DDHv wrote:We may be defining words in different ways. Mine: Evolution is genetically caused increase in function. Devolution is genetically caused loss of function. Intra genome adaption is the expression of different parts of a genome according to which better fit the current environment. Given mutation accumulation perfection now isn't at all probable.
Well, then your definitions are completely and utterly wrong, but I think we covered that already.
Are you aware of what you're doing here? You're using the terms of evolutionary biology, but without any understanding of what evolutionary biology has defined those terms to mean.
You are, to put it simply, not even wrong
Here's the correct definition: Evolution is the process of change in living organisms over time. Devolution does not exist. End of story.
Now, you can of course continue to use your own bullshit definitions for terms. But all you're proving by it is that you are an ignoramus.
ID workers think that micro evolution, with also intra genome adaptions are all the constructive adaptions. This is based largely on: 1) the large number of alleles between, and 2) the much longer generational lengths; within higher organisms. Example: The current state of chimp-human genome differences requires millions of base pairs to be changed. You might estimate the time for even 10^6 generations. The use of probabilities is centuries old.
And you still do not understand them. Pity, really.
Devolution, defined as the loss of function, is destructive. This has been documented from high confidence observations and experiments in higher organisms.
And you're wrong. Your example was the loss of sight in cave-dwelling organisms. What you see as devolution is just adaptation according to the rules of evolutionary science; by living in an environment in which sight is largely irrelevant, the evolutionary pressure to keep functional eyes around ceases to exist. The gene complex responsible for eye development thus becomes an area that is considered neutral for the fitness of the organism as a whole. If a mutation arises that reduces the function of the eye, it's not going to be selected out; if mutations arise that increase the functionality of other sensory organs, they will be selected for, run that for a couple hundred generations, and you'll have a population that will have increasingly poor eyesight.
Those basing their testing on the assumption of the TOL cannot accept true irreducible complications, whatever the evidence.
This is your reminder that the sum of evidence brought forth by creationists such as yourself is nil.
Shouldn't we use the best current methods to distinguish between proper extrapolation or using handwaivium to reconcile data and theories?
Doing that has brought us to where we are in evolutionary biologoy. Not doing so has led to creationism.