You have probably heard that evolution has difficulty explaining the origin of amazingly complex designs. It turns out that evolutionists have quietly solved the problem while we weren’t paying attention. With little fanfare, they have rolled out modular evolution. This new kind of evolution is truly astonishing. What it does is, well, it creates complexity just like that. Evolutionists once thought that biology’s miracles evolved more or less one step at a time. But such staid ideas about evolution have long since become, as J. D. Hooker probably would say if he were around today, “old stick-in-the-mud doctrines.” If bankers can liven things up then why not evolutionists?Modular evolution creates new complexity not the old fashioned way, but by a new type of go-go evolution. Like a bank that makes millions without taking any of the risk, modular evolution doesn’t worry about creating complexity, it just does. As the theory goes—and this is a very theoretical piece of work—modular evolution assembles different design components (or modules) that have already evolved. Kind of like putting an engine and a transmission together, modular evolution skips over the intermediate steps and goes right for the finished design. How clever.
And now a new fossil finding in China has confirmed just this type of advanced evolutionary process. The fossil reveals a flying reptile which has been appropriately christened Darwinopterus because, after all, Darwin invented evolution. As evolutionist David Unwin explains:
Darwinopterus came as quite a shock to us. We had always expected a gap-filler with typically intermediate features such as a moderately elongate tail—neither long nor short. But the strange thing about Darwinopterus is that it has a head and neck just like that of advanced pterosaurs, while the rest of the skeleton, including a very long tail, is identical to that of primitive forms.
There you have it—go-go evolution proceeding by leaps and bounds. The design obviously gave Darwinopterus great new capabilities which would have been selected by evolution, so there’s really nothing to question here. Like bankers, evolutionists have learned to focus on benefits rather than risks.
Cornelius Hunter: As the theory goes—and this is a very theoretical piece of work—modular evolution assembles different design components (or modules) that have already evolved.
ReplyDeleteThe use of the term "modular evolution" here means that different components evolve at different rates. In this case, the head and neck evolved first leaving an archaic body that evolved only later into the more familiar pterodactyl form. In any case, it's a clear intermediate organism. Note the feathers.
Hu, Hou, Zhang & Xu, A pre-Archaeopteryx troodontid theropod from China with long feathers on the metatarsus, Nature 2009.
While you certainly appear to be skeptical of the idea of modular evolution, you don't get into any specifics about why this might be so.
ReplyDeleteUnwin's brief statement quoted seems quite measured and reasonable.
So I don't get it: If an "evolutionist" can't explain something/everything, that's bad. But if the "evolutionist" gives an explanation, then you give a sneering dismissal of it.
In the meantime, I am unaware of other serious attempts being made to "explain the origin of amazingly compex designs."
Do you have any explanations to share, or are you only in the business of critique?
Larry:
ReplyDeleteWhatever happened to the "we always skeptical of our own theories" line? Or does that not include evolution? Why the apologetic for dogma that generates false predictions?
Cornelius Hunter: Whatever happened to the "we always skeptical of our own theories" line?
ReplyDeleteSkepticism is healthy, but skepticism is not the same as obstinance in the face of evidence.
Cornelius Hunter: Why the apologetic for dogma that generates false predictions?
What false prediction? Darwinopterus is fine evolutionary intermediate.
Please read the quotation more carefully. The Darwinist is admitting that the so-called intermediate form did NOT meet evolutionary predictions about what the so-called intermediate form should look like.
ReplyDeleteI find it interesting that scientists can postulate that heads and necks evolve first, with a body only evolving later. That's insane. Parts of the body need to be complete and functional at the same time in order to work together. How convenient that the laws of nature can be turned upside down anytime an evolutionist wants to throw out more excuses for a theory which should have long ago been discarded as obsolete, since the evidence is lacking to support it.
ReplyDelete"Skepticism is healthy, but skepticism is not the same as obstinance in the face of evidence." Yes. That's exactly the problem with evolutionists. When the evidence is missing — for example, transitional forms — they come up with even more ridiculous excuses why the theory is a "fact." Let's face facts, why don't we: living things reproduce after their kind. Abiogenesis is never observed. Any intelligent person can see that theories that contradict real, observable science only exist in the realm of extrapolation and changing suppositions. The practice of inventing stories might result in an interesting Hollywood movie, but it is not good science.
First evolution is slow, then it's fast. Wow. That's impressive storytelling for you.
vernerable: Please read the quotation more carefully. The Darwinist is admitting that the so-called intermediate form did NOT meet evolutionary predictions about what the so-called intermediate form should look like.
ReplyDeleteThere are lots of surprises in historical reconstructions. It was surprising to many that African-Americans could trace their y-chromosome to Thomas Jefferson, but it doesn't call into question how babies are born. Darwinopterus is not the type of suprise that calls into question evolutionary theory, and represents an excellent example of an intermediate organism.
whitehusky: That's insane. Parts of the body need to be complete and functional at the same time in order to work together.
ReplyDeleteDarwinopterus was a functional organism. That's the whole point.
whitehusky: When the evidence is missing — for example, transitional forms — ...
Well, you're in luck. Darwinopterus is clearly an intermediate organism with primitive and derived traits.
whitehusky: First evolution is slow, then it's fast.
