Evolution?

[Chaoswraith]

In an earlier forum posting, I was told that evolution was undeniable, that the evolution of man was a fact that proves Christianity wrong. I have done some research, and I've found much to show that evolution may be an outdated and innacurate theory. I've included some highlights below.

http://www.apologetics.org/articles/wager1.html

Quote[/b] ]If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.
--Charles Darwin, in The Origin of Species

To Darwin, the cell was a "black box"--its inner workings were utterly mysterious to him. Now, the black box has been opened up and we know how it works. Applying Darwin's test to the ultra-complex world of molecular machinery and cellular systems that have been discovered over the past 40 years, we can say that Darwin's theory has "absolutely broken down."

--Michael Behe, biochemist and author of Darwin's Black Box

Seated at a lab table, surrounded by bottles filled with clear, smelly fluids designed to rearrange DNA sequences, he explains that advances in his own field--where scientists have been furiously unraveling the mysteries of exactly how cells work--have yielded a startling finding: Molecular machinery and complex systems in the cell are dependent upon far too many interconnected parts to have been built up gradually, step by tiny step, over time.

Behe took up the challenge of Darwin's test and asked, "What type of biological system could not be formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications? Well, for starters, a system that has a quality that I call irreducible complexity."

Encouraging the nonscientists in the audience to stay tuned, Behe explained briefly what he meant by the phrase "When I say that something is irreducibly complex, I simply mean it is a system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning."

With his characteristically impish grin breaking through a full beard, Behe flashed on the screen a diagram of the humble mousetrap, his trademark illustration of "irreducible complexity." After pointing out the five parts necessary for mousetrap function, he added, "You need all the parts to catch a mouse. You can't catch a few mice with a platform, then add the spring and catch a few more, and then add the hammer and improve its function. All the parts must be there to have any function at all. The mousetrap is irreducibly complex."

Behe was suddenly a tour guide, piloting his listeners on a theme park ride through the cell and pointing out systems that exhibited this eerie mousetrap kind of complexity. Using photos and diagrams, he walked through the chemical chain reaction that gives rise to vision and detailed the elegant but complex structure of the whiplike cilium with which many kinds of cells are equipped. Far Side and Calvin and Hobbes cartoons punctuated the lecture, and even an outlandish Rube Goldberg contraption--the "Mosquito Bite Scratcher"--was displayed as an analogy to the complicated mechanism by which blood clots form.

"The cell is no longer a mysterious black box as it was for Darwin," Behe continued; "we now know precisely how it works at the molecular level. And the cell is chock full of systems like these that are irreducibly complex."

http://www.icr.org/bible/tracts/scientificcaseagainstevolution.html

Quote[/b] ]First of all, the lack of a case for evolution is clear from the fact that no one has ever seen it happen. If it were a real process, evolution should still be occurring, and there should be many "transitional" forms that we could observe. What we see instead, of course, is an array of distinct "kinds" of plants and animals with many varieties within each kind, but with very clear and—apparently—unbridgeable gaps between the kinds. That is, for example, there are many varieties of dogs and many varieties of cats, but no "dats" or "cogs." Such variation is often called microevolution, and these minor horizontal (or downward) changes occur fairly often, but such changes are not true "vertical" evolution.

Evolutionary geneticists have often experimented on fruit flies and other rapidly reproducing species to induce mutational changes hoping they would lead to new and better species, but these have all failed to accomplish their goal. No truly new species has ever been produced, let alone a new "basic kind."

Evolutionists commonly answer the above criticism by claiming that evolution goes too slowly for us to see it happening today. They used to claim that the real evidence for evolution was in the fossil record of the past, but the fact is that the billions of known fossils do not include a single unequivocal transitional form with transitional structures in the process of evolving.

