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 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
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
I asked what would count as evidence for "transference," and you said "fossilized evidence of the various stages." I pointed out that we have fossilized evidence of the various stages, and you say that's just evidence of "certain commonalities." Given that fossilized evidence, by definition, comes from the distant past, how would such evidence show "various stages" without showing "certain commonalities"? Are you from the "fish gives birth to a bird" school of evolution deniers?
you disagree with basic deductive logic and common sense. So if you walked into a garage and saw a car for the first time, you would deny that its components and overall makeup that a myriad of specific and definite purposes that operated together was evidence of a designer?
Three things: (1) So your standard for scientific evidence boils down to "seems logical to PapaNew." Impressive. (2) Cars don't reproduce themselves. And you thought my river analogy was weak! (3) Apparently, if someone showed you a Model T from the oldest part of the junkyard, a 1955 Chevy from a newer part, and a 2000 Lexus from the newest part, and pointed out the changes made to certain systems at each stage that brought them closer to what we see on a 2014 Ford, you'd say that was just evidence of "certain commonalities"--that the sequence was otherwise unrelated.
I am sorry.
I saw nothing specific in your Biblical quotes that states evolution cannot be part of God’s plan.
But you have already acknowledged that everyone has an agenda. This would include the aauthors you cited.
This presumes that you have the knowledge of God. The truth is that we can’t be sure of this.
Why can’t evolution be real, according to the scriptures? The other poster cited Biblical passages that had absolutely nothing to do with evolution.
I don’t get your point. I said everyone has an agenda (which would include the author). I was criticizing HIDDEN agendas, when someone tries to fool you into thinking they’re doing something for reason x when in fact they’re doing it for y.
It’s like the dems claiming that they’re opening the borders to help the children when in fact they’re doing it because it helps them. They could care less about the “children”.
***I saw nothing specific in your Biblical quotes that states evolution cannot be part of God’s plan.***
Really? Christ, whom the Bible says is the Creator says that He created man and woman from the beginning of creation. If He created man and woman from the beginning, where does that leave room for millions and millions of years of evolution..... the only thing you can do is twist the plain meaning of the word “beginning” to make it fit your worldview.
In other words you have to pull a Clinton: “It depends on what the meaning of the word “beginning” is.”
If you don’t like that one try this.....
Genesis 1:26 says we were created in the image of God.
If evolution is true we apparently were created in the image of a bunch of chemicals in a mud puddle.
All the fossil records indicate fully formed life forms.
Currently to date zero transitional fossils have been uncovered
-
that’s
one
great
big
ZERO!
Also ever heard of the Cambrian explosion?
Or how about Darwin’s quote about thousands upon thousands of transitional fossils in order to support his theory?
that’s
one
great
big
ZERO!
That’s actually how Darwinism is spelled.
Darwinism is dead letter. Dead dead. Deader than Darwin himself.
All life forms would be "fully formed". What would you expect to see? A half formed life form? Silly.
Why is that? It's pretty clear that natural selection is a fairytale. And evolution is just a story.
Why can’t evolution be real,
Evolution is -- simply put -- a fairytale. It's not true. So it's not really productive to be arguing whether a false theory can be real. It's like pondering whether astrology can be real. Or whether there may really be a horned toad sitting between your brows.
Yes. It took 10 million years or so. Some "explosion."
Or how about Darwin’s quote about thousands upon thousands of transitional fossils in order to support his theory?
Yes. And since Darwin's time, we've found thousands upon thousands of fossils. And they're all transitional.
I’m confused.
Are you saying that Beck has a hidden agenda?
How would this account for Cro-Magnon etc,.?
What is your evidence to back up your assertions?
Are you one of those that believes the planet is only thousands of years old?
It's alive and living rent free in your head.
It's alive and living rent free in your head.
No, what's living rent free in my head is the amazing intricacies of purposeful design of an Intelligent Designer, redeemed and restored by the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ.
I’m confused... by your reference to Beck.
What are you referring to?
Sorry.
I was replying to two threads at the same time and erred.
***How would this account for Cro-Magnon etc,.?***
Hey sakic. Books have been written about the frauds involved in the so-called “human evolution” series.
The easiest thing to do would be to provide you with a link to a bunch of articles concerning this topic. You can judge for yourself:
http://creation.com/anthropology-and-apemen-questions-and-answers
Here’s one specifically on Cro-Magnon:
http://creation.com/cro-magnon-not-a-club-wielding-brute
You are pointing me to a site that believes the planet is 6,000 years old and offering it up as science?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.