Darwin's Illusion

[Subduction Zone]

OK, on that same note I have a problem (pwoblem?) with the theory of evolution, starting AFTER abiogenesis. In other words, At the beginning...of...evolution. But anyway, we shall go on I suppose.

Why would you have that problem? Having such a problem only tells us that you still have no clue as to what you are arguing against.

 

[shunyadragon]

He seems to have removed himself or been removed from the site. His thinking was chaotic and grandiose, and he seemed a little emotionally labile. I hope he's alright.

I also Googled Tipler. I read this in his Wiki page: "Tipler has written books and papers on the Omega Point based on Pierre Teilhard de Chardin's religious ideas, which he claims is a mechanism for the resurrection of the dead." I lost interest in his opinions thereafter.

I've been enjoying your posting lately. If you don't mind the label or me saying so, you're one of those people I call theistic humanists, although perhaps the only one who doesn't self-identify as Christian. This is from a recent post:

"It depends what you mean by religious. I know of several theistic humanists posting here on RF. Their values, methods, and agenda are indistinguishable from mine, and we only differ by a god belief, which they claim to have, but seem to have well compartmentalized. All are educated professionals in the sciences, and none are zealous theists. But they also promote education, secularism, tolerance, social and economic equity, human development and enabling, and the like as an atheistic humanist would. I don't consider them religious, and I suspect that they would agree."

Interesting response.
I describe myself as an Agnostic Theist, My Religious choice is the Baha'i Faith, and everything is in pencil. I doubt everything, but the relatively changing scientific knowledge.

Agnostic theism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Agnostic theism, agnostotheism, or agnostitheism is the philosophical view that encompasses both theism and agnosticism. An agnostic theist believes in the existence of one or more gods, but regards the basis of this proposition as unknown or inherently unknowable.

I do have a foundation philosophy I call Universalism (not UU). I view everything including my own beliefs skeptically from the outside. I debate several sides and views very aggressively and it does not necessarily reflect what I believe.

This forum is very mild compared to the 'other forum' I cannot name here run by Academically strong Fundis. I am considered a peria there and half-banned and ignored by some because of my advocacy debate methods, but not officially.

I do have a very deep knowledge of science, religion, philosophy, and history. I write and publish poetry and other publications in soil science and geology.

 

[LIIA]

OK. Still vague as to how much change constitutes new and meaningful.

This is what you fail to understand, it’s not about “how much change”, it’s about “what kind of change”, how the process unfolds and what would the specific steps entail.

Again, a gene is not just any random DNA sequence; a gene is a specific code for a function. And remember we are not talking about merely new traits or alleles of the same genes; we are talking about new genes with new codes to allow for new meaningful functions.

Evolution is not a planned step-by-step progress towards a purpose but rather a slow accumulation of random meaningless changes without any purpose.

Random replacement of the entire sequence of a gene is not equal to a new gene that encodes a new specific protein for a new meaningful function.

Considering the number of the bases in a single gene, mathematically, the chance to get a random sequence to specifically encode a new meaningful function is literally 1 in infinity, but regardless the ToE doesn’t assume that a new function would appear suddenly but rather through the accumulation of numerous purposeless steps that are not necessarily meaningful or functional, in fact, these random changes are mostly damages to the original code/function (especially after significant accumulation of random changes) or at best some changes may have neutral effect. Selection can neither see nor plan for the future. meaning, unless every random step along the way could cause some fitness advantage, selection wouldn’t keep it or allow it to accumulate based on a hope for further potential that didn’t materialize yet. Hence, the random progress towards a future function is not possible. on the other hand, if every step along the way necessarily causes fitness advantage, then the process is not random.

The fact is that the DNA replication errors that allow random wrong bases to escape proofreading are not fitness advantages. The very definition of “pseudogene” is a previously functional gene that is no longer capable of coding for a protein due to accumulated random mutations.

Pseudogene (genome.gov)

Regardless, even for the sake of argument if selection could keep the numerous meaningless accumulations of changes to the point that now the new sequence encodes a new gene with a new function that also happened to be beneficial for possible transformation towards a new body plan, but unless the new function offers an immediate fitness advantage to the organism itself, it wouldn’t be kept by selection. Selection doesn’t / can’t plan for a future potential.

