Confronting Friends and Family

[Aractus]

DNA doesn't have "interests". And evolution isn't guided by "interests", it's guided by survival and reproduction.

Survival of what? The species?

If yes, then good you're on the right path, but it leads you to the problem that the interests of the species can conflict with the interests of the individual. Penguins are known for their ability to huddle together to keep warm, yet the individual penguins rotate their position and all, selflessly, spend exactly the same amount of time on the outside as each other. That's just one example of the system functioning against the direct wishes of its components. Thus you can't find all the answers you're looking for in the components only of the system; the functions run through the larger system but are not found in the individual components. It's the reductionist's nightmare.

Insects and birds also have similar structures in their wings. It's called "convergent evolution" and it's simply the result of adapting to similar ecological niches.

You've understated convergence. In fact convergence is a requirement of Evolution, if you couldn't observe convergence then you wouldn't be able to prove, at all, that complex structures can develop from simple rules in the world of biology. Convergence is in a sense predicted by the theory of Evolution, just as Einstein's theory of General Relativity "predicts" the existence of Black Holes.

No, I'm sorry, but you haven't. You have pointed out a few aspects of abiogenesis that need to be understood better, but you haven't reported anything problematic about the theory of evolution by natural selection.

Then explain to me specifically how Evolution works in such a manner that will be produce predictions that I can test. You can't. That's because you don't know how evolution works - you don't even know the exact relationship between "creature" and "dna". Just because you know that evolution takes place, doesn't mean you have a complete theory that explains it. You simply have the observation: evolution takes place; not the theory that produces it. It's like talking about how molecules relate to each other without understanding or even knowing about chemistry - you can only "know" so much.

Yes, there is. It's called natural selection. A complex structure, such as a heart, didn't magically pop up from nowhere. It derives from less complex structures, which derive from even less complex structures, and so on.

...

It is random chance genetic mutations that are progressively selected through natural selection.

Again you show the error in your view of the world. You see creatures as being "defined" by a function they share in common (dna). They also share the laws of quantum physics in common. Are they just a quantum uncertainty principle then? Of course not.

Let me explain this another way. If you were to blindfold a child from birth for the first three years of their life, they would never, ever, be able to see anything - they would be permanently blind, forever. The same with language - if you were never to communicate with a child for the first 5-6 years of their life, they would be unable to fully learn, understand and use any human language (Google "feral humans" for examples of these points). Our brains have to "learn" the functions, we're not given them from DNA or directly from our environments. Our brains are not pre-wired. Dyslexic people have a genuine problem with literacy because their brains didn't have the same learning capacity for that specific function as "most" people. The difference between what "might" and "mightn't" be is incredible, the exact same genetic material produces huge diversity, and diverse genetic material produces huge similarities, these two things are inescapable.

"Natural selection" is just a function, it is not the overarching law that governs how evolution behaves. If there truly is a "law" of evolution, as there are other laws of physics (laws of biology, laws of chemistry, etc), it isn't the "law of natural selection"; rather "natural selection" is a necessary by product of the "law of evolution". It is predicted, but not defined by, the law. Frankly I think I have more of a belief in evolution then you do, since I'm able to actually communicate what some of its functions are, yet you look to the functions as "laws" themselves that govern the system. One day someone will figure it out, just like we figured out that a fractal is a mathematical shape.