The problem is -natural selection is a blind process that cannot see ahead to select a new improoved function.
This is merely an argument for irreducible complexity. None of the steps that went into making what was to eventually become a wing was without contemporary value. To be sure, a harmful mutation will be selected against: like wearing a Yankee's cap in Boston; but, that's neutral in most environments and beneficial in some. There is no shortage of environments on this ever changing planet.
natural selection would eliminate it as having no function.
NS does not eliminate mutations that have no function. It eliminates mutations that are harmful. NS recognizes the cost/benefit must be positive, but if the cost is meager the benefit needn't be pronounced.
the idea that each chance increment being more fit than the last is statistically impossible.
Only if one is restricted to a single environment could this possibly be the case. The short limbs of the Inuit would be a disaster on a basketball court, but throw one of Da Vinci's scythemobiles into the mix and you got yourself a whole 'nother ball game.
each involves a loss of information.
Not! What makes a bit of information in a gene information is that it produces a secondary effect. If a change in the gene causes a different secondary effect it is still information. Environmental pressures determine whether the new information is boon, bust or blazé.
In time unless the mutation can be selected out this leads to extinction of the species.
They are selected out if they decrease the likelihood of reproduction. Genes go extinct regularly. They don't have to take the species with it.
To change an ape-like gene into a human-like gene you need to know the whole DNA information sequence in advance.
Unlike videos of ones Mum stepping in dog poop in her Sunday shoes, this doesn't get better with repetition. We were not a goal. Evolution didn't care where it ended up. You throw a dart at random and stand amazed at the specialness of the spot it hit neglecting that it had to hit somewhere.
I won't mention maths again incase I get suspended , but evolution just dosen't add up.
It is your use of pseudo-math that is objectionable. Your use of "statistically impossible" at the end of the second paragraph is sound and fury signifying nothing. How do you know what the odds are? I see you making one after the next erroneous assumption. If these are what you're plugging into your equations you're doing your own math, right? then it's not surprising that you keep getting answers that do not comport to the reality right before your eye.
Edited by lyx2no, : Typos.
It is far easier for you, as civilized men, to behave like barbarians than it was for them, as barbarians, to behave like civilized men.
Spock: Mirror Mirror
™ Version 4.2