Village Journals
Resonate your identity with Naseeb journals. Express your opinions, share your thoughts, post your writings and connect with like minded people through the power of expression.
Resonate your identity with Naseeb journals. Express your opinions, share your thoughts, post your writings and connect with like minded people through the power of expression.
Rebuttal in Defense of the Scientific Theory of Intelligent Design (Part 2)
Argument by Common or Popular Opinion
>> Something like 40% of scientists believe in God --- meaning that even those who believe in God are generally rejecting ID as science. ?Saif
I simply don?t care what percentage of ?those who believe in God? support or reject IDT. I simply don?t care how many Muslims support or reject IDT. I simply don?t care whether the Pope supports or rejects IDT. Even if 100% of ?those who believe in God? or 100% of all Muslims were to reject IDT, I would still be a passionate advocate of the theory of intelligent design because naturalistic causations are demonstrably incapable of creating the information needed to reach innovative solutions such as bacterial flagellum, blood clotting, immune system, bird flight, dolphin sonar, bat echolocation, eel electricity, firefly bioluminescence, parallel information processing neural system, and the physics of insect movement, to name a few. In the past, ?those who believed in God? also rejected Galileo?s idea of heliocentricism (and persecuted him to death), and ?those who believed in God? also believed in the flat earth theory. It is, therefore, simply immaterial how many of ?those who believe in God? support or reject IDT.
It is logically irrelevant what percentage of the population or what percentage of a certain subset of the population rejects or accepts IDT (e.g., biologists, physicists, scientists, professors, priests, church members, popes, Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, ?those who believe in God,? ancient Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans, etc.). As was contended in Part 1, the reason is that the legitimacy of a revolutionary scientific idea, such as IDT, is not an exclusive function of the popular opinion and of the count of peer-reviewed, scientific journal articles. The legitimacy of a revolution is an intrinsic property of the more vitally important reasoning of the argument and evidence for the proposition itself.
>> But, frankly, since biologists overwhelmingly favor the TOE (over 99.9%), whereas the public does not, ID is primarily a public opinion. ?Saif
How many biologists, particularly Darwinian evolutionists, supported Mendel?s paper Experiments in Plant Hybridization from 1865 through, say, 1940? That an idea is rejected by contemporary scientists does not, by itself, make the idea worthless. It is simply irrelevant how many biologists support or reject a revolutionary idea such as IDT. It is also irrelevant what percentage of the general populace supports IDT. In short, the argument by ?percentage accept and percentage reject? is unacceptable. This is not politics, public survey, or government legislation.
>> sorry if you don't like it. Also interesting how the Discovery Institute list of only 400 signatories had to resort to finding many engineers, physicists, mathematicians, and philosophers (etc) who are no more academically qualified than we are to put a stamp on the subject --- they just had PhDs. Couldn't find enough biologists? -Saif
The statement to be signed reads, ?We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.? www.dissentfromdarwin.org)
Your comment is baseless for two reasons. First, it is a straw man argument. The intent was not to exclusively seek biologists, the ?academically qualified? doctorates, to ?put a stamp? over anything, and then to ?resort? to non-biologists when not enough biologists were found to be willing to sign ? the straw man that you have attacked. The Discovery Institute did not need to ?resort? to finding engineers, physicists, mathematicians, and philosophers because the intent is to simply accumulate the signatures of doctoral scientists with a ?Ph.D. in engineering, mathematics, computer science, biology, chemistry, or one of the other natural sciences.?
Second, it is a childish objection. The signatory was initiated in response to the evolutionist?s incessant gibberish that there is no controversy over evolution in the scientific world. Whether the doctoral scientists are biologists is irrelevant. Of course, I expect only a few, if any, biologists to sign the statement because biologists signing the statement risk their professional careers and personal livelihoods. The biologists? professions, mortgage payments, car payments, credit card debts, and their children?s college education funding depend on blindfolded adherence to the ideological foundation of the unsupported theory of evolution. Frankly, I feel that the Discovery Institute?s fellows would be dumb-founded to engender a serious expectation of many biologists signing the statement. If a good number of biologists were willing to sign the statement, then there would be no need for the statement in the first place! Therefore, it is a ridiculously childlike question, ?Couldn't find enough biologists??
