real life wrote:Does no violence? That's kinda funny. Are you implying a passive neutrality?
Your sense of humor i suspect derives from that to which you are not prepared to lend credence under any circumstances. A theory of evolution simply describes a process, which is not in itself sentient, and therefore is pre-eminently neutral.
Quote:Evolution positively REQUIRES that new organs and biological systems constantly build themselves in organisms where they did not exist before.
No, a theory of evolution does not require anything. A theory of evolution describes the processes by which, among a number of other events, new organs come into existence. A description of that process which is accurate would not for a moment describe the rise of new organs and biological systems as constant, because the rate of change is very slow in complex organisms (generations arising less frequently), and the degree of change minute in the least complex organisms. But a key point here is that the process is not anywhere asserted by those who accept a theory of evolution as the most plausible explanation for the diversity of life forms known on this planet to be a self-conscious process, nowhere described as being "guided" by any "purpose." The events which culminate in the evolution of life forms cannot be said based upon the available data to have been purposive in and of themselves, nor to have been purposively guided. Which is exactly why die-hard religionists such as yourself are so hysterically devoted to the attempt to bring a humble, honest and harmless theory into disrepute--you want to insist that there is a purposive force, your imaginary friend.
Quote:So frequent is this supposed to be that it is supposedly the process by which EVERY SINGLE living creature on Earth is what it is today , instead of a small pool of chemicals.
As previously noted, the simplest organisms change but little over vast spaces of time, and that despite the rapid rise of new generations. As also noted, more complex organisms produce new generations on scales of time which are orders of magnitude more slowly occuring than those of simpler organisms (large mammals, for example require at least years to produce a new generation, but bacteria reproduce in hours, or even minutes). Part of the problem here, is your completely unwarranted devotion to a time-scale of tens of thousands of years
at the most. (Before you object, a sciptural text of dubious provenance is not sufficient grounds to warrant the assumption in the minds of those not previously devoted to an unquestioning adherence to the allegation of inerrancy within said text.) So, significant, striking change need not take place "constantly," as you insist, either in ignorance or from a willfully disingenuous intent. Change need only occur over hundreds or thousands of generations--and with billions of years for the changes to have occurred, one can both abandon the notion of striking change occuring constantly, and rest assured that great change will have had time to have gradually made itself manifest. If you are going to make assertions about internal contradictions in a scientific theory, then you perforce must work within the terms of said theory--and in this case, applying your time scale is a false basis for your critique. The few hundred millions years since complex organisms have arise is more that sufficient time for the diversity we know to have devoloped, and without appeal to sudden, constant and stiking change.
Quote:All grass, all trees, all animals , all people would be dirt if evolution had not built complete organs out of nothing, biological systems out of nothing, complete body parts and whole body plans out of nothing, entire interdependent chemical processes and function out of nothing.
Yes, over a scale of time which you apparently intend to ignore.
Quote:So where are the half finished ones that are 'evolving' today?
This is nothing more than a word game, which i suspect that you've picked up at some anti-evolution web site, or some similar publication. Go online and read about the chambered nautilus sometime. Review the process by which it creates its shell. It does not live its life exposed to the vicissitudes of pelagic life for the months or even years necessary to create the beautiful shell with which we are familar. You might also look up the word "gradual" while you're at it, and see if you can't get a reasonable grip on that concept.
Quote:To borrow your most excellent example -- if we were to 'transition' between a three and four chamber heart -- for a very long period you would expect to see a three chamber heart with the fourth chamber partially present (you don't really think that a three chamber hearted critter gave birth to a four chamber hearted one and that thereafter all of his descendants had four chambers, do you? )
What i do imagine happened is that mammals with three-chambered hearts consistently gave birth over time to mammals with four-chambered hearts, and that at such time as that mutation provided a benefit, a new species was off and running. This is just another variation on that silly old theme you harped on so long of a fish becoming something other than a fish. It is entirely possible both that we retain traits that are of no advantage to us, and that we possess traits which are as of yet of no advantage to us; furthermore, it is entirely possible that in every generation of any species, mutations are present which go unnoticed, and which have little or no effect on the individual, until such time as conditions confer either an advantage or a disatvantage to the individual based upon the mutation. If the mutation were merely genetic, and was the potential for change, but not the change itself, you'd never see it. If the mutation were actual, such as an apparently unnecessary extra chamber in the heart, you'd only find it by slaughtering and dissecting every newly born member of the species. Given your hysterical response of the concept of abortion, i can't think you would tout such a method of finding your chimerical "half-formed" organ.
Quote:We see nothing of the kind.
No half done biological systems or organs. Why?
In short my challenge has to do with not 'what we don't know' , but with 'what we don't see'. No evidence of evolution of organs and systems in progress.
I don't know why you're saying "we," unless you have a large and preternaturally intelligent mouse in your pocket. You have no business lumping those with whom you argue and the scientists who consider a theory of evolution to be the most plausible explanation for the diversity of life which one sees on this planet into a group with yourself and those who stubbornly adhere to a young-earth creationist point of view for no damned better reason than a pigheaded desire to believe in your imaginary friend and his essential excellence.
There are no "half-done" organs or systems because mutations which would interfer with an organ or a system would kill the host individual, and those which do not have the potential to produce a new organ or system over the lifetimes of many, many individuals, with a gradual change which is not apparent as novelty in any single individual. That you are canonically opposed to seeing the excellent and voluminous evidence of evolution is not a good basis to suggest that no one else can.
