Except that originally you were objecting to my point that the theory of evolution doesn’t rise or fall on Darwin’s shoulders alone. Now you agree. Fine.
But no, you certainly haven’t “found” any flaws in Darwin’s theory. You’ve only proposed a challenge to the theory (like Salisbury).
Finally, you have me curious about what “aspects” of evolution you do agree with. In particular, I’m not clear on the extent you believe in speciation. (For instance, do you agree that our species, Homo sapiens, is a product of evolution? Of course, that would also tend to translate into whether you agree that our brain evolved from smaller, less “capable”, brains.)
Glad to hear it. Except, clearly, that’s not your whole point, or (more to the point) your main point, because you go on to assert once again that “irreducible complexity” is essentially a given, which it isn’t, which is my main point.
Wow, is that ever an interesting assertion. Far be it from me to belittle “common sense”, for all of us in our respective lives unquestionably rely on it “big time”. But your outright boast that it is sufficient for our knowing all there is to know about reality is sheer nonsense. (Hey, my, your, and everyone’s “common sense” is telling us all the time that the sun orbits the earth. That’s what we “see” after all, and also “feel”–that is, we don’t feel constant motion under our feet.)
It used to be common sense that there was no such thing as microscopic life, and when that became “evident”, common sense said that such small and “trivial” life certainly could not be responsible for the illnesses we humans fall prey to. Likewise, the idea of atoms was once taken to be fantasy, and then, when common sense was “readjusted”, it was thought “impossible” that such fundamental units of existence could be “split”. And when that happened, well, surely there was nothing to be found “beyond” electrons, neutrons, and protons, right?
Our “common sense”, by its own terms, is always bounded and includes less than all of reality. As a result, it is always wont to decry further “reductions” and “unifications” of apparent reality. And so on that score, it has proved itself a very, very, very poor guide.
Also, the conclusion seems unavoidable that if you really believe “irreducible complexity” is so obvious and requires no proof, then you must also believe either that the scientific community comprises mostly morons or that the majority of scientists in the world are secretly “conspiring” to overthrow religion or achieve some other dubious goal. Really?
Given your examples, you seem to imply that there’s a one-to-one correspondence between “form” and “function” that remains a fixture over time. But evolution denies that form and function are so neatly and statically married. The problem with your last two examples in this regard is that nature does exhibit other, different, and simpler systems for vision and for “circulation” (of nutrients and waste products). In short, while those functions (or needs) have stood out for long, the forms to accomplish them have varied in many ways. (By the by, as for your “heart and brain”, I take it that you know you’ve overstated it–not all the brain is dedicated to involuntary regulation, so yes, the heart can do without “much” of the brain.)
Your example of the bicycle is my favorite though. Yes, I agree, without wheels the bike stops functioning . . . as a bike. But it still works as a seat! What, take the seat away, you say? Okay, now it’s a fence, a barrier (hindering mobility where once it facilitated it). Come again . . . cut apart all the metal tubing? Fine, canes, clubs, blow guns, or, if reconnected in a different way, a ladder (vertical rather than horizontal mobility).
But I digress. We have more than enough to consider in the way of altered forms and (sometimes subtly) changing functions with just the simple combination of “seat” and “wheels”. That duo has been adapted to satisfy many discrete, if related, needs: wheelchair (the more dominant element here being the chair), tricycle (not with two, but three wheels for great stability, and likewise built close to the ground), bicycle with training wheels (the latter discarded when no longer “needed"), racer with several gears (certainly not for the infirm), motorcycle, automobile (pedals, for one thing, sure have changed ), train (lots of seats and wheels now), plane (wheels take a backseat to wings), and space shuttle (pedals/peanuts?).
Then there’s a clearly related, if odd, “branch” of forms to consider–wheels without the seat. In particular, there’s now the Segway! Will it turn out to be a doomed “Neanderthal” of transportation, or the beginning of the end of legs? Hard to say at this time.
Sorry, but it certainly sounds like my analogy hit the mark.
Due only to your derailed logic. My analogy was about scientific investigation and argument. You’ve suddenly transformed it–and right in the middle!–into a confused analogy about evolution itself. Guess you realized (too late?) that it wouldn’t work to say that our “someone”, especially a scientist, wouldn’t start “experimenting” with the cube, trying to see if it could in fact be reworked (rather than just blindly claiming it could). My analogy stands.
A virus is already marvelously developed for what it does. You should be in awe now. But what I want to know is: do you agree that the virus is a product of evolution?
No, the more important question is: could it “use” one? I’m not sure I see that it could. (Then again, I shouldn’t presume; I’m not a virus.)
Sorry, but the theory does not propose that evolution works like Athena one day “popping up” out of Zeus’ head, fully formed and ready for action. That’s not to suggest, however, that a discrete (or aberrant) form can never become (or be born) “functionless” and “hang around” for a while. The theory posits that it can. But whether it then suffer the fate of “training wheels” (or worse, are debilitating in general) depends on the “need” for, and its present utility for and adaptation to, a new “helpful” function.
So, rods or cones, or something close to them, which get “used” to boot? I daresay certainly not before there’s already a functioning system in place that interacts with light in some fashion.
No kidding?
Is that your “common sense” again? As well as contempt for the scientific community?
You’re implying I believe in UFOs?
You mean your friends believe in cheating? That instead of shuffling and dealing out the cards “blind”–so that the combinations will be spontaneous, with some still naturally “better” or “superior” to others, with unforseen but of course very real consequences for the “fortunes” of the rest of the table–they “stack the deck” and control the hands in order to take advantage of unwitting players?
That’s too bad. Not what poker’s about, is it?
), I posted this to show that creationsists do *GASP!* use scientific sources to support their views: 
). I'd be happy to elaborate and welcome hearing what you believe. I've always had a hunger for the facts and not settle for something purely on "belief". I went through courses on evolution and evolution related topics during High School and college- listening to any piece of information that held true. If anything, I leaned toward Darwinism, but I was never certain of any position. In truth, I have an open mind about alot of aspects of evolution and am still forming my stance only with significant evidence to back it up. It has become clear to me that "irreducible complexity" DOES exist as well as "intelligent design". Of course I believe it's the God of the Bible, but not from evolution/creation theory (my intellecual confidence lies more from historical evidence than evolution evidence). It seems though that intelligent design by itself would rather leave alot of possibilities open to the agnostic (which is what I was until I was 25- last year). To an agnostic, it could be some living cosmic force (similar to what Einstein believed) or a God of a religion we know on earth. I never had the luxury of believing in "IR" or "ID" until after I was Christian because it's often banned from High School and University courses. I'm fairly confident the theories and evidence would have been thought provoking at the very least. I suppose this should make my beliefs obvious. Do I believe we are a product of evolution? I believe we are a product of the living intelligent God, not simply a chemical/biological process of natural selection picking and choosing chance mutations. Did we start as a more primitive primate- with chemistry this is impossible, but with God all things are possible. 
