1. It is not COMPLETELY novel, yes, but it does contain a little novelty. Keep this process going a few million years and the amount of novelty will increase.
I am sure that some models have been made but I just don't have that information available right now.
2. In fact we have a system that has 40 parts removed from the flagellum that acts like a motor without the paddly thingy.
Ken Miller on the bacterial flagellum
3. Wrong, we have many fossils which provide evidence for the predictions that evolution makes. One is Homo Erectus which I presented before. This species went extinct just before we started seeing humans, and had a brain size much smaller than ours. They were very much like us from the neck down but had very ape-like features in the face like a protruding eye-ridge. Many parts of their brains for intelligence were not very well developed, and from artifacts that we have dug up, homo erectus did not have quite as much culture and technology as humans did. We have found dozens of fossils and many many skulls of specimens of all age groups.
3a. We have found small groups of hHomo Erectus fossilized together. This is strong evidence of evolution.
4. Very astute observation. That was a typo. I meant to say that the fossil record is a record of bones not genes (although we have found neanderthal DNA, and fossilized feathers in the ancestors of birds). Here is the evolutionary process: Random mutations creates a diversity and natural selection selects for the best characteristics. Over time this usually brings about a lot of change. Mutations in the wrong direction will be struck out by natural selection quickly so these mistakes are not likely to get far.
5. We do see a variation in transitional fossils; evolution is not a strait path but a wandering tree. Those failed transitions did not have outright bad structures contrary to what you might think but merely had structures that could not compete with others. Does that answer your question?
I mean, mutations like down syndrome; you know, bad ones.
From what I have read about tetrapod evolution, oxygen levels were indeed low, although I am not sure low levels were necessary for the evolution of the lung. As you can see, I am not an expert on tetrapod evolution but I will try to answer your question the best I can.
6. Sometimes however, if you were a shore living fish, your lake may temporarily dry up if you live in certain parts of the world and it would be beneficial to be able to hop to another lake using a primitive form of lung. In the lives of fish, they do sometimes come in contact with air just like we humans come in contact with water. My brother had a fish and I noticed that the fish would sometimes come in contact with air often accidentally.
7. Also, because of low oxygen levels, having a second source of oxygen (from the air) would have been very useful for survival and that "redudancy" would have given you an advantage.
8. We have some knowledge of the process by which lobe-finned fish evolved into amphibians from the fossil record in the late devonian era. I will list these transitions from most fish-like to most amphibian-like:
Eusthenopteron, Panderichthys, Ichthyostega, Tiktaalik, Acanthostega.
Tiktaalik is a perfect example of a cross between fish and amphibian.
Ichthyostega is a good example of a very fishy creature with a vertebrate positioned back bone.
9. A belief in a theory is somewhat analogous to faith. In science, you see patterns in nature and give an unproven hypothesis and tentatively assume that hypothesis is true(with a lot of skepticism). You try to see if the facts that are later uncovered fit the predictions of the hypothesis.
10. If these predictions are validated, then we start having more faith in it, and with even more validations our trust may become almost absolute and it may even become a theory. If future discoveried contradict its predictions or there is nothing to fit its predictions, then we lose faith in the theory, and look for something else.
Firstly I'll suggest that you check out the entire thread, since some of what you have said has already been covered
1. It would be interesting to see a scientific model of this, since there are none given that I know of, (despite studying evolution at Uni last year ).
So you believe that many changes can equal into a large one over time? Despite that there is no actual scientifically proven mechanism for that.. No evidence means that the null hypothesis automatically says no, (science says no). People can make models till the cows come home, if they are not supported via empirical evidence all they are is someones personal opinion / idea.
2. Yep, thats great another machine.... But saying that doesn't demonstrate that mechanisms that show it "evolved" over many small changes.. All is shown is that part of the flagellum, (if 50 parts are taken away) can be used as a pump.... Yet how did those other 50 proteins come to be to form the flagellum... Let alone how did the pump come about by itself too...
Also how the pump "evolved" straight after the first cell "evolved" since a pump will be required for the cell to live, (get in good nutrients, expel waste, etc)
3. Just one fossil is not enough. Furthermore the "brain size" issue was already refuted earlier, (I think), also I believe that Homo Erectus is being debated, since to some it is TOO similar to a human and thus could just be a variant of a human.
How do they know that there was ape like features? what fossils demonstrate this, (please no artist renderings).
3a. How? How does groupings of homo erectus fossils demonstrate evolution?
4. Not a problem
Yes that is the usual evo-fare. Considering that most mutations are detrimental, and the fact that there has never been any observed evidence that variations can lead to larger changes... All we see is changes within the species, and to assume that over millions of years they can add up is an argumentum ad futuris..
5. Actually no you haven't answered my question.. I never said evolution was a straight path, and my question actually is based on evolution NOT having a linear path... Since you already admit that there was other competing structures, I ask you where are they... ie- the runner up and third prize attempts at fish legs... etc etc... Or how about the fossils of half legged fish / quarter legged fish etc etc
By transitional forms, not just one or two with imagination filling the gaps between, (evolution of the gaps? )... a steady transition from one to the other, since claiming evolution with just a handful of independant organisms is based solely on assumption.
6. As asked previously, do you think these chance encounters assisted in the evolution of the lung... Yet considering this, it an arguement for Lamarkism.. As the fish needs to be BORN with the mutation not stick its head out of the water x times so it can "evolve" lungs... (Just like how I can rub my hands x times to make a millions dollars)... Do you think that the mutant fish was born with fully developed lungs? If not then how were the advantageous to be selected for, (since they are not fully developed and do not work)..
7. How do they know that the oxygen levels on earth was low? (Logically I'd have assumed they would be high due to the plethora of photosyntesising bacteria etc that lived "millions" of years before hand creating oxygen... IMO it doesn't fit logically.. Please provide evidence of this claim.
8. No, we have no knowledge of the PROCESS... Just the assumption that somehow, (by "natural selection"??), this independant organism changed into that independant organism... Tiktaalik has already been debunked due to fossil Tetrapod footprints found in Poland that out date Tiktaalik by about 18 million years
9. I am glad that you admit that belief in evolution is faith based Not many people do,
10. Then considering the tetrapod footprints and the tiktaalik / fish to beast transition, do you think that this sequence requires a serious overhaul?