Creationists would obviously predict ubiquitous gaps between created kinds, though with many varieties capable of arising within each kind, in order to enable each basic kind to cope with changing environments without becoming extinct. Creationists also would anticipate that any "vertical changes" in organized complexity would be downward, since the Creator (by definition) would create things correctly to begin with. Thus, arguments and evidences against evolution are, at the same time, positive evidences for creation.

I have to go now, but I'll dig up some more quotes. I'd really like to hear some honest rebuttals to these statements. I'm fascinated by this.

Thanks!

 

[Whitestone]

Wow Chaos very well done.

 

[CCGR]

here's a site I like to refer to it answers many pro-evolution arguments

http://www.reachingforchrist.org/apologetics/fallacies.php

 

[Avesther]

Nevermind searching for quotes...go looking for books like I did. I read Behe, Darwains Black Box. Excellent read. And Michael Behe is not a christian or was not a Christian when he wrote the book.

 

[Eon]

Basilosaurus - There's that transitional record y'all wanted. A walking whale good enough for you?

Failing that here's a good example of an irreducibly complex structure evolving - something Behe claims is impossible. Of course there's a layman's explanation as well, which I'll give after the link.

Irreducible Complexity

Now, whilst the scientists go off and read that, I'll keep the rest of us entertained until they come back!

Technology comes in three stages, or types - categorised by a common approach to design and functionality.

Type 1 - Type 1 technology is simple but limited in flexibility. It does the job it was designed to do, in the simplest way possible and it is useless for anything more complex or broader in scope. The crowbar is a Type One technology.

Type 2 - Type 2 technology is often nothing more than an amalgamation of existing Type 1 technology, bolted together often under a layer of veneer interface designed to allow a wider public to utilise it. Type 2 technology is expensive, breaks down often and whilst it is more flexible, it can exhibit troubling flaws and shortcomings. The Automobile is a Type 2 technology.

Type 3 technology is a development of Type 2 technology, stripping away the fripperies and over-engineering to provide a new tool that achieves the complex in a simple way. Type 3 technologies can be operated by fools - but are so complex that they either cannot be repaired if broken, or require genius level assistance. The solid-state microprocessor is a Type 3 technology.

Now, bear with me here - because I promise that the above is relevant. When you build, say a mousetrap, you first start with something like a hammer. This is type 1 technology solution - and is quickly replaced by a rube-goldberg style boobytrap utilising your hammer, string and whatever other oddments you have lying around the house - a type 2 technology solution. Iterative improvements to the Type 2 mousetrap will lead to it becoming more and more complex - until it becomes over-complex. From that point on, only simplifying redundant systems will improve its efficiency. Combining and removing redundant systems soon leads to you re-engineering components - developing new composite parts that solve multiple problems in a single solution.

Soon you are left with a device that is Type 3 - that is it defies simple reverse-engineering. You can no longer take the mousetrap apart and find the simple hammer that started the whole process off.

The same thing could happen in evolution - before eyes, organisms had many other way of perceiving their environment. Eyes are more efficient, but they developed from simpler structures that simple 'saw' light vs. dark, then movement vs. stillness and so forth.

MANY of the simpler solutions to the question of vision are still with us today - all levels of complexity. And it is often in older organisms, such as proto-sharks, that they are retained.

 

[Atown]

eh eon forgive me for being dense but i saw very little relavence in ur post but what does reverse engineering have to do with it?? i missed that part. also reasons.org has DVD on disproving darwins box and has all that 3-d grapgics that show how the irreducible complex cells work and such

 

[Eon]

The big stumbling block that Behe advances to evolution is the concept of irreducible complexity, right? Well in my rather lengthy post that I hoped already HAD enough explanation, I show how the development of a solution to a problem goes through three stages. I hope I showed how it is possible to create a solution to a situation based on the layering of simpler mechanisms into a complex whole. That whole is reverse-engineerable - because the whole is merely comprised of its constituents, the beauty is in how they're combined and arranged.

HOWEVER, the next stage of development is in simplifying the arrangement by combining and eliminating redundant systems and components. When that process is complete you can no longer reduce the system to its basic principles - hence you have irreducible complexity, but you arrive at it through a process of organic iteration.