Even for the sake of argument if the new function happened to be somehow beneficial to the organism itself as well as a future body plan, what about the original function (of original gene) that was lost due to the accumulated change? The loss of the original function would impact fineness and still trigger elimination by selection.

The change process is always about alleles/traits not new genes. Change in phenotype happens due to the accumulation of alleles across multiple genes not the accumulation of random bases within the same gene towards some new function that would never materialize and even if it did, it may not necessarily offer a fitness advantage especially considering the loss of original function.

The bottom line is, there is no route towards encoding new meaningful gene function through random changes.

If I give you the machine language code (binary numbers, 1's & 0's) for some software such as “Microsoft Word”, you start random changes to the code hoping that someday you would transform the code into another meaningful function such as “Microsoft Excel” or any other meaningful software.

How much change would you need? How much change would render the original function void? If original function is already nullified, could the process still continue? Would you ever get there? What are the chances? How much junk would you produce along the process? How much junk is needed to terminate the process due to lack of benefit? Do you understand what the notion of randomness entails?

But why introduce "random junk" into the discussion?

I didn’t introduce Junk. Scientists did. It’s a scientific term.

”Pseudogenes”, which are also labeled “junk DNA" were considered to be failed copies of genes that were previously functional but during the evolution of genomes lost their protein-coding ability due to accumulated random mutations.

Random changes are mostly DNA replication errors, such errors are mostly damages to the gene code or at best some of it could be neutral. And yes, such replication errors are merely random junk.

Junk DNA simply means “non-coding DNA”. It’s a scientific term.

Sure, some genetic variations will be neutral or harmful, but some will confer a competitive advantage in the phenotype, and these are selected for and accumulate. How many such improvements make a change new or meaningful? I'd say all of them, but you can define them differently if you like.

Random changes are not equal to improvements. Competitive advantage in the phenotype doesn’t happen due to the accumulation of random changes within a specific gene but rather the accumulation of “beneficial” traits across multiple genes.

The adaptation process is what gives rise to competitive advantage in the phenotype; such beneficial mutations that cause beneficial traits are not random. Adaptations are encoded in the genes (preprogrammed) and take effect through cell-mediated processes not random change such as the clear example of “Antimicrobial Resistance" (AMR) and “Escherichia Coli” developing the ability to utilize citrate through a cell-mediated adaptive process that activated an existing but previously silent citrate transporter (Lenski’s experiment). See #8108

It’s important to understand the fact that the change process is always about traits/alleles that may accumulate across multiple genes. If the genome of an organism includes gene A with allele a1, gene B with allele b1, gene C with allele c1, etc. then the accumulation of change is about gene A with allele a2, gene B with allele b2, gene C with allele c2, etc. The process may repeat with more allele changes (a3, b3, c3) but regardless of the allele variants that may accumulate in multiple genes, and even if all alleles in all genes have changed but the original functions of the genes A, B & C continue to be the same, these genes do not transform into genes X, Y & Z with new foreign functions to the organism.

This is the problem we're having with new genes - no clear definition of what constitutes new,

Absolutely not, the definition is very clear. A “new gene” equals “new function”. Numerous random steps are not new functions. You imagine that along the long process of random alterations to the sequence, the genes continue to retain its original function or somehow perform some imaginary new functions, i.e., continues to be genes. It’s simply not true. The gene stops being a gene once it loses its original ability to perform a function (becomes a pseudogene). At this point it’s neither a new gene nor a new random function would pop out of nowhere instead of the old one.

Yes, alleles frequency continues to change all the time, but the process never encodes new gene functions that are foreign to the organism. We must understand the limitations of the process.

For example, you keep changing your car tires, new color, maybe also replace the engine or transmission, at what point your car would transform into a boat or aircraft? The function of the car will always be the same regardless of changes of “traits”. Traits never change the original functions of the system. Original functions (genes) continue to be the same.

But to retain the original functions, it’s imperative that you change the tires or other components (traits) with similar or better components of the same type (advantageous traits), if you replace the components with any random components without any purpose, such as wood blocks instead of tires, cardboard instead of glass, throw away some parts of the engine, maybe put some mashed potatoes instead of gas, would your car still perform its original function? Is your car still a car at this point? At what point it stopped being a car? Simply at the point when original function was lost due to the accumulation of purposeless changes. At this point, it's neither a car nor an airplane, merely some junk. at best, we may call it a "pseudocar".

