You are conflating their personal beliefs on God with the observation of IC in nature, and IC cannot be explained by Darwinian evolution give there are no functional precursors.
It can't be explained to you. That doesn't mean it can't be explained.
I am afraid this is true.
I am a college professor, so I resist that idea that "some people just can't learn". Everyone with a functioning brain can
learn. But there are people who, for their own reasons, refuse to learn
. Dr Tesla is too invested in his beliefs to engage with other ideas.
I am willing to read most of what folks post and even what they link to, as long as it is relevant, not too long and makes some sense. I will comment politely and respectfully. And in most cases, even when people are not polite and respectful back, it does not phase me much as long as they answer. However, Dr Tesla will not return that basic internet courtesy.
He will not respond reasonably, and will not engage with or address people's arguments. He only keeps repeating the same refuted and disputed points over and over. He won't address the objections raised here to his general argument that some systems are too complex to have evolved from simpler forms. He has not read (or did not understand) the basic wikipedia article on eye evolution. This article was written in direct response to people like him saying that "the eye is so complex that it could never have evolved". Well, it is not, and it did.
He keeps saying that you can't remove part of a system and have it still function. But that is not true either. Didn't Dr Tesla take biology lab in high school where they cut up the planaria and each bit grows into a new one? A tree that sheds its flowers or leaves is still a tree. Hell, you can cut a worm in half and it will still live on and be a whole worm. A human with one eye, or one leg is still a functioning human being-- albeit one that will have a harder time surviving.
Dr Tesla says it is not possible for any organism to function with any
parts missing. Yet, here I sit missing several of the organs I was born with in their entirety, happily typing away. Many people manage to survive and reproduce without an appendix, gall bladder, tonsils, eyes, legs, etc.
A part of some organ can still serve a function for the animal or plant and contribute to its survival. An eye-type system that detects light and motion has several components. Remove or damage the motion detector component and it might still be able to detect light.A part of an eye can therefore be better than no eye, depending on the part.
The obvious fact is that every living thing-- from bacteria and plants to animals and human beings-- starts out life as a few simple cells, and then grows into way more complex forms. This seems to be fairly clear evidence that simple can become more complex
, given the right conditions and enough time. It happens all the time.
Furthermore, there are parts that don't make sense, because they don't seem to be needed, are really badly "designed" or have no use to the plant or animal. At least unless the thing evolved from something where the part did make sense. Like the vestigial foot bones in whales, or the nerve in a giraffe's neck that is 15 feet long when it only has to go a distance of a few inches.
A huge oak tree complete with bark, leaves, roots and trunk starts out as a tiny little simple acorn, right? Given enough time and the right conditions, of course. You can't just look at a the tree and say, "I can't see how that tree came from a tiny seed unless you can show me it happening in real time, right before my eyes." One tiny sperm cell and one tiny egg cell became a big annoying Dr. Tesla. Who then comes onto an internet forum to argue that his existence was impossible....
Dr Tesla, you are wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. That's okay, most of us are wrong sometimes. But you need to be willing to learn. Unless you can dispute people's points here with your arguments, all you have proven is you don't really have anything more to contribute. Unless you enjoy giving us more examples of anti-science arguments that are not rational.....