But the fastest known historical rates were never faster than the rates that can be directly observed in extant nature.
So I don't get it: If an "evolutionist" can't explain something/everything, that's bad. But if the "evolutionist" gives an explanation, then you give a sneering dismissal of it.
ReplyDeleteThat's why Cornelius is a lonely, ignored blogger, while scholars of biology study and publish and enjoy tenure.
jbeck -
ReplyDeleteWhile I absolutely disagree with his conclusions, I will at least stand by Cornelius being a polite and hospitable blog host. I think you do your side a disservice by being rude.
That is why evolution is considered to be an unfalsifiable theory. No matter how many predictions fail, the theory is never held to be refuted. It is ultimately a metaphysical, not a scientific theory.
ReplyDeletevernerable: That is why evolution is considered to be an unfalsifiable theory. No matter how many predictions fail, the theory is never held to be refuted. It is ultimately a metaphysical, not a scientific theory.
ReplyDeleteA scientific theory is a framework of interrelated claims, each claim having empirical implications. The Theory of Evolution isn't just falsifiable, but many incarnations of the Theory have been falsified in the past. Indeed, today's Theory of Evolution is not your parent's Theory of Evolution, and certainly not Darwin's Theory of Evolution; though they all share certain important facets: descent with modification, selection, variation, fecundity, etc.
And then there is the history of evolutionary change, primarily through Common Descent. Reconstructing events that occurred over hundreds-of-millions of years that left very little evidence can be quite difficult, but not impossible. That's where you'll find the best surprises!
Darwinopterus is not the type of suprise that calls into question evolutionary theory, and represents an excellent example of an intermediate organism.
Zachriel,
ReplyDeleteNothing, I repeat nothing, calls into question evolutionary theory. As your own examples show, different variations of the theory are offered and abandoned, but the theory itself still keeps on ticking. No amount of evidence will ever falsify it.
That's why it's a metaphysical theory -- not a scientific theory -- about the growth of scaler-complexity. The example provided by Cornelius was just one illustration of how the theory can be adjusted to accomodate anything.
The logic-defying leaps and bounds that are required to retain the Darwinian MYTH are getting even MORE absurd, if that's possible.
ReplyDeleteDare I say, if Darwin were alive, he would recant his 'theory' in embarrassment in light of such 'evidence'
venerable -
ReplyDelete"Nothing, I repeat nothing, calls into question evolutionary theory."
There are plenty of things which could falsify the theory of evolution. The infamous rabbit in the Pre-Cambrian, for example. If the genomes of animals did not show the very specific pattern of the tree of life, that would falsify the TOE. If fossils of varying degrees of complexity were found scattered randomly throuought the rock strata instead of being located in the very specific pattern that TOE demands, that would falsify the TOE.
The theory of evolution is actually highly falsifiable. It requires genetics and the fossil record to fall into very specific patterns. And they do. True, there are a few oddities here and there, but nothing the theory of evolution cannot accommodate, and the overall patterns are undeniable.
"As your own examples show, different variations of the theory are offered and abandoned, but the theory itself still keeps on ticking."
This is absolute standard scientific practise. Tweak your theories to accommodate new evidence. There is nothing unfair or unjust about it.
"That's why it's a metaphysical theory -- not a scientific theory -- about the growth of scaler-complexity."
No, the only thing that would make the TOE a metaphysical theory would be if it made positive claims on the existence of the supernatural. It does not. Therefore it is not a metaphysical theory.
"The example provided by Cornelius was just one illustration of how the theory can be adjusted to accomodate anything."
No, the example provided by COrnelius is just one illustration of a fascinating curiousity which appears from time to time which proves something previously unknown or unproved, but which in no way undermines the TOE.
If he really wants to bring down TOE in just one damning piece of evidence, let him do so - let him provide a rabbit in the Pre-Cambrian.
And if you think this suggestion is silly, ask yourself WHY it is silly...
music -
ReplyDelete"Dare I say, if Darwin were alive, he would recant his 'theory' in embarrassment in light of such 'evidence'"
It must be so easy to just provide totally empty and vaccuous assertions without having to back them up in the slightest. Let me have a go:
I dare say if Jesus were alive he would be ashamed of all modern Christians, recant his teachings in embarrassment and declare that we would all be better of being atheists.
Oh, this is fun...
"If he really wants to bring down TOE in just one damning piece of evidence, let him do so - let him provide a rabbit in the Pre-Cambrian.
ReplyDeleteAnd if you think this suggestion is silly, ask yourself WHY it is silly..."
Pretty silly. Didn't have to ask myself. If the ecosystems and inhabitants were designed and constructed over hundreds of thousands of millenia, as the majority in our advanced society believe, then you are saying that your creation story of scientific materialism would be disproved because irrefutable evidence of a designer would be a rabbit from this period. In other words the only designer acceptable to you would be one who did it in this way. Therefore your suggestion suggests silly metaphysical thinking behind the so-called scientific theory with supposedly no metaphysical assumptions underlying.
richie - "It must be so easy to just provide totally empty and vaccuous assertions without having to back them up in the slightest."
ReplyDeleteIsn't that what evolutionists have been doing for years???
music -
ReplyDelete"Isn't that what evolutionists have been doing for years???"
No...