Haldane?s Dilemma
>> When these questions are posed, the ONLY escape Darwinists have is that of ?time?. Time must have carried out these magnificently complex operations. You say the possibility of a Creator or supernatural is unscientific. Explain to me, how in the world relying on ?time? (which is really Darwinists? God) to explain every single complex ?evolutionary step? is scientific?? ?Asif
Indeed, Darwinists are devout priests that worship the Natural-Time-Chance (NTC) god. Darwinists are blind followers of Darwin, the revered prophet of the NTC god. ?Thou shalt not worship any other god,? the NTC god proclaimed.
Refer to my earlier post ?Haldane?s Dilemma,? which brings to light the ominous problem that evolutionists historically ignored, namely, that even time on the order of millions of years does not bode well for creatures with low reproduction rates: higher vertebrates and, in particular, humans. Darwinists cannot justifiably rely on the time factor as a panacea for the embarrassing plagues infecting their theory.
Irreducible Complexity
>> When Michael Behe in 1996 developed the basis for ?irreducibly complex? organs/systems and asked Darwinists to show how such organs (bacteria flagellum, eye, blood clotting system etc.) could be developed with numerous, successive, slight modifications ? to this day there has been no solemn response. Some did attempt to answer the question, but in vain, in fact in most cases Behe corrected them in their understanding of the concept of irreducible complexity while others contained technical mistakes. ?Asif
I concur that even to this day, plausible, naturalistic ways to produce irreducible complexity have not been presented. Behe has responded to his critics, who may be under the illusion that they have answered his biochemical challenge www.arn.org).
>> I'm sure you must know that a plethora of mechanisms for the evolution of irreducibly complex systems have been presented. Since you are familiar with talk.origins, you can find enough information there. -Saif
And you should also know that a plethora of articles have been written to evaluate and to contest the supposed naturalistic means for making irreducibly complex systems.
>> I have done some reading on Behe's arguments, and just by going over the gist of his claims, it is clear that the very philosophy behind his reasoning is faulty. I haven't read his book, so I can't respond to each point in detail ? ?Saif
Biochemistry is in the details, not just in the ?gist.? Each point should be considered in detail. The cell is in the details. The replication and transcription of the DNA are in the details. The hydrogen bonding of the double-stranded DNA is in the details. The synthesis of adenosine triphosphate (ATP) is in the details. The ribosome is in the details. Inter-cellular communication is in the details. The leaves and the energy transduction process of photosynthesis are in the details. The maneuvering of a microtubule is in the details. Oxidative phosphorylation, electron transport chain, proton gradient, and mitochondria are in the details. A nerve impulse is in the details. A muscle contraction is in the details. The lactic acid (2-hydroxypropanoic acid) clearance system during intense exercise and fatigue is in the details. The synthesis of insulin in the pancreas? beta cells is in the details. The selectively permeable, phospholipid bilayer of the cell membrane is in the details. The production and the regulation of production of steroids (e.g., testosterone, estrogen, progesterone) are in the details. Evolutionists have long ignored a multitude of such details with an assortment of hand-waving generalities and fairy tales, a legacy of the 19th century approach that assumed that the cell is a simple gelatinous blob.
Are you an intellectual toddler that is spoon-fed anti-design ideas by the Internet buffoons at Talk Origins and other biased, evolutionist websites? Do you think that it is more effective to read controversial literature on your own first prior to rushing to the opponent?s views? Do you think that that recklessly flawed learning process is inherently biased, unfair, and misleading? If you have not read Darwin?s Black Box, you have absolutely no right to claim that ?the very philosophy behind his reasoning is faulty,? let alone to spread the groundless dogma among the uninformed masses.
