@brianjakub,
Quote: Eye sight is a light and focusing system
And the fossil record and DNA of all organisms show eyesights bauplan supported by several dozen means of occurence. Scallops eye is waay differentnthan a planaria, a tartegrade, a squid, an insect or a primate.
Several of the crystal based eyes take but one or two Nucleotides to control the polymorph. So the "All systems change hypothesis" is a bit too optimistic . You should revisit Darwins "...Origins" to see what he had to say about evolution of the eye system through time. Its very interesting wrt your belief system.
As I said, the entire change from wing to flipper to hand is controlled via a limited set of genes in one chromosome.Genes for wings like those on an ostrich or penguins, kiwis, cassowaries and many galiforms (chickens). We know these are VESTIGIAL wings that evolved from flying birds. This we get from the fossil record ND DNA from living clades. Vestigial due to repurposing due to environmental adaptation. That takes waaaay less fudging than would ID "Informational response via the algorithm in charge". We can understand vestigial "functions" of evolved stubby wings. Flight has a number of costs to the organism, such as weight control and surface area. These vestiges re responses that re defined by changes in somatic cells.
There would be no problem talking about anything in biology as long as there IS SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE and not religiouus clabber. tuff Ive talked about and just flew over yer head includes vestiges, atavisms, gene expression, convergent evolution, can all be seen as responses based on the bonding and availablity of whatever RNA was available in the neighborhood. We really only have to worry about 3 different and unique bonding types for the ACTG andU (remember , their bonding partners are fixed , not random)
The problem with you is that your seemingly "testing all our waters " while spending 30% of your time justifying a religious worldview and then, with your word salad science your seemingly fishing for scientistic argument, and most of us aint buyin it. Im sure Leadfoot is on your side and maybe even gunga (But hes got his own creed thats only arguing via phenomena as evidence and trying to INVALIDATE C14 or argue for co -existence of humans and dinosaurs , and his incredible age or the earth).
Your evidence , IMHO is nonexistent and what you say is often incorrect ,(youtry the waters of credulity to see if we flinch)
For example, I think you mean Industrial melanism of peppered moths (not finches). Thats not really demo'ing volution. Its demonstrating selection by predators based upon an allele for wing color. Gunga came on discussing that and weve told him several times ( natural selection of the variability in the spcies aint evolution, its just an example of selection by ppredation). Jut remember, finches were Darwin species (Of which he didnt even know that they were finches till he was told that all his species were finches from one island chain).
Quote: You have a good understanding of how the program works
Thanks, I think. I think that you need to do a lot more to understand the chemistry of linkages and organic bonds and how the , if I can agree to anything that even remotely gives us an idea that something is an "Algorithm", it would be the fact that RNa unzips the Dna an variation via random folding, mutation, nucleotide repetition all define the genotypes "variability". There does not seem to be any systematics involved . (Or so the evidence seems to most non worldview geneticists)
