Natural selection can only choose from what is available via the existing gene pool. Anything new in the gene pool is from mutation which is random.
Roll a 12 sided die. 1-4 are genetic enhancements, 5-12 are disadvantageous. There's your mutation. Completely random.
Now introduce natural selection. From this die rolling, you are only allowed to pick numbers 1-4, and 6. All of a sudden this "completely random" formula has become reasonably predictable.
As a whole, evolution (although it does contain some randomness) is predominantly determinable.
Believe it or not, luck is a larger biological factor than natural selection. The best seed may land on rocky soil while the inferior seed lands on good soil, near a waters source with plenty of sun shine.
And the completely reverse may happen. So in a system that is 50/50 in luck, a selective advantage will ultimately win over, even if it only makes it a 51/49 difference.
Because the preexisting parts have no value to the biological system until they are assembled. Why would evolution choose something that has no value.
You keep repeating this despite me showing that these 'parts' do have a purpose before assembly. Are you not understanding how this works?
My guess is you are talking about Ken Millers example of TTSS.
Do you realize the TTSS is itself irreducibly complex?
I'm not sure how relevant TTSS is. My depth of understanding is limited to the video I linked earlier. I see no reason why it can't be brought in though
The problem with saying TTSS is irreducibly complex is that you've now put us on the path of infinite regress. If I can find a pathway for TTSS then you'll ask me to break down those individual parts. And you'll keep asking until I get stuck on a part that science hasn't delved deep enough into yet. At which point you'll claim IC has merit, when the truth is it all comes back to "I don't know how this formed, therefore God must have done it".
Here's is brief exerpt for the companion CD from the book called "Design of life" page 42
Again, all that exert says is that currently scientists don't have all the answers. He puts all the scientific efforts down to "speculation", which is quite possibly true. But what the writer fails to understand is that this 'speculating' is an hypothesis. They're still in the process of proving it. Maybe it'll be proven right, maybe not. But the writer is trying to imply the latter before the evidence has been presented.
My point was that stacking 5 coins in a neat column is easy to do for someone with intelligence and foresight. Whereas, it is nearly impossible for a random process to do the same thing.
There's no doubt it's easier. And with the coin example it's a great deal easier. That's why humans have been able to simulate several billions of years of nature in only a few hundred.
It's harder for a 'random' (for lack of a better word) process to achieve the same thing because it needs to try out thousands of options before it can progress. It might get lucky and find the right combination first time around, or it might take thousands of tries. There may be so many combination it just never gets there.
But this is another reason why the coin example is flawed. It assumes there is only one 'right way' of combining, which is simply not true. If there's multiple ways the coins can be arranged (say in a line) then the chances of either stacking or aligning is much higher. If both are advantageous than maybe 2 coins will be stacked and the others lined up. You really can't place these kinds of restrictions on life. It always finds a way
There is no way a random incremental mechanism process could make an integrated machine. If you read recent biological text books they do talk about evolution being: Random mutation + natural selection. Why, because it is incapable of creating biological systems.
They talk about random mutations and
natural selection because that's how the process is meant to work. I'm sure they also cover genetic drift and other variants too. Because that's the way it's believed to work.
What? Arch, sure mankind with years of learning and billions of dollars spent can rebuild parts of an ear and do very incredible things. This is an example of what intelligence can do. However, even with all our intelligence we can not do is make an ear or an eye that integrates into an animal anywhere near as well as what God did.
Again, shortsighted. God had eternity. Nature had billions of years. Humans have had hundreds. We can already make improvements.
Time is not enough.
We have numbers from various sources and we can quantify what mutation and natural selection can and can not do.
I'm not following either of these points very well. No of course time is not enough. You need mutations, selection, drift and probably plenty of other things I don't know of yet.
As for the malaria, why hasn't it evolved? As you pointed out, it's infected a great number of people. It's very effective at what it does. What selective pressure is on it to change?
The process of making computer code is an example of intelligence not evolution.
It wasn't meant to be. It was meant to show how incremental steps make a more solid, easily changeable system. It was meant to show that many subsections can have a purpose of their own, but can combine to make something even more special. It is an imperfect example of natural selection, not evolution.
I'm currently reading though the two articles you posted, so I'll get back to you on those