 

[LIIA]

It's still in good standing in the scientific community. It will likely never be overturned, just tweaked to accommodate new discoveries. But it will undoubtedly always be about natural selection generating the tree of life when applied to genetic variation in populations across generations.

The EES which was proposed to address the failure of the MS is not agreed upon. That is why the MS may appear to be in good standing but it’s not.

Even so the overall concept is false but it’s important to understand that many details are true especially with respect to the so-called microevolution (adaptation). Yes, adaptations happen through cell-mediated non-random process (directed mutations), genetic drift, changes of gene pool frequency, natural selection, etc. all that is good, but all are constituents of the limited adaptation process, which never leads to macroevolution. Even random mutations in terms of random DNA replication errors that escapes the proofreading mechanisms are also true. The observations are true, the interpretations are wrong.

The only false aspect is the false assumption that changes of traits that take place within microevolution (adaptation) would lead to macroevolution. New traits are never new genes or give rise to new functions.

 

[LIIA]

Roughly, "the doctrine that scientific laws are adequate to account for all phenomena."

It’s Irrelevant; the question is “what are the criteria that define the so-called naturalistic entities?”

OK. Naturalism is an a posteriori position. One comes to such an opinion based in experience, or should.

You didn’t get it. I don’t have a problem with the process of observations/experimentation, the problem is the prior adherence to a false assumption of what is possible or not.

If you see the observations, then the cause exists whether you understand it or absolutely have no clue. The expansion of the universe is accelerating vs. slowing down over time, hence the dark energy that is totally unseen and of totally unknown nature was speculated. The name may give false impression of knowledge, but the fact is scientists have no clue what it is, they just trust that there must be a cause and choose to assign a name to the unknown cause. That said, how would you categorize dark energy as a naturalistic or non-naturalistic entity?

But this is merely an example; our level of understanding about other fundamental forces is not really different than our understanding of dark energy. We merely assign names to causes that we don’t understand, because we logically trust that the causes must exist to explain the observations.

What do you know about these forces or its intrinsic nature so you would categorize it as naturalistic or non-naturalistic entities?

Why time vs. no time, space vs. no space, universe vs. no universe? Life vs. no life? What explanation do you know? Nothing. You think you do but you really don’t. You don’t even understand what it means to be alive and aware of your own existence.

Humans are mostly arrogant ignorant beings; they assume to know what they don’t. Even so they know for a fact that numerous aspects of reality are beyond their grasp yet insist on the false notion that aspects of reality beyond their grasp cannot exist, as if their grasp is the confinement that limits what reality can be.

What most call supernaturalism. Not excluded. Just not included before needed to account for observation. When I need to invoke the supernatural, I will, but not before.

You do have the need, but you will never invoke it, simply because you will always maintain enough arrogance to fool yourself that you know what you really don’t. Again, What knowledge do you have about dark energy or any natural force that allows you to categorize it as “natural”? If you can categorize it as natural, demonstrate your reasons. Along your attempt to demonstrate, you may understand why you can’t.

I don't accept the idea of anything existing outside of time or space

Sure, nothing physical exists, yet that domain without time or space (spacetime) beyond the Big Bang is a scientific fact and somehow the causal influence for the Big Bang itself is from that domain.

T=0 might be just another moment in a multiverse's history occurring at a point in its extension.

”Multiverse” is a leap of faith, it cannot be falsified, and “history” implies time in a domain with no time.

If gods exist that can impact our reality, they're part of nature, too.

Yes, God is the “distinct source"; the universe is “all physical things”. Both are two different categories/aspects of reality.

The substance of the multiverse makes a good candidate for the supersubstance from which our universe may have arisen in a series of symmetry breaks creating feature and physical laws. It, too, is part of nature as long as it remains causally connected to our universe.

Your reasoning is a mix of leap of faith, infinite regress and circular reasoning. If you don’t see it, read it again.

No. I'm stating what I DO know. Those pathways may never be elucidated. Do you disagree? Nor is it necessary to know them, just desirable. We may never know beyond an educated guess which hominin forms are ancestral and which are branches (cousins) that eventually went extinct.

