Replies

Irreducible complexity on the molecular level was, for me, the finishing blow for a general theory of evolution, when I read Michael Behe’s book.

I never had a religious problem with the General Theory, because it seemed to me that God could perfectly well have worked through evolution if He so chose. And the Catholic Church has gone out of its way to accommodate Evolution. But I have always had scientific problems with it.

Sure, there is intra species evolution. Darwin was quite right about that. Birds can develop longer beaks if they need them to pick insects out of the bark of trees or suck their food out of deeper flowers. Dogs can be bred to be faster, or larger, or whatever their owners find desirable, within reasonable limits. Deer can grow longer and faster legs at the same time that wolves do the same thing.

But how do you explain, using evolutionary theory, the development of the first eyeball, or the first wings. Because these excrescences would be counterproductive,a drag on the individual animals who developed them, UNTIL they finally became usable over a period of presumably thousands of years. How would an animal with half-developed wings slowing it down and holding it back and getting tangled in the grass beat out an animal who had the advantage of no burdensome half-wings? What advantage would there be in a half-developed eye that couldn’t yet see anything? Yes, lower order plants are phototropic, and respond to light, but there’s an unbridgeable gap between that and growing an eyeball.

That occurred to me as a teenager when I first studied biology. Of course, Behe’s cellular level complexity takes it to a whole new level of astronomical improbability.

Moreover, inter-species evolution has never been observed, only theorized about. And the general theory is no closer to being proved than it was when Darwin first proposed it.

Molecular “Machines” build themselves, when they have no point in even existing? How likely is that? This latest response to Behe sounds like a work of desperation.

Hello, and welcome to secular humanism’s Handwaving 101.

How would an animal with half-developed wings slowing it down and holding it back and getting tangled in the grass beat out an animal who had the advantage of no burdensome half-wings?

You'll get ganged up on for that one. I asked a similar question about limbs that would be evolving to flippers for use in water and just got mocked for that one.

I never did get a decent explanation of how a limb that was halfway between leg and flipper could be of decent use as either.

A leg that was half flipper, wouldn't be good for running or climbing. A fin or flipper that was half leg wouldn't be as efficient for swimming.

In either case, it would slow down the creature to be caught in whatever medium it was in. The creature couldn't run fast enough to elude fully legged land creatures, and couldn't swim fast enough to escape fully finned and streamlined water creatures.

Excellent reply! I would only add that things have gotten far worse for Darwin’s ToE since he first unveiled it—especially re: molecular biology!

My problem with these attempts to disprove evolution is that they ultimately say that God isn't good enough to produce a system that can adapt, improve and flourish. No, the system needs those constant creationist tweaks to keep going. People point to unexplained areas of evolution and saying the absence of proof is precisely the evidence for Creation.

However, there are quite a few unexplained areas of particle physics that defy explanation, but that only means we haven't found the cause yet. One by one, the holes get patched.

Some people start with the belief that an active, Creationist God is the fact, and that science then must conform. I absolutely believe in intelligent design and that God had intentions for the Universe and for each person in it, but that for God to interfere and direct things, He would have to interfere with laws of physics, laws that He wrote. Ah, but some say that quantum mechanics allows for such tinkering. Well, no. QM is governed by strict laws of probability, and tinkering would put those out of balance. A god that needs to interfere with his own laws doesn't say very much about his power.

Yet it should be obvious that the Universe is well designed and life is not a violation of the Third Law of Thermodynamics (entropy). Clearly there is purpose and a design that we see all about us.

When I was a creationist, eventually I admitted that “microevolution” could happen. I figured that changes could happen within species, but it could never turn into a new species.

The problem is, as Carl Zimmer once said, “If you accept microevolution, you get macroevolution for free.” Macroevolution is just microevolution over time. Eventually, enough genetic and/or geographical drift occurs that they become new species — organisms that no longer breed with one another.

So if you believe in microevolution: Congratulations! You’re almost there!

http://unreasonablefaith.com/2008/08/12/microevolution/

“But how do you explain, using evolutionary theory, the development of the first eyeball, “

Maybe I can help. It is explained by random mutation and natural selection. First, there was this creature that had no proteins sensitive to photons. But then a random mutation caused a protein to be light sensitive. The photon interacted with the protein and generated a chemical and/or electrical response. At this time there was no nerve over which the signal could propagate nor a bundle of brain-type cells to interpret the signal. But that would come later. What is important is that we now have a photon sensitive protein that gives the organism a selective advantage because...because...because...well, somehow it did. Then it goes on from there. Hope this helps.

Isn’t “intra species evolution” simply natural selection by another name?

But how do you explain, using evolutionary theory, the development of the first eyeball, or the first wings. Because these excrescences would be counterproductive,a drag on the individual animals who developed them, UNTIL they finally became usable over a period of presumably thousands of years. How would an animal with half-developed wings slowing it down and holding it back and getting tangled in the grass beat out an animal who had the advantage of no burdensome half-wings? What advantage would there be in a half-developed eye that couldn’t yet see anything? Yes, lower order plants are phototropic, and respond to light, but there’s an unbridgeable gap between that and growing an eyeball.

Very enjoyable post! Have you ever planted an garden? It's interesting to consider food bearing plants compared to weeds. Evolution would seem to be entirely selfish so why in the world would a tomato or a carrot or a potato evolve. They spend all of their energy making very nutricious fruits that do them no good at all. Compare that to the weeds that grow along with the plants. If you don't keep up with the weeds the food bearing plants don't have a chance. Why would a plant bother to evolve that way? Weeds have all the advantages. They do now work in the sense of bearing fruit, they spend all of their energy in laying around, sucking up all the nutrients and sunlight and reproducing. They seem to be all genetalia in a plant sense. Kind of reminds you of some people doesn't it. Evolution would favor them and destroy plants that bear fruit.