Darwin's 'Special Difficulty' Solved?

Institute for Creation Research ^ | 7-7-14 | Nathaniel T. Jeanson, Ph.D.

[fishtank]

Darwin's 'Special Difficulty' Solved?

by Nathaniel T. Jeanson, Ph.D. *

Darwin's hypothesis of evolution faced enormous scientific challenges from the very outset of its publication. Recently, a group of evolutionists, publishing in the journal Science, claimed to have simplified one of those challenges. Have they?

In Darwin's seminal work On the Origin of Species he identified numerous examples of biological structures that, at first pass, seem very difficult to evolve. He even wrote a chapter titled "Difficulties on Theory" which he began with this wry comment: "Long before having arrived at this part of my work, a crowd of difficulties will have occurred to the reader. Some of them are so grave that to this day I can never reflect on them without being staggered."1

One organ in particular that has dodged evolutionary explanation for over 150 years is the electric organ—the organ in fishes that generates electricity under water. Evolving this organ in one single species would pose serious challenges to evolution. But the organ is present in several fish species which, under the ancestry constraints imposed by the evolutionary interpretation of the fossil record, implies that the electric organ would have had to evolve, not once, but multiple times, making the naturalistic origin of this structure all the more implausible.2

[fishtank]

ICR article image.

[PapaNew]

Darwin's 'Special Difficulty'

Oh, you mean the "special difficulty" that there's NO EVIDENCE of his theory that requires transfer between major animal groups? You mean THAT special difficulty? Yeah, I'd say that was a problem.

That and the unlimited amount of evidence of intelligent design. Woops, another "special problem" for Darwin.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

Darwin and Huxley handled these “special difficulties” by assassinating the characters of the critics. Evolutionists today follow the same formula for success.

[Cyman]

Ahhhh the “special difficulty” solved by deus ex machina

[Revolutionary]

And by the way: It is not “survival of the fittest.” It is “survival of the sufficient”. You only have to be just fast enough, just strong enough, just smart enough, etc. to survive. If the gazelle would evolve to be faster, the cheetahs would go hungry. If the cheetahs would evolve to go faster, they would be prolific and consume their main food source. If they evolved speed together, tit for tat; then they would be supersonic by now.

[cuban leaf]

The evolution of the electric organ is easily proven. Here is a photo from it's early stages of development:

[fella]

This morning Drudge has an article on peer review, it's the gateway to grants and funding.

[PapaNew]

I don't have to be faster than the bear that's chasing us. I just have to be faster than you... :-)

BTW, creation allows for changes within an animal group. Darwin utterly fails because of no transference between major animal groups.

[longfellow]

Meanwhile scientists are still finding animals and species and new species they and redeveloping theories. They don’t know what they’re doing.

[JimSEA]

Convergent evolution. The “electric organ” has also evolved in mammals, see the platypus.

[lefty-lie-spy]

Take the anti-science junk somewhere else. This isn’t a fiction site. Damn...

[Alberta's Child]

"Evolution" is a lot like "climate change" in that they don't lend well to scientific scrutiny at all. The size/scope of the "laboratory" in which they would have to be tested and the long time lines of these theories makes it impossible to test them under the controlled environments that would be necessary for valid predictive scientific study.

[Graewoulf]

Good find, THANKS!

[Sirius Lee]

Meanwhile scientists are still finding animals and species and new species they and redeveloping theories.

Actually, if you're doing science right, you are constantly reformulating your theories as new data comes in. It is just the opposite of the junk science that the AGW scienticians practice wherein they stick to the computer model blaming SUVs come hell or high - or lack of high - water.

[5thGenTexan]

Another reason for commonality between species: common Creator.

[bigbob]

This crap-science article also ignores the role of spontaneous mutation.

Oh well, it’s crap so why waste words trying to argue with those who won’t be convinced anyway.

[John Valentine]

Wow! Projection alert!

[samtheman]

To me the biggest crime committed by the Climate Fraud crowd is that their fraudulent activity muddies the waters on a subject that is actually crystal clear.

Unlike “climate science” — which is a concoction of computer models based on fraudulent “data” — evolution has “evolved” (so to speak) over years and decades and has a very respectable history as a field of science.

It doesn’t mean you have to agree with it, but it’s a shame that the fraud of climate science is used to tar the science of biological evolution as equally fraudulent. It most definitely is not. It’s not fraudulent at all. Not even a little bit. (Even if you disagree with it or feel that inadequate attention is paid to the possibility of divine action at the beginning of life.)

[Quality_Not_Quantity]

Okay, now.

THAT was funny.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

You only have to be just fast enough, just strong enough, just smart enough, etc. to survive.

And therefore, monkeys change into chess-masters.