alright ns, on to you i guess since you actually want to debate the topic like an adult. from palentology records it has been witnessed that evolution is not gradual but abrupt with respects to many organisms. also, i want to point out to you that evolution is just a theory and not fact like you champion it to be.
Evolution is both fact and theory. Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. The theory of evolution explains the mechanism of this phenomena. I've never claimed evolutionary theory is fact. By definition, a scientific theory can never be proven. Gravity is also a scientific theory. I suppose you don't believe in gravity either b/c it "hasn't been proven?"
also, you need to understand something about cosmology that from the theory of relativity and to the information gleaned from redshift ala the big bang it is apparent that the universe is expanding, this is a reasonable deduction no. ok, so using this logic there must be a temporal extremity which results in a singularity known as the big bang. usign the laws of thermodynamics and entropy would we have to assume that the universe started from nothing to become something. sorry, this isnt logical at all and this in were the intelligent designer comes into play. the idea of a god is the idea of a being that just is, which exists outside our time-space continuim.
So you think a universe that has always existed isn't logical, but you embrace the idea that an omnipotent, omniscient, multi-dimensional being created the cosmos with a wave of his hand?
I suggest you look up quantum fluctuation if you are truly interested in learning about the origin of the universe.
this plays back to the theological, cosmology ontonlogical argument etc.. in which many things dont add up and ala god. this i dont buy however, you keep stating the blind watchmaker argument as denounced by a one richard dawkins who is a gearbox. the arguments are not the same at all in the watchmaker argument applies less to molecular biology and more towards structures and unity in nature. with regards to the irr complex, it simply states that on a cellular level which preceeds the organism level the machinery could not have developed in a step like fashion becasue what is the adaptable advantage to half an eye, or vestibular organ( i understand im at the organ level). at the cell level, mitochodria, ribosomes all would have to develope equally and concurrently to function at all. the arguments against micheal behe arent concrete because some scientists says so.
The argument from irreducible complexity is basically a rehash of the watchmaker argument. Michael Behe argues that irreducibly complex systems are too intricate to be produced by evolution. The watchmaker argument claims the universe is too complex to have arisen by natural processes. However, both arguments are self-defeating by their own logic. An endless series of "who created the creation which created...?" emerges without providing an answer.
so answer this, why would a eye and its parts develope if nothing short of a whole eye functions. take away the retina, and guess what happens. so behe is arguing that for it to evolve becaue it is a advantage everything would have to evolve at the same time for it to become advantageous. 5% of a eye offers no benefit so why would it develop?
There are 4 possible ways for "irreducible complexity" to evolve.
- previously using more parts than necessary for the function
- the parts themselves evolve
- deployment of parts evolves
- new parts are created and may then evolve
In the past, a function may have been done with more parts than necessary. The "extra" part(s) may have been lost over time leaving an irreducibly complex system, or the parts may have co-adapted to perform even better at the expense of not being able to function without each other. The parts themselves may have evolved. Another important fact is that DNA evolves. Each protein that your body makes is coded in your DNA and is subject to mutation and evolution. This is referred to this as deployment of parts. When a protein is deployed out of its usual context, it may be co-opted for a different function. Lastly, brand new parts may have been created and evolved.