How can evolutionists explain biology's complexities such as the sonar tracking capabilities that outperform our best military equipment? One argument is that we must never doubt evolution, for such doubt is a science stopper. Another argument is that we mustn't think of God as a designer, for that is to anthropomorphize God. Aside from such philosophical and theological arguments, evolutionists also turn this apparent difficulty into a success story. That's right, evolutionists claim complexity as a fulfilled prediction. As Jerry Coyne writes in his book Why Evolution is True, "The deepest (and oldest) layers of rock would contain the fossils of more primitive species, and some fossils should become more complex as the layers of rock become younger." [17]But this is not a prediction of evolution. Believe me, evolution would not skip a beat if we found primitive life forms on a distant planet that had not changed for billions of years. Evolution makes no prediction that complexity should emerge.
Perhaps what Coyne and the evolutionists mean is that given that complex life exists today, then we should see it emerge from primitive forms. In other words, evolution predicts simple, not complex, beginnings.
But in that case, the prediction has not been a fruitful one. From the trilobite eye to the DNA code, early life does not show signs of simplicity. In fact, evolutionary reconstructions of what the ancient common ancestor to all life would have looked like come up with more complexity than simplicity. As evolutionist Nick Lane recently wrote:
There is no doubt that the common ancestor possessed DNA, RNA and proteins, a universal genetic code, ribosomes (the protein-building factories), ATP and a proton-powered enzyme for making ATP. The detailed mechanisms for reading off DNA and converting genes into proteins were also in place. In short, then, the last common ancestor of all life looks pretty much like a modern cell.
Similarly the cell's proteins, often referred to as the building blocks of life, do not reveal simple beginnings if evolution is true. As one evolutionist admitted last year:
It is commonly believed that complex organisms arose from simple ones. Yet analyses of genomes and of their transcribed genes in various organisms reveal that, as far as protein-coding genes are concerned, the repertoire of a sea anemone—a rather simple, evolutionarily basal animal—is almost as complex as that of a human.
You can read more about the failure of this evolutionary expectation here. Dogma doesn't help science.
I finally get it!!! Evolution has it all wrong! Therefore, ID must be right! It's so simple, why didn't I see it before. Now, if we can only figure out the how, where, when, who, what, and why of ID we'll be all set!
ReplyDeleteI am sure we are all happy for "Anonymous" on the day of his epiphany.
ReplyDeleteCornelius, have you considered how many inane comments would be filtered if you stopped accepting anonymous comments?
It is very easy to do:
Customize -> Settings -> Who Can Comment? -> "Registered Users" vs. "Users with Google Accounts"
The comment at 12:09pm was actually semi-serious. The problem with this site is that it is nothing but a deconstruction of evolution. That's fine and perhaps it has its place ; but what Cornelius fails to understand that in the history of science, progress is made not through just the dismantling of ideas, but by the introduction of new ones - through better hypotheses, better experiments, and ultimately even new theories. And that may even entail some amount of speculative science too. A case in point is the the way The Big Bang theory has (mostly) replaced the steady state theory.
ReplyDeletePerhaps one day ID (or some new framework built around it), may eventually replace evolution, who knows. But not in its current state, especially with the paltry lack of any substantial evidence or even of a proper research program. In fact ID proponents seem even reluctant to make any hypotheses whatsoever (I know Cornelius doesn't - many have tried to get him to speculate but he does not want to). My perception of ID is that, although it may indeed be science, it is dead-end science and does not know where to go next.
Somebody like Cornelius could help - he seems to have the smarts and education to do so...but unfortunately all he wants to do is just spend his days slinging mud at evolution. In the end it gets us precisely nowhere....and sadly despite all his smarts, he doesn't seem to get it...or perhaps the truth is he really doesn't have any ideas?
Assuming Anonymous at 7:14 p.m. is the same person as Anonymous at 12:09 p.m, and that the second set of comments expand on the first, I now take his/her point.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous, you claim that this website is "nothing but a deconstruction of evolution," but if evolution needs to be challenged, then why should Cornelius not dedicate himself to that task?