The process “pathways” is one issue and alleged “relationships” is another issue. Without the process/ pathways, your assumption of ancestral relationships is baseless. Acknowledging that you do know that the pathways are not known simply means that you merely made a choice to defend what you don’t know.

You still don’t make any sense. When you say that you know that you don’t know, it’s not by any means an acknowledgment of knowledge. It’s the other way around.

OK. Can we assume that you think this absolute existence is conscious and named God? Craig made that leap of faith in his Kalam argument.

It’s not based on kalam but sure, and I did demonstrate my reasons, yet you didn’t. Your denial is meaningless unless you demonstrate the reasons for your disagreement.

OK. I'm an empiricist. I have an inclination toward what can be discerned with the senses, processed by the reasoning faculty, and which conclusions can be tested empirically.

You can empirically test the effects never the fundamental causes.

it is reasonable to assume that other apparently wakeful beings are conscious as well, but only to the extent that these beings are organic, developed through a gestation process from a fertilized egg,

What??? You don’t get to set the rules, is it merely because you said so? Didn’t you previously postulate that robots may be conscious? Last time I checked, robots don’t come from fertilized eggs. Your train of thoughts runs randomly in all directions. Stay on track if you will. I thought we already agreed on the logical basis to conclude cognition! I’m sure “fertilized egg” was not part of it.

You're ignoring all of the evidence that points to the opposite. This is the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy - placing too much emphasis on the evidence one likes while downplaying the significance of the rest of it.

We discussed that before, there is no evidence that points to the opposite. Yet, available strong evidence points to what you deny. I’m placing emphasis on the only available evidence. If you don’t agree, demonstrate your reasons.

OK. My perspective doesn't include calling ultimate reality God. I don't name it and I don't imagine it's like a person aware of our existence.

your imagination or things merely because you said so has nothing to do with anything. I demonstrated my reasons. demonstrate yours.

Again, nothing influences the actions of the first cause other than his being. His actions are only from within his being. I.e., if he wants, he will do and vice versa, there is absolutely nothing to impose an influence or interfere. Meaning, absolute freedom and absolute power. The “district source” is on a category by himself, nothing is like him.

 

[LIIA]

No, you are confused again. You have a creationist version of evolution where changes are sudden. An allele is a different gene. We can detect them. It is not this simple, but there is a blue eye gene (there are as usual several) they are alleles. Small changes add up. The gene can begin take on new functions.

And once again your bold statements at the end are wrong. You forgot the qualifiers to those statements. That makes them all false. Why is it so hard for you to consider natural selection and variation working together?

No, an allele is not a different gene. It’s the same gene but with different allele. You know that don’t you? The function of the gene doesn’t change because of an allele variant.

Here what you guys fail to understand. The ToE doesn’t postulate a sudden purposeful change emerging out of nowhere but rather a slow gradual purposeless process.

A purposeful change (a new code for a new function) that may allegedly emerge as the end product of the long random process is not a simple replacement of a couple of base pairs but rather a replacement of a significant segment of the DNA sequence that includes numerous bases.

The process is gradual, slow and involves numerous purposeless steps that allegedly accumulate till a new function emerges. The problem is the fact that selection doesn’t/cannot see or plan for a future benefit. Selection will not keep these numerous purposeless steps hoping for a future benefit than didn’t materialize yet, especially that as these purposeless steps accumulate, it continues to further damage the original function, the negative impact on fitness because of the damage or loss of original function must trigger the elimination of the purposeless changes by selection.

Selection wouldn’t allow non- beneficial changes to accumulate towards an invisible future goal.

I know, you hate the fact that you are a human and really really want to be an ostrich, that must be it, since you hate the fact that as human being you are also an ape.

Have fun with your animal salad.

 

[LIIA]

Thanks for your contribution. I enjoyed reading your post.

Now prepare for 100+ post of semantic games and zero refutations for your cliams.

You will get these type of responses.

"Gene duplicación has been observed, see there is you example of new genes"

You’re very welcome.

We may have different views, yet we sure can have rational discussions for the benefit of all. Those who play games to win a false argument merely deceive themselves; they fall into their own tricks and end up believing their own lies.

 

[LIIA]

You were saying that the genes cannot be modified.

