Skip to comments.Darwin's 'Special Difficulty' Solved?
Posted on 07/10/2014 8:44:39 AM PDT by 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 organthe 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
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
ICR article image.
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.
Darwin and Huxley handled these “special difficulties” by assassinating the characters of the critics. Evolutionists today follow the same formula for success.
Ahhhh the “special difficulty” solved by deus ex machina
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.
BTW, creation allows for changes within an animal group. Darwin utterly fails because of no transference between major animal groups.
Meanwhile scientists are still finding animals and species and new species they and redeveloping theories. They don’t know what they’re doing.
Convergent evolution. The “electric organ” has also evolved in mammals, see the platypus.
Take the anti-science junk somewhere else. This isn’t a fiction site. Damn...
Good find, THANKS!
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.
Another reason for commonality between species: common Creator.
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.
Wow! Projection alert!
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.)
THAT was funny.
And therefore, monkeys change into chess-masters.
>This crap-science article also ignores the role of spontaneous mutation.
Sure, I’ve seen it happen everyday. Hasn’t everybody? /hand-waving
How about ONCE by anybody? Evolution by spontaneous mutation is crap-science.
The thing that evolution and global warming have in common is that they both shelter hidden agendas.
The hidden agenda of the warmists is control over people’s lives.
That of evolutionists is atheism, which also reduces to control. Atheists believe that everything has a material cause which they believe science can eventually discover and thus control. The idea of a supernatural cause is anathema to them because that would be outside their control, which makes them extremely uncomfortable.
So in both cases the hidden agenda is control - both are control freaks.
And there are quite a few here on FR.
Fittest does not solely mean fastest. It also means healthiest and smartest, among other things, so your supersonic supposition is off-base.
The creationists also have an agenda.
Everyone has an agenda.
Why couldn’t God have given us evolution?
Why are these considered mutually exclusive by narrow minds on both sides?
What are you talking about?
For the JVC journal this was an exception for the warmist rags it’s probably the rule - they don’t even have to make up names.
I didn’t join FR in 2001 to argue about evolution so the only thing I will say is: I disagree with you.
***Why couldnt God have given us evolution?***
Actually sakic, it is an untenable position for a Christian.... and for many reasons. Not the least of which is this:
Mark 10:6-7 says: 6 But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female. 7 For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife
John 1, Colossians 1 and Hebrews 1 all tell us that Jesus Christ is the Creator. So in this passage, the Creator of the universe told the Pharisees that He created man and woman “from the beginning of Creation.”
If you look up beginning in Strongs Concordance it sends you to the appendix. In other words, according to Strongs, the definition of beginning is so obvious that they see no reason to define it.
Mark 10:6 leaves no room for a Christian to hold to evolution. If Christ is your Savior, belief in evolution is tantamount to calling Him a liar (based on this passage).
” The creationists also have an agenda.”
That’s true, and it’s also true that every one has an agenda - of course. But I referred to a HIDDEN agenda - a means to obfuscate or fool people.
Science agenda is to seek the truth - wherever it may lead - even God and the supernatural. To exclude those possibilities as causes limits its potential for knowledge.
A couple books I read recently that I found intellectually honest in the area of evolution are “Signature in the cell” and “Darwin’s doubt” by Stephen Meyer.
Steve Jone's 1999-2000 book "Darwin's Ghost" is a comprehensive update of Darwin's original work ... covering every chapter of Darwin's orginal. Jones. In his book, Jones mentions electric fishes ... To wit ...
"Pheasants, electric fishes and tree frogs each have ties between their members in Australia, South America, and New Guinea, with more distant links ever as far as Europe, but none are much good at ocean crossings. Three thousand miles of sea are a barrier for an eagle, let alone a heavy breech seed or a flightless bird."
And, somewhere I've read (couldn't find it right away) that the "electric" fish feature is somewhat connected to ... muscles.
Mutate my post in any of the ways a mutation occurs:
Adding a letter, subtracting a letter, transposing two letters, or changing any single letter,
and show me how it then has more and better information than it did before...
(Just SUPPORTING your post)
” You only have to be just fast enough, just strong enough, just smart enough, etc. to survive. “
No. the only requirement is that you reproduce at least as fast as you die.
Since evolution doesn’t suggest “transference between major animal groups,” it’s fair to wonder what you mean by it. If you mean something like a bird evolving into a cat, well, like I said, evolution neither requires nor suggests any such thing.
It doesn't have to have "more and better information," just different. The environment will determine whether the new information is "better" (in the sense of lending a survival advantage) or not.
That said: my post > my pots > my pets > my pegs > mpegs. Words to music in 4 steps! That's a fanciful example, but it illustrates that mutations aren't always a destructive force.
Darwinian proposed the Doctrine of Common Descent that all life on Earth has descended from one original primordial form. This kind of evolution requires transference between major animal groups.
As I said, that's different from changes that evolve within an animal group. But changes within an animal group does not support the Darwinian Doctrine of Common Descent or "Origin of the Species" evolution argument.
Which raises again the question: what do you mean by "transference between major animal groups"? I think I know what you mean (and why you're wrong), but I thought it best to give you the chance to explain what you mean first.
You know what I mean. This is not rocket science. The common understanding that things like fish are in a different major animal group from things like lions.
Okay, there's part of the answer: now we have some idea of what you mean by "major animal group." (But only some idea. Are wolves a different major animal group from lions? Are lizards?)
Now can you say what you mean by "transference"?
Doesn’t matter. Keep it simple. The utter lack of evidence that fish “evolved” (transferred) into mammals (or visa versa) destroys Darwinism.
There is evidence of this though. Quite a bit actually.
Not the kind I'm talking about - transference between major animal groups. That's why Darwinism is dead letter. They're trotting around a corpse.
Compare that to the immeasurable and abundant amount of evidence of intelligent design.
This is like a summary judgment case: no genuine dispute as to a material fact.
I read and understood your post. There are discovered transitional species showing characteristics of different ‘major animal groups’. In the fish example cited earlier, species that have characteristics of both fish and amphibians.
So much of this evidence is at your fingertips, easily found with searches, and much of it simple enough for a non-biologist like myself to understand.
So it’s your contention that there is no evidence that mammals evolved from fish, albeit with many intervening steps? The evidence that fish are older than lobe-finned fish, which are older than amphibians, which are older than animals that could lay their eggs on land, which are older than animals that have characteristic mammalian structures...you reject all of that?
And furthermore, you claim that there is evidence for intelligent design that meets a higher standard than the above? Care to give an example?
It's even more obvious when you pick animal groups that are a little more obvious like fish and mammals.
“No, it is a scientific fact that there is no known evidence of transference between major animal groups.”
lol. Have a great day!
Nope, but it's not scientific evidence of transference between the two groups.
evidence for intelligent design that meets a higher standard than the above? Care to give an example?
Start with the purposeful makeup your own body, its DNA and all the intricate parts that work individually and together that make up a multi-functioning body. Evidence of purposeful and intricate design is evidence of a Designer.
Not much of an argument, huh?
Meanwhile, there is no genuine dispute of a material fact.
Have a good day.
What would count as scientific evidence of transference?
Start with the purposeful makeup your own body, its DNA and all the intricate parts that work individually and together that make up a multi-functioning body.
Prove that it's purposeful. Note that functionality does not prove purpose--the fact that St. Louis sits at the confluence of the Mississippi and the Missouri doesn't mean the rivers' location was designed.