Later on in the thread ID-guy replies to someone who explains how sequential changes produce large results over many generations.
I'm not a biology person; I'm more of a physics person. So, maybe someone here could tell me if my thinking about how I'd respond is correct.
ID-guy said:
”Sorry but no. This is not how evolution works like. This is linear complexity. You need specified complexity. Basicly...
In linear adding you will always get a higher number. In complex specified adding, you have got to have a threshold that you have to go over to add complexity. So if the threshold is 10, you have to get the 10 to have 10 in total. You can't add 1, becayuse it's not enough, you need a 10. So to get 50 you need 10+10+10+10+10. If the number is under the threshold, it won't be added. And you will stay on the same number. Get it?
The higher the number, the larger the number of mutations needed for the modification of a function of an organ. If you don't get enough mutation at once, you can't change the function. And since evolutiion (sic) works in small steps, you can't add those small changes to add them to a large change.
and later
Yo got it completely wrong. IC is something else. And it's still valid FYI.
Anyway, no, I'm not saying that if they are complex to a point they can't go any further. I'm saying that they can't go any more complex because they can't get enough right mutations to create a new function. And the reason is there is not enough chance. Evolution can to anything here. Natural selection is not going to select something that isn't positive. When you need too much mutations at once to have a positive effect, you will not evolve further complexity. You can evolve horizontlay. Which means on the level of species. But you can't evolve any further, on a higher level.
And your asking me to shov you an organ that has specified complexity, just shows you didn't get it. The point is that everything in human body is more or less specified complexity. Some are more, some are less. Some are very little, and that is why we can evolve on a small scale. The variations you see are the changes that evolution can make because of small specified complexity of the part of the living organism. If the Specified complexity is too big, it will not change. Because there isn't enough chance for evolution to do it.
It seems to me this argument is based on the false assumption that mutations are only preserved by being passed on to the next and succeeding generations if they immediately confer some new added function beneficial to the organism which harbors them. But, it seems to me, mutations would be preserved regardless so long as they didn't harm the organisms chances of survival or producing offspring. Therefor multiple benign mutations would add up over the generations, and, in some circumstances, would come together to produce a new functions.
Is that a valid response?
