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

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

the frauds involved in the so-called “human evolution” series.

Piltdown Man was a good one.

Darwin Theory is Proved True

[schaef21]

***You are pointing me to a site that believes the planet is 6,000 years old and offering it up as science?***

That’s what you’ve got, huh? Don’t bother to read the articles.... you might get a different perspective.

[schaef21]

***Piltdown Man was a good one. ***

Although this wasn’t a true hoax..... my favorite was Ardepithicus Ramidus Kadabba. In 2001, Time Magazine featured him on the front cover and had a seven page article on the inside.

Very prominently displayed was a toe bone with the caption: “This toe bone proves the creature walked on two legs.”

When you get to the last page of the article you find out that the toe bone was found 10 miles away from the rest of the fossil and that by their dating methods it was 300,000 years older.

They see what they want to see...... “Evolution is true, now let’s look at the evidence.”

[sakic]

Are you denying that that site is a young Earth proponent?

You want to debate science and fact with them as your experts?

Next, we should add witch doctors as experts.

[schaef21]

***Are you denying that that site is a young Earth proponent? You want to debate science and fact with them as your experts? Next, we should add witch doctors as experts.***

Very cute. I am not denying that they are young earth proponents, I am one myself.

Are you denying that most of the authors of these articles hold PhDs? Are you saying that their PhDs are invalid because after evaluating the evidence they disagree with you?

There is plenty of evidence available that would support the young earth view.... they have that evidence on their website. It is your prerogative to disagree... that’s totally fine.

Dismissing them out-of-hand, though, is what your side of the argument does. Easier to do that than to deal with their arguments.

You wouldn’t have read their stuff even if they were old-earthers would you, sakic?

Nice talkin’ to you.

[sakic]

There are people with PHDs out there with all sorts of beliefs you would ridicule, but I guess that is proof enough for you.