Crashes and…
But evolution can't be a bottom up process if it was intelligently guided.
And apples can’t fall because of gravity if it’s pixies with very thin strings that do it. Congrats – you’ve now gone completely circular: you started with a deep misunderstanding of evolutionary theory to create a (false) gap in order to insert “God”, and now you posit the same god
a priori.
Even by your standards that’s a pretty epic fail.
And precisely how can a random copying error in a DNA molecule facilitate the prioritisation of information flow from sense organs?
Two problems there. First, it’s yet another argument from personal incredulity – whether or not the “precise how” is known doesn’t change the fact that the evidence tells us that it does. (Precisely how would this soul conjecture of yours interact with brains by the way?)
Second, the how in any case is simple enough – if you thrown enough mud at a wall, some of it will stick. Billions of mutations are highly likely to produce a small number that enable the host better to engage with and adapt to its environment. And because that host’s survival and breeding chances thereby increase, so over time those mutations become embedded and heritable.
I would say that any evolutionary process relying entirely on random events to drive it has absolute zero probability of producing anything as intelligent as an earthworm.
But as you’ve been told many times now that evolution is precisely
not random, why would you say that? You vastly underestimate scale here too – billions of events and billions of years for them to occur will create countless incremental changes that collectively observably produce all sorts of species.
I understand it perfectly well, which is why I come to the conclusion that if evolution relies on random mutations rather than purposefully guided ones, it can never be more than a fine tuning process.
No you don’t, and your “if evolution relies on random mutations” betrays the fact that you don’t. The mutations are random, but the interactions with environment and ensuing adaptations are precisely
not random.
A virus does not have the complexity of a human
But a fern for example is in some ways more complex than a human. We have 23 chromosome pairs, ferns have about 630 chromosome pairs – which is just as you’d expect given the much older age of ferns. And before you ask, “yes, but why can’t ferns ride a unicycle then?” the answer is that they are sufficiently well adapted to their environment and so there’d be no advantage to it.
The natural selection will not work if it does not have a virtually unlimited supply of beneficial mutations to select from when developing something as complex as a human organ. Even then, having to give each incremental step in the process a significant survival advantage is an onerous task.
And yet again you repeat your basic mistake of the reference point error. It’s not that that there are a virtually unlimited number of “beneficial” mutations – just mutations. Whether they turn out to be advantageous or not in terms of enhancing survivability is a judgment after the fact. This is well-trodden ground by the way – if you look at the evolution of the eye for example (which has evolved separately several times incidentally) you can trace all the way from light sensitive cells to dips and hollows to capture light and shadow to colour awareness to... etc.
A few posts back I said:
Look, you have a long history here of evasion and avoidance but could you at least try to engage head on just this once with the arguments that undo you? Can you now see for example that attempted analogies with car factories and the like fail because they start with an intended, top down outcome (the car) and ask “what are the chances eh?” whereas evolution is bottom up and purposeless – it cannot know what its outcomes will be because there’s nothing to do the “knowing” and because those outcomes occur as the result of countless interactions with the environments the genomes occupy?
Surely you can now see this much at least can’t you?
Can’t you?Should I take your silence to mean that your answer is “no” and that your continued ignorance on the subject is now wilful?