>> Since the publication of Behe's book, there have been numerous responses in that vein. Do you reject all those mechanisms? -Saif
Trash aside design, evolution, biology, Behe, Darwin, God, mutations, and so on, just for a moment. Just answer from a purely impartial point of view a generic question about the learning process. Is it wise to simply count or read the opponent?s responses in lieu of first comprehensively reading the literature at issue and then vigilantly assessing the opponent?s arguments in detail?
Natural Selection and Random Mutation
>> Additionally, when considering that benefical mutations strongly outlive harmful ones, beneficial ones win out in the end, and in time, lead to traits that will become prevalent in order to fill the ecological niche. ?Saif
>> Despite the fact that harmful mutations outnumber beneficial ones, the beneficial ones dominate because new traits that help a species fit into an ecological niche survive far more often, and spread through populations, as that link you provided mentioned. The negative mutations sometimes kill the organisms, or they decrease their fitness, thus making it less likely for them to survive longer and reproduce. -Saif
How did eels get electricity?
Natural selection + ?onsidering that benefical mutations strongly outlive harmful ones, beneficial ones win out in the end, and in time, lead to traits that will become prevalent in order to fill the ecological niche.?
How did plants start transducing energy from electromagnetic radiation into the energetic bonds of organic molecules?
Natural selection + ?onsidering that benefical mutations strongly outlive harmful ones, beneficial ones win out in the end, and in time, lead to traits that will become prevalent in order to fill the ecological niche.?
How did my eyes develop the ability to distinguish different wavelengths or frequencies of visible light? How come I have color vision?
Natural selection + ?onsidering that benefical mutations strongly outlive harmful ones, beneficial ones win out in the end, and in time, lead to traits that will become prevalent in order to fill the ecological niche.?
How did dolphins get sonar?
Natural selection + ?onsidering that benefical mutations strongly outlive harmful ones, beneficial ones win out in the end, and in time, lead to traits that will become prevalent in order to fill the ecological niche.?
How did sexual reproduction arise?
Natural selection + ?onsidering that benefical mutations strongly outlive harmful ones, beneficial ones win out in the end, and in time, lead to traits that will become prevalent in order to fill the ecological niche.?
How did the mother?s anatomy develop to support pregnancy and childbirth, and how did the mother?s feeling of love for her baby develop?
Natural selection + ?onsidering that benefical mutations strongly outlive harmful ones, beneficial ones win out in the end, and in time, lead to traits that will become prevalent in order to fill the ecological niche.?
How come the human nose, ears, eyes, mouth, tongue, legs, hands, and other anatomical structures are arranged in the most rational manner?
Natural selection + ?onsidering that benefical mutations strongly outlive harmful ones, beneficial ones win out in the end, and in time, lead to traits that will become prevalent in order to fill the ecological niche.?
How come lips aren?t on the back, eyes aren?t in the mouth, noses aren?t in armpits, tongues aren?t in the soles of the feet, hair aren?t in the mouth, half a leg isn?t sticking out of the back, and fingers aren?t protruding out of the skull?
Natural selection + ?onsidering that benefical mutations strongly outlive harmful ones, beneficial ones win out in the end, and in time, lead to traits that will become prevalent in order to fill the ecological niche.?
How come there exist nose, ears, eyes, mouth, tongue, legs, and hands, let alone how they aren?t located in absurd places?!
Natural selection + ?onsidering that benefical mutations strongly outlive harmful ones, beneficial ones win out in the end, and in time, lead to traits that will become prevalent in order to fill the ecological niche.?
How did consciousness, free will, creative intelligence, abstract thought, parallel information processor, and homeostasis sensors develop in the human brain?
Natural selection + ?onsidering that benefical mutations strongly outlive harmful ones, beneficial ones win out in the end, and in time, lead to traits that will become prevalent in order to fill the ecological niche.?
How did hormones start swimming around from cell to cell as messengers of communication?