Again, what is your point? Are you suggesting that fish transformed into humans through genetic engineering? Who did the engineering? The ostrich? Don’t get me wrong; it’s an interesting theory.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, an allele is not a different gene. It’s the same gene but with different allele. You know that don’t you? The function of the gene doesn’t change because of an allele variant.

Here what you guys fail to understand. The ToE doesn’t postulate a sudden purposeful change emerging out of nowhere but rather a slow gradual purposeless process.

A purposeful change (a new code for a new function) that may allegedly emerge as the end product of the long random process is not a simple replacement of a couple of base pairs but rather a replacement of a significant segment of the DNA sequence that includes numerous bases.

The process is gradual, slow and involves numerous purposeless steps that allegedly accumulate till a new function emerges. The problem is the fact that selection doesn’t/cannot see or plan for a future benefit. Selection will not keep these numerous purposeless steps hoping for a future benefit than didn’t materialize yet, especially that as these purposeless steps accumulate, it continues to further damage the original function, the negative impact on fitness because of the damage or loss of original function must trigger the elimination of the purposeless changes by selection.

Selection wouldn’t allow non- beneficial changes to accumulate towards an invisible future goal.

Have fun with your animal salad.

Oh, it is not fun being ignorant is it? It is still a "different gene". It is how evolution works. Alleles are what lead to different genes quite often. You are trying to use black and white thinking in regards to life and that never works.

And thanks for telling us that you have no understanding of evolution at all. There is no goal to new traits. There is no goal to evolution. There are only results.

You need to learn the basics. You have no chance of understanding the sciences until you do.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You’re very welcome.

We may have different views, yet we sure can have rational discussions for the benefit of all. Those who play games to win a false argument merely deceive themselves; they fall into their own tricks and end up believing their own lies.

Sorry, but when you and your friend cannot reason rationally how are you ever going to have a rational discussion?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Again, what is your point? Are you suggesting that fish transformed into humans through genetic engineering? Who did the engineering? The ostrich? Don’t get me wrong; it’s an interesting theory.

That is worded so poorly. Why assume that a someone was needed? Remember the concept of rational thought?

 

[LIIA]

Do we have the same genes that Prokaryotes had?

No, we don’t. Should we?

What are the odds that modern-day prokaryotes would acquire some new genes and transform into elephants? If the elephants did it, then the prokaryotes would still have a chance. Right?

What are the odds that you would acquire some new genes and grow wings on your back and fly? Sure, it can come in handy especially in heavy traffic. Guess what go find a high cliff, jump every day and hope for the best. You never know, the need, the pressure, some random changes, selection, some luck and you would be surprised. Right? Give it a try. But bummer, are the wings enough to make you fly? What are the other dynamics/requirements (such as streamlined body, center of gravity, weight, tail, muscle/heart strength, etc.)? Can it all evolve simultaneously? If not, then the individual component would be useless for flying, not just useless but rather a heavy burden, but don’t worry, selection is your hope, it will clean it out.

After a long hectic route of random changes, if you get a single wing, deformed wing or good wings yet doesn’t help to fly due to the lack of other necessary requirements, selection would do a good job cleaning the mess but unfortunately the selection process is a little cruel. It would actually wipe out the poor thing; hence all the accumulated random mutations towards future ability to fly would be lost. Oh well, c'est la vie. Maybe better luck next time.

had? How did new genes come, hand of Allah?

Sure, you seem very surprised how did new genes come, as if all causes must be within our grasp! It’s totally the other way around. Fundamental causes are never within our grasp. You may think otherwise but you’re wrong.

Aren’t you surprised how time came from no time, space from no space, matter from no matter, universe from nothing? How dark energy controls entire galaxies? How strong nuclear force controls subatomic particles? Do you understand or know “how”?

You don’t. Why should life be an exception? You don’t even understand what life is.

 

[LIIA]

That is worded so poorly. Why assume that a someone was needed? Remember the concept of rational thought?

Last time I checked “ Genitic Engineering” needs someone to do it, right?

See his post #8133

(6) Darwin's Illusion | Page 406 | Religious Forums

 

[LIIA]

Sorry, but when you and your friend cannot reason rationally how are you ever going to have a rational discussion?

