Intended mutations

A gibbon has a ball and socket joint. It's wrist is a perfect swivelling tool. The moth's proboscus is a perfectly compatible extendable straw for sucking pollen from deep inside flowers. What these facts highlight to me, and many more in nature, according to the equilibrium of advantages and disadvantages, is that evolution must have some foresight if the morphology is to be brilliant like this. So allow me to have the musing that an intended mutation is a good explanation for an excellent tool, rather than a random one. for time and time again, I am amazed by the perfection of the trait.ofcourse, traits are also mundane and imperfect. Yet it strikes me that if NS is to act upon a favourable trait, that trait might be in the form of a rudimentary morphology, such as a useless wing.Don't mistake my argument as an argument against evolution. The evolution happened, that's not the issue, the issue is that it seems there is a "choice" for species, in that what they specialize in, comes to be matched with the endowment of extraordinarily brilliantly designed tools.Without nature having foresight, I think a designer is surely plausible, as he would have foresight in the direction the species is going in, and how it would affect the equilibrium of life.Example; a bat might choose to grow it's fingers into supports for wings --> but the eagle picks off the bats. Advantage/disadvantage. etc ->. A four-legged tree hopper is essentially a ground dweller so it has the disadvantage of not leaping as far as the monkeys, advantage/disadvantage.It seems that simply saying that the equilirium of life is coincidental, is insufficient.If I am wrong, then can you atleast see how I come to see design? Is it an illusion I see because I trying to figure it out logically rather than learning the actual science?This is perhaps an opportunity for a knowledgeable scientist to explain why a designer is not necessary because of parsimony.

it's also a record of life, and what did live atleast for a time, succesfully. If that was the intention, then there is no problem. Don't forget, this is all my hypothetics, but if it works right? becasue there's a lot of things we can assume about a designer, and he what he would observe as a success.But what is the intention anyway if there is a designer in the details? Are you not assuming they are meant to be completely succesful?For what a species is, of itself, in it's time, is brought about by the tuner of chance.I think that logically, 99% would be extinct by now anyway, succesful or not, because they evolve. I'm not sure about what that figure actually means, and if we can conclude much from it. This is my problem, species adapt to environments as best they can, and NS must act on the mutation. I know that. But what I'm saying is that IMHO, the fossil record shows a multitude of other designs. Does it actually show any unsuccesful design if each species is a designated, carefully placed component in a system? What matters is that the organism worked in it's time. Just like your car. Some cars are made to be succesful for 100,000 miles. Others are made to last the length of a race.Creativity seems to be part of the whole thing.A randomly bestowed trait that just happens to be a working component, in any regard. Within any present system, everything that comes to pass, works. Like right now. If there is a designer with foresight, surely we have to account for the variables that that brings, aswell as just the science. That is, if the result is less than 1%, why is that? Is that not the intelligence? at work, or could be deemed to be anyhow?Thinking in terms of strict-evolutionary success will make it look decidedly atheist, will it not? IMHo, we have to stick with reality. The end result would be intended if there is a tuner of chance.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 05-05-2006 04:25 PM

Perhaps I was being tautologous by saying that everything is intended, whatever we find.Perhaps I should make the difference by saying that everything we do find, "works", and that this evidence, IMHo, all this evidence, seems to be better explained as intended rather than random.If it was random, we surely would find many MANY unworking, shoddy designs.But let's be honest, reality indicates otherwise.

(This is addressing everyone, as I haven't time for individual lengthy posts.) But I'm not sure it would be necessary. For every transtional path shows a pathway from one form to another one via slow success. If we picked each species from the homo genus for example, and shown a pathway, we could "see" the trajectory, despite that trajectory being blind precedingly.Even if you're thinking that my mistake is to assume there is a final product, and that is an intention, infact, the trajectory itself is "clear" to see. That's IMHo, enough to convince me of foresight.You see, if a species has no choice of mutation, then let's say we have some common ancestor of a bat that exists. It now gets a mutation NS chooses, that would benefit it in the future by means of wings and that's what we know will happen from this point in time (but you wouldn't know then). That mutation, nature has selected, because it helps them in some other form at the time? And I guess the next mutation must help them in some other way other than being a wing, untill you have the full wing? SO THIS has to be coincidence ASWELL as the workability of morphological components?That would mean that everything that was "evolving" but was presently useless pertaining to the final tool, was implemented, was "kept" and just happened to be useful UNTILL the final tool's completion.Are we saying that it just so happened that every trajectory we see, was succesful? Think about it. Each line leads to a correct function.I understand your program, and is your point that designer/s implemented the random processes? or is your point that these designed random processes prove a completely random process?YET a designer has to set it all up. Did your findings show a trajectory aswell? If they show a transitional trajectory, I'd probably consider myself to possibly be wrong about the "intended" mutation, apart from the fact that no human can actually know if a designer is intending a certain pathway.(To others too; I apreciate the examples of random success. I'm not sure the example equate with a morphological system. IOW, even if you get a mutation, any mutation, it still has to be some kind of functioning device. I disbelieve that ANY functioning device would mutate randomly. So it's not that random chance doesn't work, it's that chance needs to work on something. IMHO, there is nothing "random" about the majority of mutations. That is, you could slothfully suggest bad mutations, but the fact that all these billions of species have came about, doesn't show the randomness of a mutation, it shows that all of these mutations were workable, the whole lot of them.Compared to what? Where's the losing team in nature, in comparison with Dawkins' experiment which ASSUMES we firtly have coins to toss.If this analogy reflects reality, I would expect he'd be tossing coins that would have to come randomly to him.You see, this is the point you guys miss; that in every experiment, the ludicrous nature of "chance" creating all of life, is disregarded in reality by the fact that it is removed by the fact that someone has intended an experiment and sets it up.Now if a computer program, created by itself, and a computer created by itself, and EVERYTHING, on it's own, came to pass, that would be remarkabe. It would also be the logical EQUIVALENT to random natural evolution with no designer. So show me that instance and I will believe it happened on it's own. Bye for now.
.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 05-06-2006 08:50 AM

