“It Evolved” Is Not an Explanation

Creation Evolution Headlines ^ | 7-12-18 | David F. Coppedge

[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.

[Alberta's Child]

Exactly. By that logic, it’s only a matter of time before animals like deer and elk invent guns to shoot back at the humans who hunt them.

[Bob434]

[[improbability of genetic improvement by chance]]

It’s even worse than that- They claim NEW Non Species Specific genetic information is created by out of thin air- The only thing microevolution can do is work with material that is already present- it is incapable of creating new non species specific information out of thin air. A spider does not have the genetic information that a bat has- and never will because the information is does have is different than the bat’s

Mutations damage information- they don’t lead to new, non species specific information. They alter traits already present- but they can not create new non species specific information- Any information that does get altered does so because the information is already present and species specific- Macrovevolution demands that NEW non species specific information be created (ie a spider evolve echo location and wings in order to evolve into s bat [not that this is an evolution scenario- it’s just an argument to illustrate what would be needed IF it were claimed spiders evolved into bats])

Bacteria ‘evolving the ability to eat nylon’ (nylon, a recent man made material, being something that wasn’t around 1000’s of years ago) is still nothing more than micro evolution- The possibility is there because the bacteria contain species specific information that allows them to be able to digest nylon- turns out the bacteria had the ability right from the start, but the ability was subdued, not functioning, for a long time, and was kickstarted in the presence of an extreme environment where only nylon was available for fuel- Evolutionists loved to use this as an example of Macroevolution, claiming new non species specific information was created- Not true- They always had the Species specific coding for a protein called EEI which has the unique ability to digest small circular proteins- Nylon being modeled after these small circular proteins, but mutations destroyed enough information. that it made this ability dormant- non functioning - no new information was created- mutations simply reactivated information already available and species specific (ie other species do not have this information and never will)

So darwinists claim not just genetic improvement, but also claim NEW non species specific information is created by mutations- and nothing could be further from the truth- infact, species have several built in levels of protection to prevent non species specific information from taking over and destroying the species-

[Bob434]

Meh- they will evolve bullet proof hides

[afsnco]

Thanks, fishtank. There are a lot of things that are irreducibly complex. The most “simple” stupendously complex single-celled organism, for example. It had to form as a complete unit before it would be viable. Cytoplasm by itself isn’t alive. A cell membrane by itself isn’t alive. Organelles by themselves aren’t alive. The nucleus and its astounding DNA by themselves aren’t alive. All the dozens of proteins by themselves aren’t alive. (In fact, having a single usable protein be formed by natural processes has been likened to a solar system full of blind men all simultaneously solving the Rubik’s Cube.) It all had to come together simultaneously for that “simple” cell to be viable. Anyone who believes that a single-celled creature just formed itself out of its lifeless chemical components simply doesn’t understand its staggering complexity. Creationists’ faith in creation pales in comparison to evolutionists’ faith in abiogenesis.

[fishtank]

Your statement is an attempt to be authoritative,

but it will require proof of credible authority

to be truly authoritative.

[Mr. K]

And it could apply to anything- a bump on your skin vibrated in the winds, so that must have evolved into ears.

And a bump on your skin oozed slime, so that evolved into democrats.

[Bob434]

[[Anyone who believes that a single-celled creature just formed itself out of its lifeless chemical components simply doesn’t understand its staggering complexity.

Creationists’ faith in creation pales in comparison to evolutionists’ faith in abiogenesis.]]

