Alun-I take into consideration the ongoing debate presented in all the posts pertaining to this subject presented on this site. And, yes Alun I have read the opening post several times. What I can't overcome is the suggestion of the simplicity of the process.
Obviously there's a lot more to explain; specific events that are shown by the fossil record still need to be explained. For example, why is it that change seems to occur sporadically, instead of all the time?
We all need to ask questions. I just have more than my fair share!!!! Plus a healthy dose of skepticism.
Once again this is the problem with any discussion pertaining to the successive appearance of life on earth. When we use terms such as natural selection in conjunction with evolution then I must ask "evolution" from what? By this measurement I must ask, is natural selection the, "reasoned", mechanism for all evolutionary changes, and speciation, currently understood? For this reason I do not intend to remain in a box, or painted corner of general acceptance, since as stated the theories are themselves "evolving".
Natural Selection forms the basis of Evolution. A term formulated by Charles Darwin. Natural Selection involves numerous concepts from mutation, chemistry, molecular biology to the possibility of "Design".
Natural selection is a theory centered on "adaptability". The ability of an organism to adapt to changing environments. And, I only question whether or not this can be a "mindless" process. Then ask if a mindless process can be constructed and processed in an empirical sense as is being attempted here. In that sense is natural selection a known "conceptual" explanation being presented as orthodoxy or are there alternative "concepts" which can be considered.
We are not asking ourselves whether grape or strawberry jelly is better with peanutbutter here!! We are asking ourselves and attempting to answer the basis for the existence of all life. And, in that respect, for me at least, we had better get it right, dot every "i", cross every "t", tighten every nut and bolt, since the consequences of getting it right or wrong have far meaning consequences. So forgive me my well founded skepticism.
What is being attempted here is that we are taking natural selection at face value and applying it to speciation when what is observed is diversity within species. What can be said is that adaptability is an "inherent" design within an organism and cannot be suggested as part of the process towards speciation, as a result. The evidence suggests that small variations occur within a population. So we must ask ourselves, is natural selection a viable mechanism for the progression of all life from a single prokaryote to Man, given what is known today?
If you are going to tell me that an organism adapts to environmental flux then this does not sound to me to be random and is either a mechanism which evolved or an inherent ability built into the biologic design on a molecular level.
Unrealist42
I agree, it is impossible that such a process as evolution be undirected. In fact, it is observably directed by the natural environment.
If you are going to tell me that it took 20,000,000 years to get slight variation due to a "slight" change in temperature, you're going to have to do better than "natural selection".
OK, pick a leg.
Yours.LOL
well ordered sophisticated system that we are only beginning to understand.
This from an anarchist?????
Grossly inefficient and ineffective? Compared to what?
Mutation is the inception of new information, a somewhat random process but a producer of new information nonetheless. The functionality of this new information, its effect, can be determined by survival in the natural environment.
The fact that the acquisition of new information, necessary, to the continued survival of the organism as suggested by the theory of natural selection leaves very little, if any, room, for randomization and/or chance this is further suggestive that clarity of the process be understood.
What?
You can postulate organizational hierarchy into biological evolution but that is an exponent for the accretion of increasing sophistication in biological function. There is no need for fully functional new organisms to arise spontaneously in a hierarchical evolutionary scheme.
Nature, nature sorts it all out. Coordination is impossible, a ridiculous notion.
Take the formation of bone for instance. Not only is it necessary for the bone to be constructed but also all of its necessary connective parts. Coordination, "impossible", seems to be inherent.
Organizational hierarchy is a necessary schema for any engineering endeavor, even biological, as put forth in the example above. A free floating structure such as "bone" would serve no purpose unless all of its necessary connective structures are also a consideration in its formation and development.
Anti-evolutionists need to start thinking. Anti-evolutionary theory has not changed since the 1800s. It has been given a new set of clothes and a new ID and paraded about but underneath the shiny new clothes and the new ID is the same old tired creature. A creature that cannot accept the observations of people curious about nature.
The observations are suggestive of "design" as clearly as evolutionist state that "there is only the appearance of design".
For me Darwinian theories break down at the point where I try to attribute it to the evolution of "sexual reproduction". I have searched and continue to search for an explanation of how the appearance of separate biological organisms coordinate selective processes for the purpose of continued survival through reproduction could have occurred by natural selection let alone evolution. Try as might I cannot formulate a process by which this could "naturally" occur. So any discussion centered around a natural process and explanation for the appearance and divergence of life draws me to that one paradigm. No matter how much segmented portions of naturalistic explanations may make sense when applied to that single concept of sexual reproduction it loses its validity in my view.
Saying "what" sexual reproduction does, does not answer the question of how it came to be.
When everyone looks to better their own future then the future will be better for everyone.
An explanation of cause is not a justification by reason.
C. S. Lewis
Fight the illusion!