LOL. Thanks again RussT.
Your mistake (and thereby your misunderstanding) lies in this:
How does a species survive after 1,000,000,000,000 harmful mutations?
Curiously by the same mechanism that concentrates the beneficial mutations. Those organisms that suffer from harmful mutations generally do not survive to adulthood, or to breed, and they are eliminated with the organisms that carry them.
Most of the mutations are neutral (not selected for nor against) and this leads to variation and diversity within populations.
Do you really think that a minuscule 1,000,000 beneficial mutations (a very generous number indeed) will produce something highly ordered in light of the sheer number of harmful ones?
Yet the beneficial ones accumulate while the harmful ones are eliminated.
Of course you do. You call it "natural selection".
Actually "natural selection" is what Darwin called it, and it has been verified, observed and validated in the real world. Some organisms survive and breed to a better degree than others and as a result they pass on more of their hereditary traits to their offspring and to the population as a whole than those less endowed.
OK, so where are all these harmfully-mutated fossils?
Curiously there are thousands: all the fossils of juveniles that died before they reproduced. There are likely some adults too, however it is harder to determine whether an adult has reproduced or not (more so with males than with females).
The other side of the coin is that most of the harmful mutations cause malformation of the zygote/embyro/fetus. In humans, for instance, we know that upwards of 80% of conceptions never make it to breathing fresh air. This kind of high reproductive failure rate is likely found in all species, yet the birth rate of living organisms is still enough to more than compensate for the older organisms that die in any year, and thus refill the population coffers.
Such deaths would be rare fossilization events (small and mostly soft tissue).
First, the context is symmetry, that is: How do all of these parts form perfect mirror images of each other?
And as noted elsewhere symmetry, from radial to bilateral, is easy to evolve from the duplication of DNA segments and specialization.
Secondly, if "unfinished" parts were formed (already mathematically absurd), they would not be considered beneficial until the entire component was finished. Therefore, they would hinder (not help) the organism and that organism would be "selected out" before anything complex could form.
And once again, you are talking about the absurd concept of RussTolution, not evolution. RussTolution has been discredited - we agree on that.
You are confusing embryonic development of organisms with the evolution of populations of living and functioning organisms. Individuals do not undergo evolution. They are born, live, reproduce and die as fully evolved (for them) individuals within the population.
As noted before, we have living organisms today that display all the various stages necessary for the formation of eyes etc. Each of these organisms is a fully functioning, fully evolved (for them) individual. Some in the population will have more fully developed eyes than others, and if selection is for better eyesight and against poor eyesight then they will contribute more to the next generation.
Actually, Kent Hovind deals with this very issue in his excellent video:
Lies In the Textbooks
In fact, it's not an issue at all. It a necessary design feature.
Have a look.
I have, it is bogus, full of falsehoods and bad arguments.
Curious that what you're calling RussTolution was taught in schools the world over up until the past couple years, that is, until they began backstepping.
Have a look:
Redefining Evolution: The Great Retreat Begins
At the very least, this is dishonest. In all reality, it is pure fraud.
And what is the purpose for such widespread fraud?
Because, as I have said:
Evolution is a social control. If you believe it, you are controlled.
Have a look:
Evolution Solves All Kinds of Problems
And yet, strangely, they do not "redefine" the evolution that Darwin documented: the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation is the same thing as his descent with modification.
Once again, all this shows is that when you
start with a false definition of biological evolution, like RussTolution, then you will not be talking about biological evolution as taught and used by evolutionary biologists.
You can redefine RussTolution as much as you want to (it certainly needs it, being a compilation of falsified concepts and misunderstood mechanisms).
Now if you want to try to show that (real) evolution has been redefined as something other than Darwin's "descent with modification," and that this is what is being taught in university courses on biological evolution, then please do so.
Here's an example to get you started:
Berkeley University, Evolution 101:
The Definition:
Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life.
color+bold for emPHASis. Hard to miss that one.
Here's another:
University of Michigan, Biology Lectures:
Definitions of Biological Evolution
We begin with two working definitions of biological evolution, which capture these two facets of genetics and differences among life forms. Then we will ask what is a species, and how does a species arise?
- Definition 1:
Changes in the genetic composition of a population with the passage of each generation
- Definition 2:
The gradual change of living things from one form into another over the course of time, the origin of species and lineages by descent of living forms from ancestral forms, and the generation of diversity
color+bold for emPHASis again.
The first is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation, and the second is the application of that process to the effects of speciation and the subsequent diverse evolution of the different populations, ...
... or, to be concise, ... descent with modification.
Hope those help you.
Seeing as we are still talking about the same thing Darwin was, without any watering down or weakening of his theory, seeing as modern biology has actually added to our understanding of the processes of evolution with mutation and genetic drift and the like, it is hardly accurate or honest to say that there is a retreat from the original (Darwin) definition.
Enjoy.
