Intelligent design type evolution vs naturalism type evolution.

[downbeatplumb]

Ok so here is the basis of the irreducible complexity of life issue.

You have a turning thing in bacteria for example. It has various parts that work together to make it spin. Now I understand evolution once you get a certain something, how it proves to something else. I even understand systems improving and getting more complex as possible. However, it seems to be that it's impossible for a system to get there by direction of random mutations and natural selection.

Well my young padawan you are wrong.
Evolution can and has re-purposed elements, it can even remove bits.
Yes that's right evolution may have built up something and then removed un-needed parts. all that is required is the process of natural selection and time.

Take example a car. Once you have a car, we can improve upon that model. Keep making it better. And better. But without essential components of the car, it's not like those essential components are going to be useful without coming together.

They could have other uses and be refined, feathers started out in dinosaurs as a way of insulating themselves and later gained their role in flight.

Feather structures are thought to have proceeded from simple hollow filaments through several stages of increasing complexity, ending with the large, deeply rooted, feathers with strong pens (rachis), barbs and barbules that birds display today.[52]
Some evidence suggests that the original function of simple feathers was insulation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feathered_dinosaur

Even if they were useful separately, them coming to form a system, a complex system of various parts, still has no direction by natural selection and mutations.

If fact we can talk hypothetically or we can look at nature, and nature suggests a lot of things, the various components, work together with purpose of a being a part of a machinery (system).

There is more to it. If you have to completely type of machines, for example, wheels aren't going to be turning into computer screens evolution wise...(analogy)....engineers improve upon wheels, makes wheels better, and improve on computers and laptops but they are two different functions....

The same is true of many things in nature. Evolution will make it improve in that function primarily. At the very least, it's very unlikely to be heading towards another function completely.

I have elsewhere given the examples of jaw bones being re-purposed as the small bones of the ear. This would seem to be something that has an entirely different purpose than the one it originally had. where once they opened jaws wider now they amplify hearing. There are probably innumerable other examples but I have given one and that is enough to destroy this particular line of argument.

For example, eyes to be moving towards becoming arms. This is not logical. Or eyes heading towards becoming a heart or digestive system.

There are three different ways insects could have re-purpsed parts of themselves to form wings.

http://somethingscrawlinginmyhair.com/20...ect-wings/

Or a tree heading towards having legs and arms, and one day moving.

All this doesn't seem plausible to me.

Just because you dont think it happened does not mean it didn't.

Yes an animal can become a different animal. Gliding can turn into flight. Stuff like that can happen. But it's through improving in something...not a system that was headed towards a direction becoming something completely different or unrelated to what it was.

It can do exactly that evolution uses what is at hand and if it conveys an advantage it uses it. Evolution does not have a direction.

Tongues won't turn into brains for example. It's just not logical. They will become better tongues. They will not become something entirely different then a tongue as far natural selection and mutations go.

This is the argument from irreducible complexity.

It seems you need to look closer at evolutionary theory and research.
The theory says that it can do exactly what you say it can't.

So you have machinery that has various parts, that have a function, and would not function without various essential components. Those essential components have no direction of coming together through the process of evolution naturalism wise.

There are many ways evolution can fulfill all you ask. You don't find it logical I know, but the evidence says otherwise.

you may like to hear the ruling of a court case in america.

In his ruling, Jones said that while intelligent design, or ID, arguments “may be true, a proposition on which the court takes no position, ID is not science.” Among other things, he said intelligent design “violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation”; it relies on “flawed and illogical” arguments; and its attacks on evolution “have been refuted by the scientific community.”

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/10545387/ns/te...WA-NJOsiSo