Natural selection + ?onsidering that benefical mutations strongly outlive harmful ones, beneficial ones win out in the end, and in time, lead to traits that will become prevalent in order to fill the ecological niche.?
How did the intestine surface fold, increasing the surface area for nutrient absorption?
Natural selection + ?onsidering that benefical mutations strongly outlive harmful ones, beneficial ones win out in the end, and in time, lead to traits that will become prevalent in order to fill the ecological niche.?
How come there are enough alveoli in the lungs to allow comfortable breathing and gas exchange near the Earth?s surface?
Natural selection + ?onsidering that benefical mutations strongly outlive harmful ones, beneficial ones win out in the end, and in time, lead to traits that will become prevalent in order to fill the ecological niche.?
How did the heart get placed in a protected repository?
Natural selection + ?onsidering that benefical mutations strongly outlive harmful ones, beneficial ones win out in the end, and in time, lead to traits that will become prevalent in order to fill the ecological niche.?
How did the octopus get its eyes?
Natural selection + ?onsidering that benefical mutations strongly outlive harmful ones, beneficial ones win out in the end, and in time, lead to traits that will become prevalent in order to fill the ecological niche.?
How did the blood start clotting?
Natural selection + ?onsidering that benefical mutations strongly outlive harmful ones, beneficial ones win out in the end, and in time, lead to traits that will become prevalent in order to fill the ecological niche.?
How come there is an immune system?
Natural selection + ?onsidering that benefical mutations strongly outlive harmful ones, beneficial ones win out in the end, and in time, lead to traits that will become prevalent in order to fill the ecological niche.?
Is there anything that does not arise by natural selection and random mutation?
No, there is not! In fact, that I have the guts and the aptitude to ask this question is due to natural selection and random mutation!
I presented the remarks above as an example of hand-waving generalities and fairy tales that ignore a multitude of biochemical details - a legacy of the 19th century approach that assumed that the cell is a simple gelatinous blob. Simply preaching the gospel of ?natural selection and mutation? while reclining in philosophy?s armchair does not solve the problem. Demonstrate. Empirically demonstrate or gather field observations that show how naturalistic mechanisms might find innovative solutions to constraint-driven optimization problems.
Nadeem
>> Something like 40% of scientists believe in God --- meaning that even those who believe in God are generally rejecting ID as science. ?Saif
I simply don?t care what percentage of ?those who believe in God? support or reject IDT. I simply don?t care how many Muslims support or reject IDT. I simply don?t care whether the Pope supports or rejects IDT. Even if 100% of ?those who believe in God? or 100% of all Muslims were to reject IDT, I would still be a passionate advocate of the theory of intelligent design because naturalistic causations are demonstrably incapable of creating the information needed to reach innovative solutions such as bacterial flagellum, blood clotting, immune system, bird flight, dolphin sonar, bat echolocation, eel electricity, firefly bioluminescence, parallel information processing neural system, and the physics of insect movement, to name a few. In the past, ?those who believed in God? also rejected Galileo?s idea of heliocentricism (and persecuted him to death), and ?those who believed in God? also believed in the flat earth theory. It is, therefore, simply immaterial how many of ?those who believe in God? support or reject IDT.
It is logically irrelevant what percentage of the population or what percentage of a certain subset of the population rejects or accepts IDT (e.g., biologists, physicists, scientists, professors, priests, church members, popes, Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, ?those who believe in God,? ancient Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans, etc.). As was contended in Part 1, the reason is that the legitimacy of a revolutionary scientific idea, such as IDT, is not an exclusive function of the popular opinion and of the count of peer-reviewed, scientific journal articles. The legitimacy of a revolution is an intrinsic property of the more vitally important reasoning of the argument and evidence for the proposition itself.