Now , I'll grant you that my example was based in engineering (evolution is just organic engineering) but that's because I didn't think that most of us would find the bacterium example I ALSO gave quite as accessible.

Sorry I didn't commision any 3-D drawings to illustrate my point, but if I did it would be a series of pictures of Behe lecturing, selling his books and then taking a big sack of cash that he's ripped off from the Creationist market to the bank. And lighting a cigar with his burning principles, of course.

 

[Master~Plan]

I think I understand your argument, but maybe I don't. so you think essentially the simple organism(hammer) made a more complex organism(moustrap) which then made a more complex organism(cpu processor)? I guess what I'm asking is are the changes of an organism internal, or did the organism have modified offspring?

 

[Eon]

I think the simple organism (Wheel) developed into a complex organism (automobile) and then on again into a simple organism (teleporter).

But that whilst you can find Wheel in Automobile, you can't find Automobile or Wheel in teleporter. That doesn't mean that Teleporter isn't at the end of a techtree that started with Wheel.

 

[Chaoswraith]

Eon,

I completely understand what you are saying with your multiple stages of organic engineering. What I cannot fathom, though, is how these great leaps in organic "technology" could have happened out of random chance. Through repeated genetic mutations in offspring, how would a complex organism such as the eye be generated by chance? How could blind chance create the complex type 2 eye that you say led to the type 3 eye later on? And even if blind chance DID produce the type 2 eye, how or why would the eye reverse-engineer itself to a type 3 organism, streamlined and irreducibly complex?

The whole concept of evolution is based on survival of the fittest, correct? The mutations that are made through subsequent offspring happen because of some primal need to survive, correct? There is opposition in the organisms environment, and the body evolves as a response to that opposition, in order to survive.

Following this line of evolutionary reasoning, once a creature developed a type 2 form of vision that allowed it to see, made up of reducible parts, then there would be no reason for nature to reduce it down to a type 3 organism. It does not need to do so in order to survive, the stress that the enviornment around an creature that causes these mutations does not exist, because the creature can already see. There would be no reason for mutations to reduce the organism to a type 3 streamlined product.

Now, Eon, in all the examples that you provided, the existence of an intelligent designer was present. How do you get a hammer? Someone designes it. How do you get an automobile? Someone creates it. How do you get a transporter? Hopefully in the future, someone will design it. But you do NOT get a hammer or a moustrap or a car or a spaceship through random chance. It is always through the design of an intelligent entity.

Now, I don't want to insult you at all, because I think your response was very astute and well thought out. I just disagree with it.

Prove me wrong! I want to know more, and I cannot learn anything unless I am challeneged. Thanks for your response!

 

[Eon]

You ever heard of chaos theory?

It is widely believed that you cannot create order using chaotic methods - that the natural progression of things is degeneration from orderly to chaotic to final dissolution. However, what a lot of people misunderstand about the Laws of Thermodynamics is the sheer scale of the model involved before it becomes true.

A great example of Chaos Theory proving that you can create an orderly structure using chaotic agents and random methodology is to pour a beaker of sand on a flat surface. The sand will always form a precise cone - and yet an individual grains position within the cone is decided by so many factors that its not determinable.

I believe that this is how evolutionary forces work - each individuals development is chaotic, but the forces at work produce an inevitable result that really doesn't require the existence or behaviour of a specific agent. It's all about scale. Take evolution for example - given the number of agents in a species (millions to billions) and the length of time involved in that evolution (tens of thousands to millions) and you have just so many grains of sand bouncing around and forming their cone.

Evolution says that eyes are pro-survivalistic - and so everybody develops better or more suitable eyes. We need colour, because we're omnivores. Wolves need definition because they're carnivores. Who knows what sharks need? But they have it.

