Keith

Even if you had 500 billion years to obtain a bat ear that is as highly sophisticated and specialized as that for any species of bat found in nature, it would be impossible to explain without resorting to the miraculous. There are simply going to be too many failures and not enough successes.

If whatever bat ear we're discussing is composed of 300 different structures, all of which need to be working, and working together in order for the bat to survive, how did "nature" accomplish this? Through trial and error? If it took more than a million years to develop such an ear to the current level of sophistication, how can tens of thousands of past stages of bat ear development just happen to not only have sustained the bat's survival, but also anticipated perfectly (at every stage) what the bat's future survival needs were?

Slow, gradual evolutionary changes are "aimed" at a constantly moving, changing target, which is the enormous number of environmental changes. But the vast number of environmental changes, which are often very rapid and abrupt, are unpredictable and purposeless too, right? So, I don't see how adding more time can be helpful either.

Keith

Godless Dave

Yes. There are processes going on all the time that don't have a purpose. Water evaporates from the ocean, is carried on air currents, falls as rain, and then makes its way back to the ocean. This is a process with no purpose. It happens for a reason - gravity, heat, and the properties of water - but has no purpose.

Because organisms (unlike words on a page) reproduce. The organisms with useful mutations have a survival advantage and are likely to produce more offspring than organisms of the same species without that advantage.

Keith

The idea of "neutral" traits is absurd. Just because a particular trait appears to be neutral at the present, it doesn't logically follow that it will be neutral for survival 10,000 years from now. The use of words like "neutral" in the context of a natural process is yet another indication that certain traits and features are purposeful. If some particular trait can meaningfully be called "neutral" then other traits must not be neutral.

Keith

Keith

You've got the easy part done--making the assertion that the process of evaporation of water goes on without any purpose. But making assertions isn't the same as supporting them.

Keith

Keith

Again, you are using value-laden words like "useful" "survival", and "advantage" to describe a natural process that is supposed to be devoid of any purpose.

Keith

Godless Dave

By "useful" I mean a trait that confers a survival "advantage"; ie. makes the organism more likely to produce offspring

I don't see how "survival" is a value-laden word.

Godless Dave

Keith, I am asserting that water evaporates if certain physical conditions are met. I assert that water vapor condenses and falls as rain under certain other conditions. Further, I am asserting that water is affected by the gravitational pull of the earth. The process I described can be explained by the physical properties of water molecules. So, if you like, I am asserting that there is a physical explanation for the way water behaves that does not require an intelligent entity with a purpose. The only evidence I have to offer is what you should have learned about water in junior high if not earlier.

Oolon Colluphid

Hmm. Nice definition there Keith. How about if I define 'swimming' as 'the process of crossing a river without using a bridge or boat'? Not exactly informative, is it? I had hoped for something a little more pertinent. Would you say, for instance, that evolution is a random process? That it is a change in gene frequencies in a population over time? Both of those are often used. What do you think?

Cheers, DT

Oolon Colluphid

Why is that? Ah, I see, given your encyclopaedic knowledge of the subject, you have something better to propose. :notworthy: Righty-ho then, off you go....

Ahem. If?? Evolution, meaning the shared ancestry of all life on earth, is true. No ifs or buts. It is a fact. As much a fact as the earth going round the sun... and better supported than that too. The 'theory' bit is the explanations of that fact. <sigh> Do I have to define 'scientific theory' too?

No, only when looked at through the lens of ignorance. What you've got there is an argument from personal incredulity.

That's funny, because no biologist has noticed these miracles. The poor deluded fools are obviously oblivious to these blatant miracles.

TTFN, DT

Keith

Who is this purposeless selector of traits, and on what set of criteria can the selector know what is useful now? Useful for what? Or are you suggesting that the purposeless selector of traits selects for no reason? Is "reproductive success" the reason? Is the selector doing the selecting for no reason or is it doing the selecting for a reason?

Keith