist set up for us over and over. If they want to declare they have cosmic wisdom, let them. Eventually, it will show that their cosmic wisdom is nothing more than bullshit.

---

Disclaimer:

​

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

​

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

It helps to look at more obvious examples to see the flaw in the reasoning behind IC.You said

quote:

---

Irreducible complexity concerns the inability of a biological unit to function without any one of its parts, and thus the corresponding conclusion that the unit could not have evolved through slow steps, each intermediate step being essentially non-functional.

​

It doesn't have anything to do with the ability of modern science to understand something.

---

Evolution isn't about adding whole new fully functional parts to already existing systems. It's about modifying already existing parts in minute steps over long periods of time.Take a look at the computer. If you remove the harddrive in your copmuter, it will undoubtedly stop functioning. Therefore, it must be irreducibly complex, correct? And yet computers once upon a time didn't have harddrives in them. Rather, they had primitive versions of a harddrive. They had disks.Or how about the memory chips? If you remove the memory, the computer will stop functioning. Therefore, it must be irreducibly complex, correct? And yet computers once upon a time didn't have memory chips in them. They had vacuum tubes and transistors.But if you must, let's look at a biological system. The eye is used very often by the ID movement as an example of irreducibe complexity. And yet we have examples of more primitive eyes from light sensitive cells on microorganisms to the eyespots on the flatworm to the eyes without lens on the nautilus to the human eye. At this point, the IDist will point out that science doesn't know every micro-step of the evolution of the eye, and thus the eye must be irreducibly complex.How is this not falling back to the current ignorance of science?

---

Disclaimer:

​

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

​

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

Even based on this definition, IC is still a strawman (a bad one at that). Evolution doesn't say every once in a while POOF a completely new component appears out of nowhere within a biological system. If this were true, then yes we would expect to remove the components one by one while the overall system would still be working.Again, I have to point out the bleedingly obvious example of a computer. In order to even turn it on, you need at least a motherboard, a cpu, memory, a harddrive, and a power source. Take any of these out and the whole thing is pretty much a piece of useless junk. According to this IC argument, the computer is then an IC device.But if we look at the history of the computer, what I just described didn't just show up on the market. The computer went through many phases, from a bunch of vacuum tubes to transisters to microchips. The IC argument makes it out to look like the evolution side claims that the computer started out with just a cpu, then over time a mother board appears out of nowhere, and over more time a harddrive came out of nowhere, etc. That's not how the development of computers worked, and that's certainly not how the evolution of biological machines worked.

---

Disclaimer:

​

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

​

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

Even when this is the case, you can't just say that the computer is irreducibly complex simply because the computer went through many stages before the current ones on the market. And no doubt it will continue to evolve.The entire IC argument ultimately boils down to an ever unchanging biological system that was poofed into existence by a creator (I know this is not what they are literally saying but they've been hinting at this for years). Why do you think so many creationists rally to ID and IC so much?

---

Disclaimer:

​

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

​

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

You are welcome to debate with one of our creationists. We don't just have creationists here. We have the crackpot kinds, too. I try to stay clear of them because I can't afford the drugs necessary to understand what they are saying, but you are welcome to try.

---

Disclaimer:

​

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

​

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!