Got Dam It!

For the 5th time already in this thread...

Evolution is not based on random chance!
Natural Selection is not random.

And I'll post some evidence supporting evolution later on, when I'm less tired.

Another example of "reconfiguration": A person was in an accident, and the vision part of the brain was damaged, and after a relatively short period of time the person's brain rewired itself to use a different part of the brain to interpret the data coming from the eyes.

I know, I said I'd go do other things (like sleep)...

It leads to a finch becoming a different type of finch (different shape of the beak, different colour pattern, different tail length, different endurance when it comes to flight...) in the short run. What sort of animal it can lead to in the long run is impossible to extrapolate because evolution is chaotic. So let's try amphibians turning into reptiles instead.
This is one possible scenario, a model if you will, for how the mechanism works in a nutshell:
This involves eggs with a shell that don't dry up in the sun and a horned skin that keeps the animal from doing the same. It's not hard to see that an amphibian A with a slightly tougher skin can stray slightly further from the water than it's cousins and stay away longer. This gives it an edge because it can then hunt for food with less competition (it's descendants will face competition from eachother, but we'll ignore that as it's irrelevant to the argument). Fast forward several generations. We now have a group of animals, descended from amphibian A that are better adapted at living on land for extended periods of time due to natural selection. Perhaps they no longer hunt for food near water (if they do, individuals moving further away face less competition in hunting, giving them another edge). Having to go back to water to water to lay eggs is a nuisance to them because it means they have to go away from their hunting ground. They need to optimise the division of their time between time spend laying eggs and time spend hunting. Some individuals try to lay eggs closer to their hunting grounds, possibly in smaller pools or puddles. If the eggs dry out or their young cannot find food there, they die out. But if the eggs do not dry out because they have a slightly tougher shell, say, and the young do manage to survive and grow up, they have an advantage: they don't have to go so far back to the water to lay their eggs, meaning they can spend more time hunting for food, meaning their competition position is better. Fast forward again through several generations of selection for tough hides and eggs with shells that evaporate less heat. At this point, the remote descendants of A are no longer dependent on water for their reproduction: they can lay their eggs in a dry environment and the young that hatch from them have a fair chance of growing up to adulthood.
But these remote descendants of A are no longer amphibian! They're reptiles, some other different kind of animal.

If that was an explanation, it doesn't make it much clearer. How is this qualitatively different from a single cell organisim evolving to live in colonies (sponges come to mind as an example for what the end result might look like)?

Ok, you're not getting away with that one. Cite explicit proof of that claim.

By story, do you mean a `model' or `scenario' such as I wrote above? If so, you need to learn the distinction between a made-up fabrivation out of the blue and a scientific model or scenario. You cannot seriously discuss science if you do not grasp this distinction.

It's called outlining avenues for future work and pointing to the points of the research that could be refined. You'd rather they shut up and don't do this?

A cell was supposed to give a signal based on the concentration of a certain molecule. By a mutation the cell stops producing this molecule but instead produces one that is slightly different. This is not recognised and the cell does not give a signal. But curiously enough, interaction with photons causes a change in the molecule that changes it into the molecule that the cell was supposed to respond to.
Bingo, photosensitive cell. Not saying that's how it went, but just scetching a possibility.

The signals are of the same type as other nervous signals. It doesn't need to develop any special ability to process the information.
The question is analogous to how the human brain can use the visual cortex to process audio information: a nervous system is a general data processing unit.

There is no information that tells the photosensitive cells to recede, nor does it make sense to suppose there would be.
Natural variations in the shape of the creatures leads to some individuals in which the photosensitive cells are slightly receded from the surrounding tissue (we're talking invertebrates here). This is an advantage because the precious photosensitive cells are less likely to be damaged in a fight or collision. So this property is prefered by natural selection.

