reply to post by rnaa
I do appreciate your thoughtful responses, very much! Please allow me to continue challenging your statements, since my motivations for doing so are
to see if I can honestly become convinced of your position. If I can truly see that the premise of a "blind watchmaker" holds water, then I will
adopt a new acceptance of it.
With regards to the appendix, I believe it falls into the common category of "we don't know what it does, so it must do nothing." The fact is, new
information on the appendix shows it does have a function:
What does the appendix do?
You still did not in any way address my logical problem with the missing mistakes. Here are your conflicting statements:
1) Most mutations are neutral.
2) Beneficial mutations remain.
3) Detrimental mutations disappear quickly.
First of all, as I said earlier, if MOST mutations are neutral, then what we are saying is most mutations can exist on the creature and not provide
any helpful advantage nor any harmful hindrance. If that is the case, then ALL creatures should have many things like an appendix (though appendixes
do not appear to be useless after all). The only thing you can point to on the human being is the appendix, and yet that now appears to be gone as
some kind of useless appendage. Even the "useless" DNA is only classified as that because the researchers have not found a reason YET, and the key
word is YET. Instead of them being honest and saying "we don't know what those do yet", they blow smoke up everyone's bum and say they are
useless... much like the appendix is "useless."
Also, the statement "wings are MOST LIKELY flaps of skin that turned into wings" is just propaganda-like, because it attempts to say something is
"most likely" when there is no basis at all for saying that. Those words "most likely" are designed to imply that the theorist has done some kind
of statistical analysis and has determined odds that favor the supposition. To say that something is "most likely" when the idea is only something
that is pulled out of the air is deceiving. It also presupposes that macro-evolution occurs, so you can't use it as a proof statement that it does
occur. What would be more honest and less biased would be to say "one possibility is that wings perhaps came from a fold of skin."
Let's focus on the wing for a moment. Let's imagine an initial mutation where a small flap formed. Now, if it is possible for ANY flaps of this to
form, it is also likely that NEUTRAL flaps would form on other parts of the body, not just where wings could one day form. Plus, why would there be
two flaps that form and not just one? And, those two would form in parallel, with identical mechanisms on both sides? I wish you would answer my
questions honestly and address the question of neutral mutations, which you claimed MOST were.
Let's reason it out: mutation produces flap of skin, but there is no bony framework, no joint mechanism, no muscles to move it, and no nerve
connections... just a flap of skin. So, that creature has offspring that also has the flap. Many generations go by and no further change happens to
the flap... so there would be creatures that have a useless flap. Now, based on some freak mutation (not just damage), the flap gains a bump of bone
beneath it, and this trait is then passed along for many generations. Let's say that none of those creatures were caught in any sap or in any
mud-slide, so no fossils. Now, many years pass, and another mutation occurs with this bump-flap appendage... the bony-bump grows longer making it
stick up fairly high and stretching the skin. At this point, there is no joint, since a joint is a fairly complex thing, requiring proper fit of the
various bones and a lubricating layer of cartilage. No, all we have is a fairly long, bony protrusion. It is not useful to the creature per se,
other than it may serve as a weapon or something to scare other creatures, but that is only if this bony structure is located such that is doesn't
inhibit the creature from moving or walking.
So, what you are saying is this... all beneficial traits developed such that they were never negative traits at some point. In other words, if wings
came from skin flaps with bony structures inside of them, this random trait had to be located at precisely where it would be neutral at worst and
beneficial at best. Also, the alignment of the "winning" wing blades had to be such that the wings would produce lift and not just cut through the
air. Also, the nerve mechanism had to be wired into the brain such that the creature could instinctively desire to fly and the wings would do the
precise movement required to provide not only lift, but also to give the creature complete control of the flight movements. Then, of course, there is
the issue of energy consumption, so that the powering of the wings would allow for the speed needed (which is amazingly fast) and for the duration we
observe. Until all of this was in place, we would have certain specimens that would have immovable wings, wings that were misaligned, wings that
twitched, wings that fluttered briefly, wings that moved too slowly, wings that moved up and down without allowing flight, wings that allowed erratic
and uncontrollable flight, and wings that allowed only brief spurts of flight. Any improvement to the wing would happen over a long time, and this
would leave a vast number of creatures that had partially developed wings... wings that were either neutral or detrimental.
Let's call this the "mountain range" problem. As is the case with any system like this, it may very well be necessary to traverse a mountain range
by going down before you can go up. Often times a local optimum must be violated in order to reach a global one. In the wings case, the appendage
may have to be neutral, inconvenient, useless, or even harmful before it can eventually be useful. To believe that a slowly progressing mechanism can
always be beneficial is a bit naive, at least in my current view.