The clownfish is unaffected by the stinging cells of a sea anemone (Corel Pro Photos)
Article image and caption.
Posted on 07/12/2018 8:00:39 AM PDT by fishtank
“It Evolved” Is Not an Explanation
July 12, 2018 | David F. Coppedge
A Darwinian can stare at evidence for intelligent design all day and conclude, without batting an eye, “evolution did it.” Look at these examples.
A favorite attack by atheists is to accuse creationists of giving up on science, and just saying, “God did it.” That attack cuts both ways. Saying “It evolved” gives up on science even more, as the following news items demonstrate.
The sea anemone, an animal that hides its complexity well (Science Daily). Observe this opening paragraph. It sounds like a tribute to wise design until the last sentence.
(Excerpt) Read more at crev.info ...
The clownfish is unaffected by the stinging cells of a sea anemone (Corel Pro Photos)
Article image and caption.
Here is the SO PROFOUND (/sarc) sentence that is being criticized:
“”Their findings, which will add to discussions on
__how cells have diversified and developed into organs during evolution__,
have been published in the journal Cell.”
“You know, for a clown fish, he’s not that funny.”
Someone here tried to justify how an eyeball ‘evolved’
First you have a bump, then the skin around the bump starts to detect shadows, then the bump gets bigger and evolves into a ‘pinhole camera’ and the cells at the bottom evolve into light sensors, then viola it changes into an eye.
It SOUNDS plausible until you think about it. One animal has a bump- it passes on that exact same bump to the next offspring? Along with the memory that it saw shadows on one side or the other?
The ‘pinhole camera’ seems like it would be more of a way to attract dirt and become infected rather than a convenient way to gather light.
It was a well thought out and elaborate Rube Goldberg explanation of evolution, when an eyeball must exist all at once for it to work.
Case in point ...
How could a clownfish possibly evolve without a fully-formed sea anemone in existence? If the defining characteristics of a clownfish is its immunity to an anemone's stings, then what would ever "motivate" this one specific type of fish to evolve this way? How many predecessor variations of the clownfish had to die off at the hands of the evil sea anemone before the current model evolved?
I think in these terms whenever I read a "scientific" article related to evolution. I try to imagine an ordinary spider spinning a web for no reason at all ... just waiting several million years for Charles Darwin to construct some flies and other insects to serve as his lunch.
You wrote:
“when an eyeball must exist all at once for it to work.”
YES!
Your summary is the perfect explanation of irreducible complexity.
It has to be there ALL AT ONCE!
Thanks!
They have no explanation for how it all started.
If somebody is really interested in this subject they should study epistemology.
A good Christian philosopher is Alvin Plantinga.
For the most part, scientists are adding to our knowledge of biology, while the sources fishtank likes to quote are merely critics on the sidelines.
See Post #5 and take this "irreducible complexity" one step further.
The sea anemone and the clownfish are two completely different species that function in a symbiotic relationship in nature.
The clownfish lives among the anemone's poisonous tentacles without any harm coming to it. The fish's presence helps the anemone attract other fish for food ... while the anemone's poison protects the fish from predators.
I'd love to have an evolutionist explain how this relationship between two types of genetically distinct aquatic species all unfolded in a natural process.
I look at this somewhat differently. As I see it, the primordial soup gave us physical life. God gave us spirituality and our souls. The environment gave us our mental capacity.
I call it the “Triangle of Life.” It’s only when all three are aligned can you be truly happy. This is why the left are in tatters. They lost their spirituality and their self induced environmental conditions are driving them mad. No amount of arugula and jogging can fix it.
I came to this realization several years ago and have been thinking about it recently. Staunch Dawinists can look at the astronomical improbability of genetic improvement by chance, at the insufficiency of natural selection as a vehicle to cause it, and at the lack of a fossil record to support it, and still conclude “Well, we’re here, so it must have happened.”
How can so many highly intelligent people ignore the flaws in such reasoning, and simultaneously ignore the contrary evidence, when they would not stand for that approach in any other academic endeavor?
The answer is simple.
"In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there; I might possibly answer, that, for anything I knew to the contrary, it had lain there forever: nor would it perhaps be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place; I should hardly think of the answer I had before given, that for anything I knew, the watch might have always been there. ... There must have existed, at some time, and at some place or other, an artificer or artificers, who formed [the watch] for the purpose which we find it actually to answer; who comprehended its construction, and designed its use. ... Every indication of contrivance, every manifestation of design, which existed in the watch, exists in the works of nature; with the difference, on the side of nature, of being greater or more, and that in a degree which exceeds all computation." -- William Paley, "Natural Theology" (1802)
To put it in simple terms ... If you find a rock in a field somewhere, you would just assume that it's been there for a long time and is the result of a "natural" process. If you find a watch in that same field, you'd be a damn fool to think it evolved as the result of a random, natural process. The complexity of the watch is evidence of a "purpose" that would distinguish it from a rock.
About 90% of all life forms on the planet today are about the same age in terms of when science says they have existed on earth. O.K., then, but from one to the other, where is “evolution”?
Evolution theory is one of the biggest hoaxes ever conceived. God hating scientists cheered Darwins book when it was released because it justified their bohemian lifestyles. They convinced the majority of the population that it makes more sense that an incredibly complex universe and life on earth created itself, and that believing in God was for simpletons. Through mockery and derision they have turned countless people to become foolish. Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.
CE Headlines is not a credible source
Imagine the flies waiting for dogs to evolve so they could eat their poo.
Yes they do exactly that. Then they backfill their pure belief with techno babble to sway the ignorant masses.
I once listened to a speech by Jay Bronowski(sp) called Termites and Telescopes. He argued that if there was a survival need for termites to make radio telescopes they would eventually make them starting with discerning ferrite containing grains of sand and the discovery of the paraboloid. I was an atheist at the time and bought into the whole nonsensical idea.
[[First you have a bump, then the skin around the bump starts to detect shadows, then the bump gets bigger and evolves into a ‘pinhole camera’ and the cells at the bottom evolve into light sensors, then viola it changes into an eye.
It SOUNDS plausible until you think about it.]]
IF this were true- We would have eyes all over our bodies as animals experienced skin disruptions/ accidents/wounds etc, all over their bodies all throughout their lives- Where the skin is left with an indent-
when arguing irreducible complexity- one must be careful to argue that not all of the systems beign argued are made up of entirely irreducibly complex parts- soem do contain parts that could be doen away with and still function- Behe made the mistake of not clarifyign that his irreducible complexity theory was speaking ONLY about those CRITICAL parts of a system which could NOT be reduced without causing failure of the system
For instance- let’s argue that a car needs to move in order to thrive/live- (Basically to function as a means of locomotion ie do what it was created to do- move from one spot to another)- A car with wheels and rims system could lose one or a few lugnuts and the car could still move- but what it could not lose, are the rims- without the rims- the car wheels can not be attached, and the car is reduced to a static ‘entity’ incapable of moving in order to ‘survive’ (or function as a means of locomotion). The wheel would need to somehow ‘evolve’ another means of attachment in order for the car to move and thrive again-
There are probably some problems with the above example, but it basically illustrates that some components are reducible and will not affect the function of the entity, but some critical parts are not reducible and will result in failure of the entity to function as designed if they are missing
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.