When you see one of the ancient species - like a shark, hagfish or coealecanth it's almost always possible to tell that it is old. Pelagic fish have replaced the older models - and things like sunfish LOOK outmoded as a consequence.

 

[Master~Plan]

Quote[/b] ]I believe that this is how evolutionary forces work- each individuals development is chaotic, but the forces at work

could you please define evolutionary forces? is it the cognitive thinking of a organism? or a mishap that turned out good? please clarify. what are the forces at work?
and what do you think about Darwin as seeing a cell as a black box?

 

[4t0p]

Although I believe in Creationism does anyone have any evidence to refute Evolution from the prospective of fossilized human remains. I'm referring specifically to the fossil remains in central Africa (as well as other places) which are visibly human yet physically different from the homosapien structure of today's humans. I haven't seen evidence to refute Evolution in human terms. To ME that would seem like something that is more important to the entire evolution debate (human development itself as opposed to 5000 species of sparrows in the Galapagos). But that's just me >.<

 

[Eon]

Evolutionary forces are those things that drove us out of the seas, down from the trees and into societies to protect each other. Evolutionary forces are what made the large predators of the earth die out, said that Elephants would make it whilst Mammoths wouldn't. Basically an evolutionary force is any impulse or vector that draws a line and says "You have to be able to deal with THIS to survive".

A classic example is a certain moth in the UK. Pre-Industrial revolution the dark patterned variant was dying out in drove, whilst the light patterened variant blended in well with the background and thrived. Fifty years after the chimneys started belching out smoke the situation had reversed - there was a new Evolutionary Force at work.

As regards Darwin - you have to remember how far we've come since then. Darwin really was incapable of getting down to the sub-cellular level and seeing how things worked. To him the Cell was an irreducible object - a black box. He knew kinda what they did and why, but not how.

 

[Master~Plan]

Quote[/b] ]I believe that this is how evolutionary forces work - each individuals development is chaotic, but the forces at work produce an inevitable result that really doesn't require the existence or behaviour of a specific agent. It's all about scale.

I think the difference between our world, and the circle of sand example is that each grain of sand is not dependant on the particle next to it. However, In this world, everything is balanced and interdependant.

Quote[/b] ]A classic example is a certain moth in the UK. Pre-Industrial revolution the dark patterned variant was dying out in drove, whilst the light patterened variant blended in well with the background and thrived. Fifty years after the chimneys started belching out smoke the situation had reversed - there was a new Evolutionary Force at work.

I think there is a fine line between adaptation, and evolution. Sure I believe species can gain different characteristics, and breed new species, but never a new animal. For example The bears that eventually migrated to the north snowy regions. It makes sense that the white ones will survive because they are camoflaged with the snow, and the brown ones will die off. We call the white ones polar bears, and they adapt to thier environment. Same as dogs. I don't believe noah took one of every specie of dog on the ark, but instead took one dog, and through breeding formed different species of dogs some huge, others almost rat size. This is genetics that we see take place over maybe a hundred years, it doesn't take that long. but what we have never seen is a dog change dna forming a new animal. Adaptation is a scientific principle that can be seen over a few years, but evolution supposidly takes millions of years and claims animals form whole new animals. Evolution does not follow the scientific method.

Quote[/b] ]To him the Cell was an irreducible object - a black box. He knew kinda what they did and why, but not how.

right, and science has found that cells to not spontaniously change thier dna, or have a will of thier own.

 

[Eon]

Will is a very difficult thing to handle as a quanta.

Evolution is not a proven theory - there, does that feel better? I've never claimed it was - that's why it's the THEORY of evolution - and it's taught as such. Not the Law of Evolution, but the theory of it. I will defend evolution right up to the point where someone claims it's anything more than the theory which best fits the available facts - at that point I draw the line.

Taking your dog example though - how long do you think it took for Labradors to develop webbed feet, whilst Chihauha's developed those big ears to help radiate heat? At what point do you draw the line and say that THIS is evolution and THIS is adaptation. I don't believe there is a line, since Evolution is merely the extension of Adaptation to its logical conclusion.

