Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…And I am not sure that it is more absurd then if we were present millions of years ago and predicted that a light sensative scratch on the face of some creature would eventually "evolve" into an eyeball.
What is so absurd about a process consisting of a succession of perfectly credible and none-miraculous small changes over a large ...[text shortened]... nce against intelligent design! (unless you assume the designer to have flawed intelligence!).[/b]
What is so absurd about a process consisting of a succession of perfectly credible and none-miraculous small changes over a large time span? Which particular one of those small changes do you find absurd? -if you don’t find any particular one of those small steps absurd then why would you find the whole series of those small steps absurd?
The question I asked you was why do you count as so terribly unlikely that the same
process could not modify an digestive system, including the anal cavity, into a reproductive system, given millions of years.
To my example, you seemed to recoil at its absurdity.
…So, if Evolution is true, how can you be so sure that the male anal cavity will not (through many intermediaries) evolve into something like the female vigina for reproduction, given that homosexual behaviour among men carries forward for a few million years ?
Like you said -there would have intermediate forms.
BUT, for evolution to work, they would not only have to merely be any sort of intermediate forms, they would have to be a succession of intermediate forms with, just as has been proven possible with the evolution of the eye, each one giving an IMMIDIATE survival advantage over the one that came before it
Firstly, these successive intermediary forms, in the case of the eye, are mostly in your imagination, I think.
I don't think you have each stage of transition on record. Secondly, if scratch to eyeball is a possibility what is so unusual about anus to vigina as a possibility?
I mean Evolution has done fantastical things, supposedly.
else it wouldn’t be credible for evolution to produce it -so can you imagine such a succession of intermediate forms in this case and,
I think that you have to "imagine" intermediary forms in any case.
For example, there is not way to arrange all known species and types of ape to reconstruct an relationship of descent to a human. You have to use your imagination. And artists have fueled this imagination with drawings depicting what Evolutionists want to see.
I think it would likely be impossible to have all the recorded successive steps in any regard. So the imagination is used.
We're talking about prediction. You couldn't possibly predict the future intermediary surviving stages between anus and vigina for a scores of millions of years into the future.
I think the devoted Evolutionists should say "Its possible"
if they wanted to be consistent IMO.
if so, what would each form be and what IMMIDIATE survival advantage would each one have?
Looking into the future it would be very hard to imagine.
If you could go back in a time machine 100 million years, knowing only the past and the present, how could you predict what an organism would need to survive?
-I certainly cannot imagine such a string of intermediate forms in this case so I suspect it wouldn’t be credible for evolution to produce such a thing for that reason.
Okay. But are you saying that if you had been there 100 million years ago you could predict that a fish crawling up on land would be a an ancestor by way of descent to a bald eagle flying in the air ?
Would you have been able to imagine the intermediary steps that evolution would have to accomodate for to make that transition ?
This shows the limits of evolution; some forms that can be imagined really cannot evolve because there are no credible evolutionary pathways to those forms while there are credible evolutionary pathways to other forms and this is partly why evolution would rarely (if ever) give a form that is PERFECT for survival and reproduction and forms that are imperfect are thus evidence that what produced those forms is an unintelligent process.
It sounds to me like if you could have been around 100 million years ago you could predict pretty well what evolution would produce in the future - "credible" models.
I think if you really
have confidence in the power of the process, you should say that anus to vigina could take place given enough time. Maybe not, but maybe it could.
Point is that we've supposedly seen things equally fantastical.
-this can be taken as evidence for evolution but only if you assume the only ‘alternative’ to evolution is intelligent design -imperfect living forms is certainly evidence against intelligent design! (unless you assume the designer to have flawed intelligence!).
This complaint of imperfect design doesn't bother me too much. That is because a non-optimal design is still a design. And I predict that you are about to change the subject a little.