Leory has different views than mine but we sure can be friends and have rational discussion. On the other hand, if you don’t learn to address the argument rather that attacking the person, you’ll never make a rational argument.

Have fun.

 

[LIIA]

I don't reject 'fish to humans evolution'. The image makes it clear. Tiktaalik belonged to a different branch.
Our branch was Tristichopteridae.
"Tristichopterids (Tristichopteridae) were a diverse and successful group of tetrapodomorph fishes living throughout the Middle and Late Devonian. They first appeared in the Eifelian stage of the Middle Devonian. Within the group sizes ranged from a few tens of centimeters (Tristichopterus) to several meters (Hyneria and Eusthenodon)."

Tristichopteridae - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Again, what is your point of sharing this link? Is this how fish transformed into elephants?

If the shape of the skull looks interesting to you, here is the skull of a modern fish “Alligator Gar”. Tristichopterids don’t in any way support the ridiculous speculation that fish transformed into humans. After all, your own link said that there is no evidence supporting the idea that Eusthenopteron was able to crawl onto land using its fins.

 

[LIIA]

I understand that.

Buy would a creator create useless genetic marckers (like broken genes) in the same spot, in different independient species?

If you find the same spelling mistake in two different editions of harry potter , you would assume that both editions where copied from a common source (and that the common source had that spelliing mistake)

If you claim that both editions where written independently, it becomes inexplicable why would they have the same spelling mistake in the same word and in the same sentence.

In this analogy a Book is analogous to a gene

And spelling mistakes analogoues to mutations.


Two books having the exact same spelling mistake I the same word and sentence would strongly indicate that both books came from a common source.

I’m not sure what do you mean by “broken genes”. I guess you may be talking about “pseudogenes", which are also labeled as “junk DNA” or “non-coding DNA” because it doesn’t contain instructions (coding) to create proteins in the cell.

Pseudogenes (junk DNA) were considered to be failed copies of genes that were previously functional but lost their protein-coding ability due to accumulated random mutations. (The human genome includes about 98% of non-coding DNA/junk DNA.)

Even so the notion of a design (functioning gene) randomly broken into junk is more reasonable than junk transforming randomly into design (You can randomly demolish a building into random rubble/junk but it’s not possible to randomly transform random rubble into a building/design) but the original understanding that the non-coding DNA is worthless junk is also false.

The real question in this context is why natural selection would keep that much useless junk. especially considering the inevitable negative impact on fitness due to the loss of original protein-coding functions? If selection kept it, then you would assume it has positive contribution to fitness, which is exactly what scientists learned through latest discoveries. Non-coding junk DNA, which was thought to be “pseudogenes" turned out to be functional genes that are now known to contain many types of regulatory elements involved in controlling gene activity to determine when/where genes are turned on and off to control the transcription of proteins in addition to other vital functions. In fact, Scientists have determined that changes/mutations in regions of junk/non-coding DNA lead to disease.

DNA errors are by far a negligible exception not the rule. But your point is still valid, not in the sense that similar writing errors point to the same writer but rather in the sense that a specific distinguished writing style points to the same author. IOW, an author with a strong identity can be easily identified by looking at the writing style of a book. Similar characteristics of paintings/designs would point to the fact that all these paintings are the creation of the same artist/designer. it doesn’t mean that the paintings evolved from each other. There is no mechanism to transform one painting into another.

Even for the sake of argument if we assume that similar errors exist, which leads to the speculation that these different species came from a common ancestor. That would be a very long evolutionary line that should have warranted the elimination of such random junk/errors that damaged critical areas of the genetic code and prevented the gene from encoding or making the original protein product.

Pseudogene (genome.gov)

In fact, the notion of “DNA errors” or “non-coding junk” is mainly due to the lack of knowledge. The more we know, the more we realize that there is no such thing as “errors”. The DNA sequence is a sophisticated code beyond human imagination/grasp.

Pseudogenes: Pseudo-functional or key regulators in health and disease? - PMC (nih.gov)

In the same way 2 mutations in the same gene in humans and chimps would strongly indicate a common ancestor.

See #175

Darwin's Illusion | Page 9 | Religious Forums

 

[LIIA]

These pictures are reconstructions of Homo habilis (left) and Homo erectus (right). They lived about 2 million years ago and belonged to the same genus (but not the same species) as ourselves. If they were dressed in modern clothes and had their hair styled, would you call them humans?