*****
Anonymous said...
"what Cornelius fails to understand that in the history of science, progress is made not through just the dismantling of ideas, but by the introduction of new ones - through better hypotheses, better experiments, and ultimately even new theories."
*****
But what if -- at this point in the debate -- new hypotheses, new experiments and new theories are rejected out of hand by an entrenched "old guard"? What if the academic establishment has redefined "science" in a way which excludes your views? What if they resist your science because of unconscious or unspoken metaphysical or philosophical pre-commitments?
Should not these things be exposed?
You seem to accept, in some measure, that the things that Cornelius says are true. You may be convinced, but others are not yet. Cornelius should continue his work, and we should encourage him in it.
On the other hand, if you feel that now is the time for someone to address themselves to the tasks you outline, then why not you yourself?
Cornelius, you are aware that the Last Common Ancestor is NOT the First Living Thing, right?
ReplyDeleteYou are also aware that any sea anemone you can find today (or ANY living thing you can find today) is the product of 3.7-4 billion years of evolution and that trilobites were the product of 3.2-3.5 billion years of evolution, right?
ReplyDeleteAbschaum, the problem with this web site is that its owner is happily "deconstructing" something he doesn't understand and he ends up deconstructing his own reputation. Dogma is no substitute for science.
Sheldon:
ReplyDelete"You are also aware that any sea anemone you can find today (or ANY living thing you can find today) is the product of 3.7-4 billion years of evolution and ...?
the problem with this web site is that its owner is happily "deconstructing" something he doesn't understand and he ends up deconstructing his own reputation. Dogma is no substitute for science."
Yeah, it's pretty absurd isn't it?
It is truly amazing how evolutionists respond when their own theory is presented to them. They complain that you must not actually understand their theorizing.
That places me in the position of having to explain the "logic" of evolution to the evolutionists. And this is basic phylogeny! Unbelievable.
The problem, unfortunately, is not that I don't understand evolution. I wish it was.
No, the problem is that you "understand" a caricature of evolution that has almost nothing to do with the real thing. For instance, you clearly DO believe that "last common ancestor" is the same as "first living thing". They aren't. The LCA came hundreds of millions of years after the first living thing and it pretty much was like a modern cell.
ReplyDeleteSea anemones (and any other thing that is alive today) aren't primitive, they're the result of billions of years of evolution and it's no surprise that they're made of basically the same stuff as you and I, for we're also the result of billions of years of evolution.
You talk about "early life" and include trilobites! They first show up in the fossil record about 540 million years ago. "Early life" occurred at least 3.7 Billion years ago. You're over three billion years off there and don't even realize it, but you think you understand evolution!
"It is truly amazing how evolutionists respond when their own theory is presented to them. They complain that you must not actually understand their theorizing."
There's nothing the least bit amazing about our reactions to someone who throws a confusing mish-mash of pseudo-evolutionary theories in our faces and calls it evolution. When it comes to evolution, you don't know what you're talking about.
Dave:
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, your comment ignores the fact that Cornelius also used DNA as an agreed-upon example of a feature of early life. DNA must be a component of any so-called LCA, as you yourself admit, and yet it is an information storage system beyond anything science has yet developed.
As regards your arguments about early life, I believe that when Cornelius is talking about "early life," he is referring to the early life that we have actual EVIDENCE of, not the theoretical life that composes the root, trunk and limbs of your tidy little phylogenetic tree diagrams.
If you would like to have a meaningful discussion about the level of complexity present in so-called "first living things" and "last common ancestors," please provide us with some actual evidence to work with (time-stamped preferably, to support this marvelously precise 3.7 bya date you have summoned up).
These organisms that you are raving about are mere concepts, no more real than phlogiston ever was. Who is believing a caricature of the truth?
