No, I did not pull that out of my ass like the ones you wrote, james. The example I gave, which is a Dawkins example, is an example of irreducible complexibility, as in something that would have to pop into existence with all working parts ready.
Forgiving for a moment that Dawkins is an idiot, the issue is that you are asking why a inorganic mechanical system isn’t also a common organic growth.
For a living creature to have wheels, the organic system must be able to grow functioning, rotating wheels from DNA cells from birth. That is a rather serious issue. How are the cells associated with the rotating wheel to receive nutrients during the growth process? It is nearly mechanically impossible. Yet you are implying that because it isn’t found in nature, it must be due to the inability to establish each small incremental stage of evolution toward that end. Whether incrementally manifested or not, it almost can’t be done.
And even if it was possible to grow mechanically functioning wheels, nature does NOT have every single possible combination of organic growth, whether they might be more efficient or not. LED lighting for night vision is easily obtained through incremental stages of natural materials and growth, yet it does not happen.
So no. I did not merely “pull them out of my ass”. Those are examples of things that would be more efficient, like wheels, and are generally MORE easily accomplished, yet nature does not grow those. You state that the issue is incrementalization yet try to use an almost impossible to grow mechanism as as a test example. It is a bad example that proves nothing because there are very many accomplishable and incrementally feasible examples that are also not found in nature. Nature does not grow every conceivable combination. You are merely picking one that wasn’t found, using the guidance of an idiot.
If you consider all man-made technical things as the extended parts of man’s body, then man’s body has almost everything you can imagine.
The missing link is the human culture, the human brain, the human intelligence, strictly speaking: the technologically applied intelligence.
Yes, but that missing link is within the general devolution of the human evolutionary trend in those above mentioned categories, it can be argued ex-post facto, regressively. The human missing link in the upward genetically surging sense in the genetic sense, is the non traceable sequence of complete genetic progression.
I can see LED vision evolving incrementally*. Wheels can’t evolve incrementally because they don’t work unless they are round and connected to an axis. In other words they would have to instantly pop into existence in a single jump as a set of two round things connected to an axis, as if designed.
As to your saying that nature doesn’t grow every conceivable combination, duh. I never implied that. I gave an example of something that if found would be most perplexing.
If you can find in nature, not necessarily wheels, but any system that could not possibly have evolved incrementally, you would have hard evidence against evolution.
Godspeed and enjoy the hunt.
*Edit: not as in the actual electronic component of course, but an organic version of it. There are tons of fluorescent creatures. They may not use their own light to see in the dark, rather to be seen, but in the course of evolution a species might figures that out, it seems straightforward.
I don’t consider them to be biological systems subject to darwinistic natural selection.
Wake up.
The issue with wheels is NOT that they can’t evolve incrementally. The issue is that they cannot GROW from DNA cells, from birth. Even if they magically sprang into existence in a generation, they would not be able to become the nest.
I hope you’re not talking about metal wheels with rubber tires.
We are obviously talking about an organic equivalent.
The materials are not the concern. Organic systems are innately fluid so as to distribute nutrients throughout. A free rotating wheel doesn’t allow for such distribution networking (blood vessels, neurons). It is an issue of the mechanics. It probably isn’t totally impossible to come up with some limited form of a wheel that can be grown, but I serious doubt that it would be efficient in use.
It is just a lousy strawman example to try to use to support evolution (typical of Dawkins).
Maybe a plant, but an animal I don’t know about that one.
The ISS is such an “absolute island”. There is no natural environment inside the ISS, everything is human-made, thus artificial (cultural), even the air that the humans breathe. So the environment inside the ISS is an absolutely artificial (cultural) environment. The natural environment is completely outside the ISS. If there were a natural environment inside the ISS, then the humans who are inside the ISS would immediately die.
There are more than this human-made “islands”, some are absolute, for example spaceships or the ISS, the others are relative, for example the atmospheric “islands”:
All of the are human-made and - either absolutely or relatively - isolated from nature.
As long as all these “islands” will exist and will contradict their “ocean” nature they will also have their own order within their own boundaries. If you replace the natural environment by an artificial (cultural) environment, then you have created an artificial isolation of natural selection - either absolutely or relaitively.
Life resists entropy. Otherwise it would not be capable of self-preservation and would decay, thus die. Self-preservation means preservation of the competences during the actual life, whereas reproduction means preservation of the competences beypond the own life. There are three evolution principles: (1) variation, (2) reproduction, (3) reproduction interest. Living beings get recources out of their environment in order to reproduce their competences by the resources of the environment, thus to preserve (conserve) and renew their competences. So they strive to reproduce their competences.
According to this the meaning of life is the avoidance of the loss of the competences.
If you have the impression that you are not needed anymore, then you have the impression of the loss of your competences.
Note: “Competences” means more than"fitness", it is more like “capital”, “power”, “acceptance”, “appreceation”.
Sorry buddy, but in classic forms of reproduction, money isn’t a gene.
I never said that “money” was “a gene”.
Youre acting like we pass on “capital”, “power”, “acceptance”, and “appreceation” through our DnA.
He is referring to your “abilities” (“competencies”, “skills”, “talents”, “social prospects”). Some are passed on through DNA. Some are taught, trained, or conditioned. Any can be taken away.
Skills are not carried in the DNA nor are abilities or competencies.
“Propensities” are passed on. That is why a child born to a stockbroker can be raised and succeed in a hunter/gatherer society, and vice versa.
Humans are the ultimate generalists since they are born with very little in the way of innate abilities, the brain being almost completely empty at birth, and able to absorb culture and learning.
It’s for this reason that racism is complete bullshit.
And this is also why a person with the propensity to psychopathy can, in a poor family become a serial killer, whilst those born into a rich family become captains of industry and stockbrokers.
You would have to adopt a special definition for “skills” to try to make that true.
Try swinging from one branch of a tree to another by using only one hand and your tail.
Perhaps try to catch a rattle snake using only your teeth.
Catch a mouse with one fingernail?
Get a job as a stripper?
How about the Iranian Prime Minister? President?
Chinese People’s Party Leader?
How about ask someone with angelman disorder to work out the first few digits of the square root of Pi?
Ask a colorblind man to accurately describe the difference in your lawn and your neighbor’s?
How about play basketball with a dwarf or midget? … with Oscar Robertson?
President of the NAACP? …Women’s League of America?
Weight lifting or Karate competition with your girlfriend (dubiously assuming that she is a “she” in your case)?
Your new-age mentality of “all people are equal until those white men program us to be different” is bullshit.
But as you say:
… or at least new-age liberal globalists seem to be. But science disagrees with you.
Fighting lies with lies just makes for a lot more lies.
Exactly.
It is based on information.
There are many different information memories (storages), two of them are biological (genetical and neurological) - genes and memes (short-term and long-term)-, all others are cultural (artificial) like all culturally made things, for example books / libraries, pictures, photographs, audiotapes, videotapes, memories of computer, robots, androids.