>> But, frankly, since biologists overwhelmingly favor the TOE (over 99.9%), whereas the public does not, ID is primarily a public opinion. ?Saif
How many biologists, particularly Darwinian evolutionists, supported Mendel?s paper Experiments in Plant Hybridization from 1865 through, say, 1940? That an idea is rejected by contemporary scientists does not, by itself, make the idea worthless. It is simply irrelevant how many biologists support or reject a revolutionary idea such as IDT. It is also irrelevant what percentage of the general populace supports IDT. In short, the argument by ?percentage accept and percentage reject? is unacceptable. This is not politics, public survey, or government legislation.
>> sorry if you don't like it. Also interesting how the Discovery Institute list of only 400 signatories had to resort to finding many engineers, physicists, mathematicians, and philosophers (etc) who are no more academically qualified than we are to put a stamp on the subject --- they just had PhDs. Couldn't find enough biologists? -Saif
The statement to be signed reads, ?We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.? www.dissentfromdarwin.org)
Your comment is baseless for two reasons. First, it is a straw man argument. The intent was not to exclusively seek biologists, the ?academically qualified? doctorates, to ?put a stamp? over anything, and then to ?resort? to non-biologists when not enough biologists were found to be willing to sign ? the straw man that you have attacked. The Discovery Institute did not need to ?resort? to finding engineers, physicists, mathematicians, and philosophers because the intent is to simply accumulate the signatures of doctoral scientists with a ?Ph.D. in engineering, mathematics, computer science, biology, chemistry, or one of the other natural sciences.?
Second, it is a childish objection. The signatory was initiated in response to the evolutionist?s incessant gibberish that there is no controversy over evolution in the scientific world. Whether the doctoral scientists are biologists is irrelevant. Of course, I expect only a few, if any, biologists to sign the statement because biologists signing the statement risk their professional careers and personal livelihoods. The biologists? professions, mortgage payments, car payments, credit card debts, and their children?s college education funding depend on blindfolded adherence to the ideological foundation of the unsupported theory of evolution. Frankly, I feel that the Discovery Institute?s fellows would be dumb-founded to engender a serious expectation of many biologists signing the statement. If a good number of biologists were willing to sign the statement, then there would be no need for the statement in the first place! Therefore, it is a ridiculously childlike question, ?Couldn't find enough biologists??
Haldane?s Dilemma
>> When these questions are posed, the ONLY escape Darwinists have is that of ?time?. Time must have carried out these magnificently complex operations. You say the possibility of a Creator or supernatural is unscientific. Explain to me, how in the world relying on ?time? (which is really Darwinists? God) to explain every single complex ?evolutionary step? is scientific?? ?Asif
Indeed, Darwinists are devout priests that worship the Natural-Time-Chance (NTC) god. Darwinists are blind followers of Darwin, the revered prophet of the NTC god. ?Thou shalt not worship any other god,? the NTC god proclaimed.
Refer to my earlier post ?Haldane?s Dilemma,? which brings to light the ominous problem that evolutionists historically ignored, namely, that even time on the order of millions of years does not bode well for creatures with low reproduction rates: higher vertebrates and, in particular, humans. Darwinists cannot justifiably rely on the time factor as a panacea for the embarrassing plagues infecting their theory.
Irreducible Complexity
>> When Michael Behe in 1996 developed the basis for ?irreducibly complex? organs/systems and asked Darwinists to show how such organs (bacteria flagellum, eye, blood clotting system etc.) could be developed with numerous, successive, slight modifications ? to this day there has been no solemn response. Some did attempt to answer the question, but in vain, in fact in most cases Behe corrected them in their understanding of the concept of irreducible complexity while others contained technical mistakes. ?Asif
I concur that even to this day, plausible, naturalistic ways to produce irreducible complexity have not been presented. Behe has responded to his critics, who may be under the illusion that they have answered his biochemical challenge www.arn.org).
>> I'm sure you must know that a plethora of mechanisms for the evolution of irreducibly complex systems have been presented. Since you are familiar with talk.origins, you can find enough information there. -Saif
And you should also know that a plethora of articles have been written to evaluate and to contest the supposed naturalistic means for making irreducibly complex systems.