We discussed that long time ago. These are meaningless names that many proponents of the ToE don’t know much about; none of these fossils can be established as a transitional form / ancestor leading to Homo sapiens.

a)- Homo habilis (Handy Man) lived 2.4 million to 1.4 million years ago in Eastern and Southern Africa

- Apr 1999, Science wrote:
“We present a revised definition, based on verifiable criteria, for Homo and conclude that two species, Homo habilis and Homo rudolfensis, DO NOT BELONG IN THE GENUS.”

“Thus, H. habilis and H. rudolfensis (or Homo habilis sensu lato who do not subscribe to the taxonomic subdivision of “early Homo”) SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM HOMO."

https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.284.5411.65?download=true

- January 2000, MBE published an article stating:
“This may seem to be an unexpected statement, because for 3 decades habiline species have been interpreted as being just such transitional taxa, linking Australopithecus through the habilines to later Homo species. But with a few exceptions, the known habiline specimens are now recognized to be less than 2 Myr old (Feibel, Brown, and McDougall 1989 ) and therefore are too recent to be transitional forms leading to H. sapiens.”
Population Bottlenecks and Pleistocene Human Evolution

- Jun 17, 2011, Science wrote:
“Who Was Homo habilis—And Was It Really Homo?”
“In the past decade, Homo habilis's status as the first member of our genus has been undermined"
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.332.6036.1370


b)- Homo erectus (sometimes called Homo ergaster) lived between about 1.89 million and 110,000 years ago in Africa and Asia.

- 1994, Courier Forschungsinstitut Senckenberg published a research with the title “The Case for Sinking Homo erectus”

The group of researchers from USA, Australia, Czech Republic & China said:
" There is no distinct boundary between Homo erectus and Homo sapiens in time or space”

“There is no speciation involved in the emergence of Homo sapiens from Homo erectus. These reasons combine to require that the lineage be regarded as a single evolutionary species.”
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Milford-Wolpoff/publication/285136980_The_case_for_sinking_Homo_erectus_100_years_of_Pithecanthropus_is_enough/links/5954eda6458515bbaa21e15f/The-case-for-sinking-Homo-erectus-100-years-of-Pithecanthropus-is-enough.pdf

- October 1997, Nature wrote:
“ Even with the discovery of Neanderthal genetic material, we still cannot decide whether the Neanderthals were one of several related species in an extinct radiation, a single species close to our own, or a ‘race’ of H. sapiens (with that species redefined to include 2 myr old H. erectus).”
One skull does not a species make - Nature.

- June 22, 2015, LiveScience wrote:
“The lineage and evolutionary history of H. erectus and other Homo species is unclear, and has been muddied further by recent finds.”

“Confusing matters more, after analyzing a new skull — called Skull 5 — in 2013, researchers made the controversial argument in the journal Science that various contemporary Homo species, including Homo rudolfensis, Homo habilis and possibly Homo ergaster, were actually Homo erectus.”

“Scientists also don't agree on whether H. erectus is a direct human ancestor to Homo sapiens.”
Homo Erectus: Facts About the 'Upright Man'

 

[LIIA]

So the combination of various accumulated neutral mutations, made it for another mutation possible to change phenotype.

New traits of the same genes, even when they accumulate across multiple genes never give rise to new functions (new genes).

Changing tires of your car with some different or better tires will not make it an airplane. There is a limit to what “change of trait” can do. The outcome of the process is limited to “adaptation” never “transformation”.

Adaptation is a fact. Transformation is a myth.

 

[LIIA]

It's more like filtering it, off course. Keep the good and discard the bad.
It's why this mechanism is so efficient to develop practical applications like genetic algorithms for optimization of systems for just about any parameter.

Their no mechanism for the “good” to emerge randomly.

First, the “good" is supposedly a final product of a long random process that comprises numerous slow meaningless steps. There is no mechanism to keep these meaningless random steps (DNA replication errors) till finally the “good” emerges somehow. Selection works on today’s options not future benefits that didn’t and may never materialize.