Not at all. Suppose you're wired to flee if you see a shadow. Say you're wired in such a way that your nervous system directly translates the signal from the photosensitive cells that detect a shadow into motion away from that direction.
If the picture is sharper, less cells are triggered and you have a more accurate sense of where the object forming the shadow is. This gives you an advantage because it means you can move away from it more directly, so it's selected for.
Actually, there's a simpler (but more schematic) explanation: if any individual is more capable that any other individual at determining where the threat is coming from, then that gives you an edge.
If there is no selection pressure for pinholes, some individuals have narrower cavities than others just by differences between individuals. Now say an individual evolves the ability to use the slightly sharper picture from his randomly narrower cavity. He has an edge. Those of his or her decsendents with a narrower cavity or a better ability to process the image have a larger edge... fast forward and you get a runaway process.

These are all fairly simple senario's for how natural selection can explain such observed properties. Don't allow yourself to be limited by your imagination of how things could have happened.

EDIT: no flames, people. Let's keep the debate civilised.

Some mutations lead to an increased risk of disease or make the creature weaker than before. Why would an intelligent designer make such errors if he know the outcome in advance?

I have to say that I don't think you are really wanting to look at the evidence. We have shown you increasingly complex evidence and short of having a PHD in biology there is little else we can say. However would any evidence really be good enough for you? Would you not always want finer and finer detail? If so, is that because of your personal beliefs?

Ok, tell me if you agree with these premises:

a) The genetic code in organisms is responsible for their biology.
b) Altering the genetic code can results in changes to this biology.
c) Random mutations can change, add, or delete sections of that genetic code.
d) Natural selection can bring improvements in creatures.

I'd say you don't believe that any more than slight improvements are possible via evolution.. right?

EDIT: Also some ID articles and evolution critiques if you are interested..

The genome itself IS the information. So in a way, it can add information, through changing.

edit:

Like the great Spagetti monster. ALL HAIL THE GREAT SPAGETTI MONSTER!

Single 'letter' changes and duplication of sequences. This happens in the replication process. Do not also forget the possibilty of so-called junk DNA accumulating which can later be altered and used and also viral genes.

EDIT: Copy errors do increase the amount of genetic information, which can then be changed through mutation. In fact we have a vast amount of junk genes compared to some other species..

And we have all given you evidence.

If you accept the premises I listed earlier than you must be assuming that an intelligent designer is manipulating the genes to create more complex and successful forms of life.

If so, how do you account for junk dna, negative mutations, 'flawed' and inferior designs, etc..?

For example, hawks have better eyesight than we do, dogs have a better sense of smell. Why do we not if through ID?

So if you change something, you're left with the exact same thing? The realm of genetics is fairly low level, akin to Quanum Physics/Chemistry, Did you know, if you changed ONE part of the molecule that makes up cheese whiz, you get the plastic used in regular "black" trash bags?

Change the charge of one of the electrons in a molecule, and you will get something quite different. What happens when you add a Oxygen molecule to Carbon Monoxide? Or An Oxygen molecule to a Hydrogen Monoxide? You get lovely Water.

You can't possibly claim that changing something so basic as parts of a DNA molecule won't give you something "new".

Forgot to add the link.

Behold, the Great Flying Spaghetti Monster

[edit]
Can anyone say, or better yet proove, that FSM is in any ways more wrong than ID, creationism or evolution?

[edit2]
Some more theories to teach at schools under the name of ID:
Invisible Pink Unicorn
Invisible Green Dragon

And in physics class they surely shouldn't miss the intelligent falling theory

Sure it is, the argument here is ID, so far the design has been anything BUT intelligent.

Just because we HAVEN'T done it, doesn't mean we CAN'T.

Relatively. Though aparently we are only the 3rd most intelligent spiecies on the planet.

Almost certianly, but its code will probably have mutated, to become usefull.

Do you think we can really improve on DNA? It is the most efficient information storage medium in existence. I doubt anything better is even possible.

This shows that the so-called junk DNA actually has function. Also, it never specifies if the two strains of voles came from the same parent vole. If not then the difference of the length of the DNA sequence could be accounted for by information loss instead of gain. If they came from the same parent, did the parent have more total information than the final strains which were used in the experiment?

I don't understand this statement. If you are trying to say natural selection leads to evolution you are only partially right. Natural selection leads to changes but does not add new information.

Who says all organisms need to have the best of everything to function the way they are supposed to?