>> I have done some reading on Behe's arguments, and just by going over the gist of his claims, it is clear that the very philosophy behind his reasoning is faulty. I haven't read his book, so I can't respond to each point in detail ? ?Saif
Biochemistry is in the details, not just in the ?gist.? Each point should be considered in detail. The cell is in the details. The replication and transcription of the DNA are in the details. The hydrogen bonding of the double-stranded DNA is in the details. The synthesis of adenosine triphosphate (ATP) is in the details. The ribosome is in the details. Inter-cellular communication is in the details. The leaves and the energy transduction process of photosynthesis are in the details. The maneuvering of a microtubule is in the details. Oxidative phosphorylation, electron transport chain, proton gradient, and mitochondria are in the details. A nerve impulse is in the details. A muscle contraction is in the details. The lactic acid (2-hydroxypropanoic acid) clearance system during intense exercise and fatigue is in the details. The synthesis of insulin in the pancreas? beta cells is in the details. The selectively permeable, phospholipid bilayer of the cell membrane is in the details. The production and the regulation of production of steroids (e.g., testosterone, estrogen, progesterone) are in the details. Evolutionists have long ignored a multitude of such details with an assortment of hand-waving generalities and fairy tales, a legacy of the 19th century approach that assumed that the cell is a simple gelatinous blob.
Are you an intellectual toddler that is spoon-fed anti-design ideas by the Internet buffoons at Talk Origins and other biased, evolutionist websites? Do you think that it is more effective to read controversial literature on your own first prior to rushing to the opponent?s views? Do you think that that recklessly flawed learning process is inherently biased, unfair, and misleading? If you have not read Darwin?s Black Box, you have absolutely no right to claim that ?the very philosophy behind his reasoning is faulty,? let alone to spread the groundless dogma among the uninformed masses.
>> Since the publication of Behe's book, there have been numerous responses in that vein. Do you reject all those mechanisms? -Saif
Trash aside design, evolution, biology, Behe, Darwin, God, mutations, and so on, just for a moment. Just answer from a purely impartial point of view a generic question about the learning process. Is it wise to simply count or read the opponent?s responses in lieu of first comprehensively reading the literature at issue and then vigilantly assessing the opponent?s arguments in detail?
Natural Selection and Random Mutation
>> Additionally, when considering that benefical mutations strongly outlive harmful ones, beneficial ones win out in the end, and in time, lead to traits that will become prevalent in order to fill the ecological niche. ?Saif
>> Despite the fact that harmful mutations outnumber beneficial ones, the beneficial ones dominate because new traits that help a species fit into an ecological niche survive far more often, and spread through populations, as that link you provided mentioned. The negative mutations sometimes kill the organisms, or they decrease their fitness, thus making it less likely for them to survive longer and reproduce. -Saif
How did eels get electricity?
Natural selection + ?onsidering that benefical mutations strongly outlive harmful ones, beneficial ones win out in the end, and in time, lead to traits that will become prevalent in order to fill the ecological niche.?
How did plants start transducing energy from electromagnetic radiation into the energetic bonds of organic molecules?
Natural selection + ?onsidering that benefical mutations strongly outlive harmful ones, beneficial ones win out in the end, and in time, lead to traits that will become prevalent in order to fill the ecological niche.?
How did my eyes develop the ability to distinguish different wavelengths or frequencies of visible light? How come I have color vision?
Natural selection + ?onsidering that benefical mutations strongly outlive harmful ones, beneficial ones win out in the end, and in time, lead to traits that will become prevalent in order to fill the ecological niche.?
How did dolphins get sonar?
Natural selection + ?onsidering that benefical mutations strongly outlive harmful ones, beneficial ones win out in the end, and in time, lead to traits that will become prevalent in order to fill the ecological niche.?
How did sexual reproduction arise?
Natural selection + ?onsidering that benefical mutations strongly outlive harmful ones, beneficial ones win out in the end, and in time, lead to traits that will become prevalent in order to fill the ecological niche.?