Second, randomness as a rule dictates a reality of chaos. 99.9999999999 % of the time, selection would be extremely busy discarding the “bad”. We don’t see that in nature.

If you see selection busy cleaning dark colors emerging among polar bears, longer limbs on one side, eyes on the back of heads, muscles that doesn’t respond to the orders of the brain, hearts with random pace that take random breaks, etc. (the list has no end), If you ever see any evidence of such chaos in nature (among living organisms or fossils), then come back and claim randomness. But if you don’t, then you should stop the nonsensical claims of randomness.

All it requires is a stream of "random" input to filter.

Again, its not about the amount of change but rather the kind of change. Keep changing your car tires to the end of time; it will never be an airplane. This is the kind of change that happens in nature, merely alleles of the same genes. Keep changing these alleles to the end of time, it will never change the function of the gene, IOW, it will never give rise to new genes.

Off course not.

Actually it's more like two blinds join forces together will never see. Random mutation is a blind purposeless process and selection can never see a future benefit, it can only work on what is available today. If what is available today is purposeless, then it gets eliminated.

Regardless, it's a terrible analogy which only serves as a strawman.

No, it’s not. The blinds even if they join forces can never draw the Mona Lisa. Give them random colors, paper, brushes and let them keep painting tell the end of time, stand next to them (assuming you stay alive) every time you see that they did something good, trash the bad paintings and give them the good ones to continue on, what would you expect to happen? They will mess up the good ones, simply because the blinds don’t have the ability to utilize current random progress (the good) towards a future goal. Then you will take it from them and trash it.

The blinds can never draw the Mona Lisa.

 

[LIIA]

No, I am saying that we don’t know if there are Irreducibly Complex steps.

1 first the evolutionist has to provide the steps (which mutations do you need to evolve say an eye)

2 then the ID proponent has to show that there is a IC step

None of these has been done.

All living systems are irreducibly complex, not only the living systems but also the individual constituents of the living systems are also irreducibly complex, a single cell is no exception.

Complexity is in the sense that any system is essentially composed of numerous components that work in a coordinated manner.

Irreducible is in the sense that no component is functional or meaningful in isolation of the other components.

A fundamental function is at the top of hierarchy of other individual functions, yet each individual function is irreducibly complex from the apex all the way down to the base.

For example, the function of “Vision" at the apex, is the outcome of other two secondary functions.

First, a system to receive and distinguish different frequencies/wave lengths from each other and can convey the data (a camera type system).

Second, a system capable of “Qualia”, i.e., translate the data from the eye to a conscious vision experience, IOW, a system to construct the mental experience from the physical data.

Obviously one component cannot function without the other. As you go down the hierarchy, you can similarly see that the individual constituents are purposeless in isolation of the other interdependent constituents. There is no route for purposeless individual constituents to emerge separately and accumulate towards a future function. The length of the random process dictates the elimination of the purposeless constituents along the way because selection can only work on current options not future goals.

The notion of the random evolution of something such as the human eye is at best willful ignorance caused by false presuppositions.

First of all, evolution is about numerous transitional forms from point A to point B (a lineage). An essential qualifier is the specific ancestral relationships between the numerous transitional forms. If such relationship doesn’t exist or cannot be established, the notion is false.

You cannot refer to totally different living systems without ancestral relationships such as flatworms and chambered nautilus and say look here is the gradual evolutionary steps. Sure, different living systems have different vision systems that address their specific needs but unless these steps are along a specific evolutionary lineage from species A to species B, it doesn’t mean anything.

The naive explanation of eye evolution ignored the function of "vision" and focuses only on the camera aspect to receive the data without addressing the fact that all these alleged steps towards a camera are totally useless without a system that is capable of creating the mental interpretation/construct of the data to transform it into a conscious experience. then there must be a mechanism to translate such awareness of the data to appropriate decisions with respect to survival, otherwise it would be useless.

Even in the case of the primitive flatworms eye spots, the eye spots are only the sensors that generates data, without a system to collect and utilize the data to construct the mental awareness/interpretation to be followed by the appropriate reactions, the data is totally useless.

That system, i.e., “cognition” is the fundamental defining aspect of life. It can neither be matched nor artificially created. Sure, you can intentionally build a camera that can receive light, but such camera can never see. Unless YOU can see, your camera is purposeless trash.