Well put- But evolutionists dodge the elephant in the room by claiming they don’t claim life evolved from single cell- they claim abiogenesis isn’t considered in the process of macroevolution- Not sure how they discount it since all life must have stated from scratch if macroevolution happened- Abiogenesis is a pretty major step to be ignoring-

Scientists did manage to create left and right handed amino acids- but for life to form left and right need to be separated from each other otherwise they destroy each other- and in order to separate them, one needs to intelligently design a method to do so- because nature isn’t capable of it. All life contains only left handed amino acids- Yet it is not possible to create amino acids from chemicals via electricity without creating both left and right together. It is mathematically impossible to get only left handed amino acids in life- Not just improbable, but impossible- as in it could never happen-

As you state- it takes a tremendous amount of faith to ignore the evidence against macroevolution and still believe it happened- Creationists at least put our faith in an intelligent designer capable of violating natural laws and creating life- the evolutionist must put their faith in a blind unintelligent process of mistakes- hoping for a ‘best case scenario’ to happen billions of times-

My money is on the Intelligent Designer- Science proves over and over again, macroevolution is biolgocially, mathematically, thermodynamically and naturally impossible-
The odds of it happening are beyond the point of possibility by a long shot- and we’re just talking about one ‘positive mutation’ creating new non species specific information- let along requiring it happening billions of times- that is billions of violations of the probability limits- And we’re to just take their word that it happened by blind unintelligent nature? Nope- no thanks

[Bob434]

another question is why we don’t have eyes in the back of our heads and walk backwards? (The skink that supposedly was poked by the falling stick got the wound on the ‘back of their head’ not the front-)

[Bob434]

[[Not sure how they discount it since all life must have stated from scratch if macroevolution happened-]]

Clarification-

Not sure how they discount it since all life must have stated from scratch if macroevolution happened- and one discounts God, the intelligent designer, ‘starting the process’ (some evos claim God started the macroevolution process by creating some life, then letting nature take over from there)

[Moonman62]

Mutations damage information-

...

That’s not true for whole genome duplications.

[Fightin Whitey]

for a clown fish, he’s not that funny.

I prefer dry humor myself.

[Bob434]

That joke was very soggy

[BroJoeK]

Mr. K: "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."

The following examples are found in nature, demonstrating that a complex eyeball is not necessary all at once.

[BroJoeK]

Alberta's Child: "So much of the focus is on evolutionary changes within a single species, but there is an enormous pile of evidence in the inter-relationship between species to suggest that evolution simply could never have occurred as 'science' tries to explain it today."

No, not "an enormous pile of evidence", but maybe some in eukaryotes suggesting bits of DNA transferred between very different kinds of critters -- horizontal gene transfers aka gene hijacking.
Natural mechanisms for it include viruses which are today employed in state-of-the-art gene therapies.

Alberta's Child: "How could a clownfish possibly evolve without a fully-formed sea anemone in existence?"

No idea why this seems so challenging to you.
Occam's razor suggests the simplest explanation possible which would be some time in the distant past when those sea anemones had no poison and clown fish used them for cover.
Over time anemones develop increasingly poisonous cells and clown fish increasing immunity to them.
Any anemones without poison get killed by other predators and any clown fish without immunity get killed by anemones.
Coevolution is the term.

[BroJoeK]

"They have no explanation for how it all started."

Sure they do -- plenty of hypotheses or ideas in search of hypothetical expression.
What they don't have are cogent confirmed theories explaining every step of the way from chemistry to life, or defining a time of entry for panspermia.

Think of it this way: what seemingly took God 4 billion years to make may take scientists a just few year longer to fully explain. ;-)

[BroJoeK]

mikeus_maximus: "Staunch Dawinists can look at the
1) astronomical improbability of genetic improvement by chance, at the
2) insufficiency of natural selection as a vehicle to cause it, and at the
3) lack of a fossil record to support it,
and still conclude 'Well, we’re here, so it must have happened.' "

Well...

1. "Astronomical improbability" is far from, when every individual, without known exceptions, is conceived with a small number of mostly non-coding, harmless DNA mutations.
   Those mutations which do code are usually harmful and natural selection eventually weeds them out.
   On rare occasions (but far from "astronomically improbable") a mutation can benefit an individual and so gets passed on & shared in the gene pool.

2. Natural selection does not "cause" DNA mutations, but only selects which mutations will get passed on to future generations.