Cells, however, DO mutate and change their DNA. But you're probably right about the "will of their own" bit.

 

[timor]

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]I believe that this is how evolutionary forces work - each individuals development is chaotic, but the forces at work produce an inevitable result that really doesn't require the existence or behaviour of a specific agent. It's all about scale.

I think the difference between our world, and the circle of sand example is that each grain of sand is not dependant on the particle next to it. However, In this world, everything is balanced and interdependant.

How so?

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]A classic example is a certain moth in the UK. Pre-Industrial revolution the dark patterned variant was dying out in drove, whilst the light patterened variant blended in well with the background and thrived. Fifty years after the chimneys started belching out smoke the situation had reversed - there was a new Evolutionary Force at work.

I think there is a fine line between adaptation, and evolution. Sure I believe species can gain different characteristics, and breed new species, but never a new animal.

What do you mean, then, by "a new animal"? Speciation is creating a whole "new animal" -- the new creature cannot breed with its parents! Furthermore, can't you see that if changes continue to occur, both speciation and, as you put it, "gain[ing] different characteristics", that after many years you are going to be left with something that is obviously a "new animal"?

I'd also like to point out that speciation as been observed:
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Evolution is only a theory in the way that gravity is a theory. That it occurs is indisputable, but how exactly it works is up for discussion.

Oh, by the way, hi guys

I may be popping on here occasionally. Nice to see everyone again.

 

[CCGR]

how can a woodpecker gradually evolve to not split it's head open when pounding into some wood? I mean that would have to evolve right the first time.

 

[timor]

Quote[/b] (CCGR @ Feb. 27 2004,1:51)]how can a woodpecker gradually evolve to not split it's head open when pounding into some wood? I mean that would have to evolve right the first time.

No it wouldn't. It would have many times to get it right. Until it did, the woodpeckers would keep dying, true, but once one got it right, it would survive long enough to reproduce, unlike the others.

I'd also like to point out that, no, I don't know exactly how a woodpecker evolved to its present state. However, do you know how god created the woodpecker? Until you can actually accurately and vividly describe this, such discussions are rather futile. We know the woodpecker exists as it does today, and that can be that.

 

[Master~Plan]

Quote[/b] ]the THEORY of evolution - and it's taught as such

well, its nice to see someone reasonable enought not to confuse theory with fact. Every science teacher in school told me it was fact.

Quote[/b] ]Taking your dog example though - how long do you think it took for Labradors to develop webbed feet, whilst Chihauha's developed those big ears to help radiate heat? At what point do you draw the line and say that THIS is evolution and THIS is adaptation. I don't believe there is a line, since Evolution is merely the extension of Adaptation to its logical conclusion.

Thats a good point. I'm not much of a genetics expert, but I draw the line where one dog specie can breed with a totally different dog specie, and thier offspring are normal.(no defects, and can reproduce) A large dog can not breed with a small bear. I heard this story about a rabbit breeding with a cat, and they called it a cabbit, but someone might be pulling my leg

If thier not, and this happened, then of course the offspring would be barren, and deformed. I guess the line I put on an animal being different from another, is the same line of breeding.

Quote[/b] ]I think the difference between our world, and the circle of sand example is that each grain of sand is not dependant on the particle next to it. However, In this world, everything is balanced and interdependant.

Quote[/b] ]How so?

well, on an interanimal(I love making words up) level. Each cell is necessary and has a different job. too many of one cell or another leads to seriouse problems in the animal. each neuron in the brain has its place, each nerve has its ending, each bone its joint, and so on. As far as the world, the plants and animals are reliant on eachother. plants need carbondioxide, animals need oxygen. Mistletoe needs trees to kill, and parasites need people. Fish need mosquitoes, and mosquitos need blood, and the long web of needs twists around a bunch of times untill eventually you end where you started. anyway thats what I mean by that