leroy
Well-Known Member
Not even close to what is required.
First of all, there are very few systems that we understand down to the genetic level even in species alive today. For example, the complete set of genes responsible for the development of the eye. We know *some* of the genes involved, of course.
ok so until we understand how this systems work at the genetic level we should remain agnostic.
maybe there is a viable step by step path..... maybe the eye is irreducibly complex....maybe there are many possible paths and chance (genetic drift) is enough. maybe mutations are not random but biased towards building complex eyes.
we don't know.
In particular, it is NOT required that every single mutation give a selective advantage
it's simple.
if you* whant to affirm that eyes evolved mainly through a process of benefitial random mutations followed by natural selection, you have to show that there is a viable path where most mutations where benefitial.
if you are a neutralist you have to provide a path of neutral mutations and show that genetic drift is enough to keep those mutations
if you are an ID proponent you have to show that at least one step is irreducibly complex
if you want to remain agnostic and claim that you don't know how eyes evolved then you don't have to show anything.
.
Mutations do not have to happen one at a time.
ok so if you what to claim that mutations occured 2 at a time or 10 at a time you have to show that your model is viable.
if you want to admit ignorance and admit that nobody (except for @shunyadragon) knows how eyes evolved you don't have to show anything.
And events like recombination broaden the range of possibilities even in a population without mutations.
ok if you what to affirm that eyes evolved through random recombination you have to provide your evidence
if you claim that recombination was not random you have to provide your evidence.
if you admit that we don't know then you can make some popcorn and wait for scientist to find an answer.
....
my point is that until we understand eyes (and other systems) at a genetic level we should remain agnostic and admit that we don't know how they evolved.