3. By some estimates the fossil record today includes "countless billions" in museums & other collections, in hundreds of thousands of extinct species and many well represented transitional sequences.

[BroJoeK]

Alberta's Child: "The complexity of the watch is evidence of a "purpose" that would distinguish it from a rock."

But we know for certain the origins of any watch ever found -- made by humans.
Every rock provides us with chemical, radiological, in situ & other clues as to its age & origins, often at the bottoms of lakes or seas, sometimes as meteors from outer space.
Every life-form also provides clues of its ancestry, ancient relationships and purposes in a physical sense.
"Purpose" in a metaphysical/teleological sense is outside the scope of science.

[BroJoeK]

Wuli: "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'?"

The study (reported on here for example) which allegedly says that, in fact, it says something quite different.
The headline claims 90% of species appeared on earth at the same time as humans 100,000 to 200,000 years ago.
Anti-evolutionists immediately jumped to claim it means there was nothing before that.

Well, nothing could be further from the truth.
And let's set aside the fact that "from 100,000 to 200,000 years ago" is far from a Biblical time-frame.

The important point is to grasp what the scientists are really saying here, it's this: if we use commonly accepted assumptions about natural rates of genetic change and definitions of "new species" then we find that 90% of studied species fit those assumptions & definitions over a period of 100,000 to 200,000 years.
In other words: scientists define "new species" as what happens in evolution over a period of 100,000 to 200,000 years.
So the interesting question here is less, "what came before current species" than it is, "what's going on in those other 10%?"

I doubt if any scientist in that study would claim "90% of species appeared out of nothing 100,000 to 200,000 years ago."

[BroJoeK]

robel: "Evolution theory is one of the biggest hoaxes ever conceived."

Nonsense, it's pure science beginning with observations (i.e., fossils) leading to explanations (i.e., natural selection) which confirmed make theories subject to falsification when new data or better explanations are discovered.
Evolution theory, with modifications, has survived intact over 150 years of careful scientific scrutiny.

robel: "God hating scientists cheered Darwins book when it was released because it justified their bohemian lifestyles."

Young Darwin was an Anglican clergyman and even in old age did not deny God's existence, "agnostic" is as far as he went.
His theory lead him to questions about the problem of evil and how a benevolent God could use natural selection.
But "he considered it 'absurd to doubt that a man might be an ardent theist and an evolutionist'[189][190".
Darwin remained active in his church and never prevented his devout family from attending Sunday services.

Yes, it's true that many (some bohemians) then, as now, thought of evolution as the triumph of science over religion, but many others (including bohemians) looked for ways to reconcile them.

robel: "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."

Catholic Popes have long acknowledged evolution as "more than a hypothesis".
Yes, it's true that some today question if the current pope is really Catholic, but nobody said that about, for example Pope John Paul II or Pius XII.
Catholic teachings are reflected in most mainline Protestant denominations, Jewish traditions and some Eastern Orthodox leaders.

robel: "Through mockery and derision they have turned countless people to become foolish.

Romans 1:22 'Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools'."

The very next verse clarifies what Paul is talking about:

"23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles."

Idolaters, not scientists.

[Alberta's Child]

Occam's razor suggests the simplest explanation possible which would be some time in the distant past when those sea anemones had no poison and clown fish used them for cover.

1. A sea anemone uses its poison to kill its prey. How did it eat when it had no poison?

2. A clownfish is brightly colored -- to attract other fish to the sea anemone. How does any living creature develop physical characteristics through an evolutionary process that have no benefit for itself but have tangible benefits for another organism?

3. Why has only one fish -- the clownfish -- developed this way? Shouldn't we see multiple species that went through a similar process?

4. Is there any evidence of either creature existing in its interim evolutionary stage as you've described it -- i.e., a sea anemone with no poison and/or a clownfish that wasn't immune to the poison?

5. You've completely misrepresented the principle of "Occam's Razor." Occam's Razor suggests both of these creatures were formed at the same time in their current state.