Yet the trajectory will be seen in the first, second and third stages of a trasition, in say, a wing.I understand what you're saying. But it's not just about probability anyway. That is why I mentioned having something to pick from in the first place.Pretend jelly beans are for eating. What if the intention was for them to be eaten? Isn't it remarkable that we have something to eat in the first place? What knew that we just happened to need them for eating? THAT is my essential point.Even if we now say that it was just remarkable chance, which I'm sure you are probably right about (as I am merely asserting hypothetical thoughts and am not as knowledgeable, therefore IMHo, my opinion isn't educated and is therefore worth less). Even if you're right, I still think it's remarkable that any jelly beans are there to be picked. Even bad tasting ones.Perhaps the 'science' of it is too hard for me to understand. I know what you mean by probability though, it's like the lottery, the chances of winning are small, except if you win. A hindsight prophet is worthless. yes, I get that!BUT, what are the chances of getting a mutation which works, then, it is chosen by NS, despite not being a wing, then another helpful mutation happens and that is also chosen despite not being helpful to a final wing, etc, etc, etc. I see the "transitions" as too smooth, like they are leading somewhere, but at the time that somewhere is not known.I suppose I assume that finality is intended because it's the DIRECTION that it was seemingly pointing towards. These fabulous tools and systems and morphologies, are slightly more impressive than a son, begetting a son etc. because we know what we're getting. But the odds of reproducing AND happening upon brilliant tools, is IMHO, an extra factor to say the least.Well, anyway, I am confident everyone who posts to me knows more than I about the science-part. So what the hell, if I'm wrong I'm wrong.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 05-06-2006 09:57 AM

But my hand was forced. I have merely shown how the anaologies presented to me, are in my opinion, not logically the equivalent of a random-chance evolution, scenario.As far as I can see, they show evolution happening, but they don't prove that it happened completely randomly for the experiment was helped. They PROVE that their experiments were succesful, but they don't prove it's what happened historically.You can't use an example of random chance by using an example of designers showing an experiment of random chance. That defeats the whole purpose of what I am saying; that if chance made us, it's one hell of a good experiment to prove it did. One that should include equivalent substitutions. But I used Mod's analogy of computers, only I said that I would prefer his experiment to have not included humans. This might seem like I'm being unfair, but we're dealing with extraordinary variables.

Hi, welcome.I pretty much agree with your last paragraph. The Hoyle quote is almost a truism to me also.I think it's not unfair for Theists to be convinced by what they see with their eyes, in realtime. It's a grand creation.

Q, maybe another theist can adress this if I don't get back to you soon. Thanks for your input. (I'm not ignoring you, I just want to finish my painting before I go on holiday. Lol. )God bless. (Or, pink unicorn bless )

Okay, so I was getting beat like Bruce Lee, in the final scene in The way of the dragon. But now I've taken a breather, and adapted;Irrefutable AddendumThe parsimonious evolutionists are basically treating the topic like this;evolution happened therefore all that was required was nature and chance without intention.That's not logically correct because it must assume it was so without proving it.I need an example to show you what I mean; You have a man who inflates a balloon. You have a machine that inflates a balloon. In both examples, the end result is the same.Your argument is that because you have an inflated balloon in your posession, then that proves conclusively that the balloon was inflated by the machine, because it is possible to inflate it with a machine, without the man..But all that is really proven, is that it is possible to inflate a balloon without a person. There's a difference between this proper conclusion and the incorrect conclusion that it DID happened without intention.You know you have a balloon, you know it can come about independently. Did it? You cannot say. Observing logic, you have to concede this or you commit intellectual suicide and throw out everything that is good and objective about your sport.(I apreciate and have taken into account the experiment on computers, Mod'.)(P.s. I will read any posts to me, but basically this concludes my participation.). Bye for now.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 05-07-2006 12:45 PM