Ok, I don't see how this contradicts my point. It doesn't need the IC systems when the mother's body is helping it out. Again, the IC systems are encoding in the DNA at that point so they don't need functional precursors to create it. Natural selection doesn't need to select a function to act on if it not evolving in the first place. It has inherited the evolved or designed IC system, depending on your viewpoint, from its parents.
Exactly. A zygote doesn't need various systems when it has the means to survive without them. That means it has time to develop those systems. What that means is that an organism which can survive without a system can develop that system from scratch, through natural evolution. If you can't rule that out, you can't disprove evolution.
Don't you declare there is no intelligent design because you don't understand how it could happen given you don't believe in God. So your logic just as easily undermines you.
No, I don't so declare - and quit making assumptions about what I believe or don't believe. My point is that there is no evidence that shows that the intelligent design you claim had to happen, actually did happen. I am not basing my argument on a lack of understanding, but on a lack of evidence. To be blunt, if there were verifiable evidence which showed that something we didn't understand had come to Earth and created the first life-form, then it wouldn't matter whether I understood how it had done that or not.
How is it cherrpicking to address the IC issue which is the main issue we have been talking about. lol
It's cherry-picking because you only quoted the first point I made, and then lied by claiming that I had said I couldn't explain how an "irreducibly complex" system could have evolved, when I in fact did explain one way in which it could have worked in the paragraph immediately after the one you quoted.
I don't see how you have proven evolution accounts for IC, you basically just asserted again that it does. Again, an IC system, all the parts need to be there and well matched to perform the function.
Yes, the entire problem here is that you don't see. That's why your argument is based on incredulity. You're arguing that evolution is false because you don't think it can explain complex biological structures, not because you actually took the time or made the effort to examine the evidence which says otherwise.
I don't see how neutral mutations can lead to evolution.
Again, you don't see. Every post you've made in this thread has basically been, "I don't see" or "I don't understand". When are you going to figure out that just because you don't see or understand something makes no difference in whether it happened or not?
A neutral mutation is really only somewhat neutral in that the genes are broken like in a negative mutation, the difference is the neutral mutation doesn't increase or decrease survival.
A neutral mutation does not break genes. For that matter, a lethal mutation does not break genes either. That's a presumption of yours based on your belief that life was designed by something intelligent (and the further presumption that changes in the way an organism functions are negative unless they're positive). A mutation changes gene sequences. In some cases, these altered gene sequences prevent an organism based on them from being viable, and it dies. It doesn't mean that the organism was 'broken' somehow. It simply means that the altered gene sequences didn't result in something that could live. But neutral mutations do result in something that can live. They don't damage the organism, they don't damage its genetic structure. They simply alter it a bit. Add up enough minor changes and you can easily end up with a major one.
But it seems as neutral mutations are passed on to the offspring, as they add up it leads to the offspring have more more and more deficient genes which doesn't sound like a good starting point for evolution.
False again. Mutations do not result in deficient genes. They simply result in altered ones.
Also you need to consider that the neutral genes in the offspring would be MORE lkely to combine with a negative mutation give there are more negative mutations than positve mutations, so the negative mutation would be selected against and these combined neutral-negative lifeform would eventually be weeded out.
And there are far more neutral mutations than positive and negative ones put together. Far, far more. So a neutral mutation is much more likely to combine with other neutral mutations. ASo if you have neutral mutations stacking upon other neutral mutations, over time the chances increase that it will have an effect on the organism. And the key point is that the really harmful mutations tend to weed themselves out, usually pretty quickly, so only the stuff that allows for viable organisms gets passed on.
And then we also start to challenge the law of probability that random mutations across generation happen to combine with each other "just so" to add up to something that is complex and useful.
This again? I don't think you understand probability well enough to make such a blanket statement. But here, I'll give you the chance to prove otherwise with a couple probability questions.
If you increase the number of situations in which something can happen, how does that affect the odds of that something actually happening?
About how many people do you need in a room to have a 50% chance that any two of them will have a shared birthday? About how many do you need for a 99% chance that any two of them will have a shared birthday?