Well I have quite a few problems with natural selection being true. For one there are still a lot of fools in this world. For another even the simplest species are still around and totally in contradiction to natural selection, survival of the fittest, etc., etc. they are the most successful species around! But there is a bigger problem which is the one I was pointing at. You seem to think that natural selection can be the cause for increased complexity and that it would solve the problems involved in creating such increased complexity. Natural selection only kills the unfit. It is not a cause of anything, specifically it is not a cause for the creation of new genes, etc. which would be required to get life from a single celled organism to humans. Further, when species, such as single celled bacteria can survive for billions of years and continue to be the most prolific species on earth, there is clearly no need for increased complexity, the kind required by evolution, for species to survive. So what I was really asking you was to substantiate, in view of the above, your statement on post#1158 that:
Complexity which arises from a far simpler set of rules (or beginnings) is a rapidly emerging scientific paradigm.
I doubt very much that there is any substance to the above except the wishful thinking of materialist scientists.
LOL. I agree with you Gore3000, but couldn't this argument also be used the other way? Why would a creator make fools? Natural selection doesn’t care about perfection, its all about being good enough to survive. Gazelles don’t have to run faster than cheetahs, they just have to run faster than their neighbors.
For another even the simplest species are still around and totally in contradiction to natural selection, survival of the fittest, etc., etc. they are the most successful species around!
Survival is really about occupying a niche. The bacteria we see today have cornered the market in the niches we find them, yet multicellularity now allows you to occupy a multitude of different niches....an obvious example - you can now use the unicellular organisms as food. The unicellular guys keep proliferating like gangbusters, and a balance is eventually reached. Sometimes a symbiotic relationship emerges and everybody is happy. Once cellular cooperation picked up steam, many strategies for surviving and making a living developed.
Natural selection only kills the unfit. It is not a cause of anything....
You couldnt be more wrong. A simple example to help you conceptualize the power of natural selection: In the lab, it is a common practice to have bacteria grow massive amounts of specific DNA. This is generally done by including a gene which encodes for antibiotic resistance along with your gene of interest. Add both genes linked on the same DNA (plasmid) to the bacteria, then add antibiotic. Initially, very few of the bacteria contain your DNA yet the next day you have a swarming culture of bacteria which are all contain your gene. Here all we are really doing is killing the unfit - those bacteria which fail to acquire the DNA (most of them actually). Yet what we are left with is a far more “ordered” homogeneous population of bacteria all containing your gene. See how "killing the unfit" can leave you with "something". Nature can be just as unforgiving and has far more powers of selection. Also keep in mind the term “natural selection” includes “sexual selection” – which generally refers to females selecting males based on positive traits (many of these overlap with traits that enhance survival). Death is only one side of the coin.
Further, when species, such as single celled bacteria can survive for billions of years and continue to be the most prolific species on earth, there is clearly no need for increased complexity, the kind required by evolution, for species to survive.
You have it backwards. The great success of bacteria was likely the driving force for organized complexity. Your mitochondria are the descendants of ancient bacteria. Also, when cells teamed up and gave rise to multicellular organisms, the bacteria now serve as food. Read what I wrote previously on this.
Complexity which arises from a far simpler set of rules (or beginnings) is a rapidly emerging scientific paradigm.
I doubt very much that there is any substance to the above except the wishful thinking of materialist scientists.
Can someone here explain Chaos Theory to Mr. Gore?