How did the mother?s anatomy develop to support pregnancy and childbirth, and how did the mother?s feeling of love for her baby develop?
Natural selection + ?onsidering that benefical mutations strongly outlive harmful ones, beneficial ones win out in the end, and in time, lead to traits that will become prevalent in order to fill the ecological niche.?
How come the human nose, ears, eyes, mouth, tongue, legs, hands, and other anatomical structures are arranged in the most rational manner?
Natural selection + ?onsidering that benefical mutations strongly outlive harmful ones, beneficial ones win out in the end, and in time, lead to traits that will become prevalent in order to fill the ecological niche.?
How come lips aren?t on the back, eyes aren?t in the mouth, noses aren?t in armpits, tongues aren?t in the soles of the feet, hair aren?t in the mouth, half a leg isn?t sticking out of the back, and fingers aren?t protruding out of the skull?
Natural selection + ?onsidering that benefical mutations strongly outlive harmful ones, beneficial ones win out in the end, and in time, lead to traits that will become prevalent in order to fill the ecological niche.?
How come there exist nose, ears, eyes, mouth, tongue, legs, and hands, let alone how they aren?t located in absurd places?!
Natural selection + ?onsidering that benefical mutations strongly outlive harmful ones, beneficial ones win out in the end, and in time, lead to traits that will become prevalent in order to fill the ecological niche.?
How did consciousness, free will, creative intelligence, abstract thought, parallel information processor, and homeostasis sensors develop in the human brain?
Natural selection + ?onsidering that benefical mutations strongly outlive harmful ones, beneficial ones win out in the end, and in time, lead to traits that will become prevalent in order to fill the ecological niche.?
How did hormones start swimming around from cell to cell as messengers of communication?
Natural selection + ?onsidering that benefical mutations strongly outlive harmful ones, beneficial ones win out in the end, and in time, lead to traits that will become prevalent in order to fill the ecological niche.?
How did the intestine surface fold, increasing the surface area for nutrient absorption?
Natural selection + ?onsidering that benefical mutations strongly outlive harmful ones, beneficial ones win out in the end, and in time, lead to traits that will become prevalent in order to fill the ecological niche.?
How come there are enough alveoli in the lungs to allow comfortable breathing and gas exchange near the Earth?s surface?
Natural selection + ?onsidering that benefical mutations strongly outlive harmful ones, beneficial ones win out in the end, and in time, lead to traits that will become prevalent in order to fill the ecological niche.?
How did the heart get placed in a protected repository?
Natural selection + ?onsidering that benefical mutations strongly outlive harmful ones, beneficial ones win out in the end, and in time, lead to traits that will become prevalent in order to fill the ecological niche.?
How did the octopus get its eyes?
Natural selection + ?onsidering that benefical mutations strongly outlive harmful ones, beneficial ones win out in the end, and in time, lead to traits that will become prevalent in order to fill the ecological niche.?
How did the blood start clotting?
Natural selection + ?onsidering that benefical mutations strongly outlive harmful ones, beneficial ones win out in the end, and in time, lead to traits that will become prevalent in order to fill the ecological niche.?
How come there is an immune system?
Natural selection + ?onsidering that benefical mutations strongly outlive harmful ones, beneficial ones win out in the end, and in time, lead to traits that will become prevalent in order to fill the ecological niche.?
Is there anything that does not arise by natural selection and random mutation?
No, there is not! In fact, that I have the guts and the aptitude to ask this question is due to natural selection and random mutation!
I presented the remarks above as an example of hand-waving generalities and fairy tales that ignore a multitude of biochemical details - a legacy of the 19th century approach that assumed that the cell is a simple gelatinous blob. Simply preaching the gospel of ?natural selection and mutation? while reclining in philosophy?s armchair does not solve the problem. Demonstrate. Empirically demonstrate or gather field observations that show how naturalistic mechanisms might find innovative solutions to constraint-driven optimization problems.
Nadeem