3. Actually in the Lenski experiment, it is shown that bacteria remain bacteria...
4. Yes, but this is a variant of the original function... the ability of the bacteria to process materials.. Hence this is not a novel function, rather a variant of the original function of bacteria. Bacteria are natures recyclers..
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.
5. Yes it will be tough since no scientist I know of has bothered to do what I have asked... Some just invoke, "natural selection", and do not worry about the actual mechanisms that must have occured.
6. Yes the original function of the flagellum will be lost if you remove one of the parts owing to its function... Yes I do know that ONE part may still be used as a transport protein, but where did the other 249 parts evolve?
I am sure that some models have been made but I just don't have that information available right now. It would be very technical. I will try to provide as much info as I can. 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
No, you assume we see this in the fossil record.
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. We have found small groups of hHomo Erectus fossilized together. This is strong evidence of evolution.
8. The fossil record IS a record of bones... That is what fossils are!!!!!!!
Very astute observation:D. 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).
9. I think you are confused with what I am asking for...
I am asking for the failed designs, since you said,
"The evolution of a structure is not perfect from the getgo.Ã‚Â It often takes time and gradual steps for it to be most efficent. "
Hence where are the fossils of multiple designs of legged fish, where are the designs of multiple attempts at getting fish in the first place.... (Let alone the illusive transitional forms, and how a single celled organism "evolved" into a muticellular one).
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.
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?
10. Can you show these? Are they failed design attempts of a design that was implimented or is it just a species that died...
I mean, mutations like down syndrome; you know, bad ones.
11. Do you think that the air exposure of these fish is sufficient to make such a system neccessary... Considering not all fish come up to the surface, since they have no reason to.
Furthermore, such a system will ONLY ever give an increase in fitness if the oxygen levels in the oceans were low... Are you implying this occured?
Another point is where will this redundant system be housed, since the gill system will be taking up the "prime real estate" for such a system.
12. yes amphibians exist... But that doesn't explain the process that they came about... All I see evolutionists doing is
Fish = mud skipper (half fish) = amphibian (quater fish) = reptile
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.
Around the devonian era, we were seeing trees which were dropping leaves into the water and that aided the evolution of fish that lived near the shore. 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.
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.
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.
Such observations are based on assumptions and do not show the process by which they came to be. You must admit that evolutionary science is upheld on faith / assumption based research.
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.
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.