I deny neither that evolution occurs, nor that it's a step-by-step process leading to every single form and function of every single living organism on the planet. So in that sense I assume we're on the same sheet of music.
Where our beliefs might diverge is that I don't believe in a hard and fast arrow of time which would (the arrow of time) imply that evolutionary advance (say from single-celled organisms to mammals) occurs asymmetrically (from past to future). What this means, logically, is that the perception of "advance" from simple design (say a single-celled organism) to more advanced design (a human being) is, in Einstein's own parlance, an illusion.
What's actually occurring is that by experiencing the arrow of time moving from past to future, we're forced to postulate a theory for how organisms advance so propitiously, how they're becoming more and more advanced when the second law of thermodynamics would at least suggest the opposite.
But if the arrow of time is an illusion, as Einstein says it is, and as I believe to be the case, then the design of the human brain didn't really "develop" step-by-step as appears to be the case. It was part and parcel of the whole of a created world that came already packaged with every single evolutionary advance that will ever occur.
We sentient beings experience ourselves and our world traveling through space and time in one direction, from past to future, so that we're naturally prejudiced to think evolution provides the impetus for design modification (from past to future) when in truth it's merely the experiencing of the arrow of time moving from past to future that gives the strong perception that evolution is from simple to advanced when in truth it's only the asymmetrical perception that time is traveling from past to future that requires that scientist propose theories for how organisms move from more simple design to more advanced.
John
Interesting. ( noted that you offer no flaw, other than mentioning the thermodynamics thing )
I actually would like in a friendly way to guide
you to a better understanding of ToE.
You iam sure would like to continually refine your ideas through improved understanding,
as we all do.
So let me try two points of your presentation, in a good faith effort, banking on your good faith
in reading and trying to see what I am saying.
FWIW, and reference you use to cross check my words- as properly you ought- will confirm what I say.
First, on the progression you speak of.
It just is not like that. Evolution does not do
progress in any human culture sense.
It simply follows what works, this generation.
Is the cheetah not more advanced than the
common salamander, though, let alone a bacterium?
Look at who is successful! Incredible numbers of bacteria, what an absolutely stupendous life form! Fantastically successful.
The cheetah is rare, on its way to extinction.
What kind of progress is that?
ALSO- observe that many life forms
"degenerate" from a human poverty.
Behold the snake, whose ancestors had legs,
ears and eyelids. Butvsee how successful they
are for thiscseeming degeneration.
The early amphibians includrd big robust things
that foreshadowed the crocodile ( see parallel evolution).
Now we have tiny feeble colorless blind cave salamanders. Some progress!
Many many other examples.
As for the thermodynamics argument,
other poster might like to take that on.
First though, its extensively dealt with on
various websites, and should adequately
show wherein this law does not apply.
But ever so briefly, your fish, say, gets its
energy from its food, not being a closed system, after all.
If a descendent grows a little larger protolung,
as surely some did, it gets its energy the same way, grows a bigger lung and finds it can stay
out of water longer than mommy could.
Much to its advantage.
