Greetings, thanks for the response. To begin with I said nothing to imply that natural selection does not work or is “random”. I apologize if I gave that impression. I was specifically discussing the flagellum motor and the completely unsatisfying answer or lack thereof that Darwinian Evolution gives for this structure.
“It is guided by differential reproductive success (via natural selection), the necessity of building new things out of existing things rather than creating them intact from scratch, and other such factors.”
None of which are satisfying explanations for the flagellum.
“The precise mechanism for how this system evolved haven’t been elucidated, but that’s not evidence natural selection can’t explain it.”
This sounds surprisingly similar to what Creationists say to me…“we’ll, we don’t know how this came about but I’m sure God must have done it somehow.” Both sides seem pretty dependent on faith.
“The only basis for claiming that natural selection cannot make such things is your own difficulty imaging how”
Or perhaps anyone’s inability to explain it through said natualistic processes.
“building new things out of existing things rather than creating them intact from scratch”
And in the case of the flagellum that existing structure(s) would be?
“claim the theory as a whole is a failure”
Uh…gee, I never did this.
“why almost any anatomic or biochemical feature of one organism can be shown to be a modified form of a similar feature in a related organism”
Could you please point out what these are for the flagellum motor?
“the things previous thought to be inexplicable by natural selection and modification with descent (like the vertebrate eye) which have since been clearly demonstrated to, in fact, be possible to develop in steps as the theory suggests despite their complexity.”
Would you cite references for this please.
“all the things Darwinian theory does explain successfully”
If a theory successfully explains certain situations it is a logical misstep to assume that that theory can be applied universally because of that fact alone.
“And it begs the questions of why things are imperfectly designed”
And yet with all that “imperfection” do we know of any more complex and well-working machine in the cosmos (man-made or otherwise) than the human body?
I am arguing from a “god-neutral” worldview and letting the evidence lead where it may. If you are arguing from a worldview that gives no possibility of a “god” or the possibility of any metaphysical existence then the issue has been “pre-ruled-out” and of course there will be no “alternative explanation”. I am also seeking an “alternative explanation” for what was there BEFORE the Big Bang and having a great deal of difficulty getting any answer besides “we don’t know”. And if we don’t know is it fair to rule out any explanation that has credible evidence?