Meanwhile, we have fossil evidence of sea anemones living in the Cambrian era. If they are not to be considered primitive, then I suppose you exclude primitive life to the Pre-Cambrian life that we have little-to-no evidence of. Convenient.
If you call the earliest life that we can meaningfully study "basically the same... (genetically or metabolically) as you and I," then you have made Dr. Hunter's point.
Dave M.:
ReplyDelete"No, the problem is that you 'understand' a caricature of evolution that has almost nothing to do with the real thing. For instance, you clearly DO believe that 'last common ancestor' is the same as 'first living thing'. "
This strawman is an example (unfortunately typical) of trying to find problems with the skepticism so it can then be dismissed. Dismissal, rather then serious engagement, of problems is common in evolutionary thought.
"Sea anemones (and any other thing that is alive today) aren't primitive, they're the result of billions of years of evolution and it's no surprise that they're made of basically the same stuff as you and I, for we're also the result of billions of years of evolution."
Then why were evolutionists surprised? This is basic phylogeny, but when evolutionists are presented with the implications of their own theory they suddenly backtrack. Suddenly, in this case, the phylogeny is meaningless and the similarities must be convergent. Otherwise the theory is ludicrous, so we'll have to resort to this other silly idea: Sea anemones and humans would be expected to have proteomic similarities because ... why? ... because they both have been evolving?
It is rather shocking to see what evolutionists will resort to in order to protect their theory. The environments are completely different, but who cares. Sure evolution would produce these similarities independently. This is so silly we may as well be arguing about ancient mythology.
"You talk about 'early life' and include trilobites! They first show up in the fossil record about 540 million years ago. 'Early life' occurred at least 3.7 Billion years ago. You're over three billion years off there and don't even realize it, but you think you understand evolution!"
Here is what I wrote in my book *Darwin's God*:
"Finally, in another exhaustive study, more than three thousand specimens of trilobites, from eight different generic lineages, were studied. The fossils came from seven stratigraphic sections estimated to be about 500 million years old and to span about three million years."
Dave, you are trying to find some way protect an asinine religious idea from scientific criticism. This is the sort of protectionism that evolutionists regularly engage in. Do you really want to be part of it?
Abschaum, if you or Cornelius will provide me with some actual evidence of the Last Common Ancestor and it's DNA, RNA, proteins, universal genetic code, ribosomes, ATP and a proton-powered enzyme for making ATP that Cornelius is talking about, preferrably time-stamped, I will reciprocate. The LCA he talks about is as hypothetical as the First Living Thing. Like the First Living Thing, it's a mere concept. There are good reasons to think that both existed, but nobody has actually seen one. Apparently that doesn't matter if you're attacking evolution.
ReplyDeleteWe have fossil sea anemones from the Cambrian. That's about 500 million years ago. We have fossil stromatolites dating to 2.7 billion years ago. That makes your Cambrian sea anemones at least 2 billion years plus old. Hardly early life!
Cornelius, why do you say that science was surprised to find that sea anemones are made of the same stuff that we are? What were you expecting? Diamonds and moon dust? We're made of cells, just like every other form of life on earth. Why should we be surprised if one multi-celled eukaroyte is made of pretty much the same stuff as another? And why do you call this a failed evolutionary prediction? Evolution doesn't even pretend to map the course of life's development, it just tells you why it develops, variation and natural selection.
And what on earth are you trying to say with your penultimate paragraph on trilobites? 500 million years ago is NOT early life, not by billions of years.
Let me guess: Have you ever taken an oath to believe in the literal truth of Genesis and the Bible?
Hi, David.
ReplyDeleteI don't understand the point of your first paragraph.
How could I provide you with evidence of LCA? It is a mythical animal, a hypothesized intermediate, as I just said.
Of course, that never stopped Ernst Haeckel, who described a number of hypothesized intermediates in great detail, despite their non-existence! :-)
As for the rest of your comment, I will let Cornelius answer for himself.