A challenge has been issued

[Crowns&Laurels]

I just showed you a step-wise evolutionary pathway that evolution used to produce the irreducibly complex mammalian middle ear. Evolution can produce IC systems.

Maybe to an extent. It doesn't actually take away the fact that IC is an issue.

 

[Loudmouth]

Maybe to an extent. It doesn't actually take away the fact that IC is an issue.

How is it an issue?

 

[Not_By_Chance]

You got a citation for that?

Well, here's one for starters (the link follows the quoted text):-

Stars could not have come from the ‘big bang’
Evolutionists generally believe that stars formed by the collapse of gas clouds under gravity. This is supposed to generate the millions of degrees required for nuclear fusion.

But most clouds would be so hot that outward pressure would prevent collapse. Evolutionists must find a way for the cloud to cool down. One such mechanism might be through molecules in the cloud colliding and radiating enough of the heat away.

But according to theory, the ‘big bang’ made mainly hydrogen, with a little helium—the other elements supposedly formed inside stars. Helium can't form molecules at all, so the only molecule that could be formed would be molecular hydrogen (H2). Even this is easily destroyed by ultraviolet light, and usually needs dust grains to form—and dust grains require heavier elements. So the only coolant left is atomic hydrogen, and this would leave gas clouds over a hundred times too hot to collapse.

Abraham Loeb of Harvard’s Center for Astrophysics says: ‘The truth is that we don't understand star formation at a fundamental level.’1

Reference

1. Marcus Chown, ‘Let there be light’, New Scientist 157(2120):26-30, 7 February 1998.

http://creation.com/what-about-the-big-bang#star

 

[Not_By_Chance]

Fossils literally sit in stone. If you think hundreds of thousands of geologists have had it all wrong for 200 years now, then I think you are going to need more than some vague assertions.

You claimed that we find modern organisms right at the beginning of the fossil record. Can you show us a single modern mammal in the Pre-Cambrian?



The evolution of the mammalian middle ear shows just that. If you remove any of the 3 middle ear bones the structure stops working.

Since evolution proposes that mammals evolved from reptiles, and reptiles only have on middle ear bone, then perhaps we can find fossils that give the step-wise evolution of the IC mammalian middle ear. Guess what? That's exactly what we find. In a series of fossils we can see two of the reptilian lower jaw bones evolve into functional parts of the irreducibly complex mammalian middle ear.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates_ex2



The most frustrating thing about discussing things with creationists is that they think empty assertions count as evidence.

Creationists would and do give a completely different analysis of this story, so it just goes to show that the conclusions you come to are much dependent on whether you believe in a common creator or common descent. Here's an example of what creation scientists have concluded:-
"Liaoconodon seems to have a distinct middle ear bone articulation, though it is three-bone (malleus-incus-stapes), and thus still distinctly mammalian. It could be a paedomorphic trait, and as such is a loss in information from the DMME condition. However, it could also be a completely new functional morphology, though still distinctly mammalian. Evolution can only be seen in this ‘transitional form’ if one presupposes evolution in the first place. [emphasis added] The crucial transformation required to decouple the extra middle ear bones in mammals from the reptilian jaw joint is still not evidenced in the fossils. This study also fails to appreciate why ontogeny is not a good guide for understanding phylogeny. Just because an embryo goes through a stage that looks like the adult condition of a presumed ‘ancestral’ trait, it does not mean that the embryonic trait was ever, in any way, functional in the genealogy of the organism with the ‘derived’ trait. And the fossil is dated far too late in the evolutionary scheme to work as a chronological intermediate. Therefore, there is no reason to postulate evolution to explain this curious fossil. Rather, it makes better sense to envisage a single designer modifying the same basic developmental plan for his individual creatures, as the Bible declares."

The full article, which goes into much more depth appears here:-
http://creation.com/mammal-ear-evolution

And for the layman, here's an overall short commentary on the whole idea:-
http://creation.com/could-the-mammalian-middle-ear-have-evolved-twice

 

[Loudmouth]

Well, here's one for starters (the link follows the quoted text):-

Do you have the original paper written by the scientists who did the work?

Your reference says "most clouds" require this cooling, not all clouds. What are the types of clouds that don't need this cooling? Some of the earliest stars we see are massive quasars. Could these form without this cooling mechanism?

 

[florida2]

Well, here's one for starters (the link follows the quoted text):-

Stars could not have come from the ‘big bang’
Evolutionists generally believe that stars formed by the collapse of gas clouds under gravity. This is supposed to generate the millions of degrees required for nuclear fusion.

But most clouds would be so hot that outward pressure would prevent collapse. Evolutionists must find a way for the cloud to cool down. One such mechanism might be through molecules in the cloud colliding and radiating enough of the heat away.

But according to theory, the ‘big bang’ made mainly hydrogen, with a little helium—the other elements supposedly formed inside stars. Helium can't form molecules at all, so the only molecule that could be formed would be molecular hydrogen (H2). Even this is easily destroyed by ultraviolet light, and usually needs dust grains to form—and dust grains require heavier elements. So the only coolant left is atomic hydrogen, and this would leave gas clouds over a hundred times too hot to collapse.

Abraham Loeb of Harvard’s Center for Astrophysics says: ‘The truth is that we don't understand star formation at a fundamental level.’1

Reference

1. Marcus Chown, ‘Let there be light’, New Scientist 157(2120):26-30, 7 February 1998.

http://creation.com/what-about-the-big-bang#star

Got a link for somewhere other than a creationist site?

 

[Not_By_Chance]

IC is a massive problem for evolution, probably as big a problem as the beginning of life from non-living chemicals or the origin of the universe from nothing, but you'll never get the supporters of that story to admit it.

 

[Larniavc]

IC is a massive problem for evolution, probably as big a problem as the beginning of life from non-living chemicals or the origin of the universe from nothing, but you'll never get the supporters of that story to admit it.

That's an interesting idea. Do you know of an example of Irreducible Complexity?

 

[Not_By_Chance]

Do you have the original paper written by the scientists who did the work?

Of course not, I'm not a scientist. But you could probably track it down if you are really that skeptical and have the time to do so.

 

[Loudmouth]

Creationists would and do give a completely different analysis of this story,

The burning question is if the analysis is supported by the evidence. What is the analysis, and how is it supported by evidence?

"Liaoconodon seems to have a distinct middle ear bone articulation, though it is three-bone (malleus-incus-stapes), and thus still distinctly mammalian. It could be a paedomorphic trait, and as such is a loss in information from the DMME condition.

What evidence do they have that it is a paedomorphic trait? That isn't an analysis. That is making stuff up.

However, it could also be a completely new functional morphology, though still distinctly mammalian.

Based on what evidence?

Evolution can only be seen in this ‘transitional form’ if one presupposes evolution in the first place.

You don't have to presuppose evolution to conclude that those intermediate forms have a mixture of features from reptiles and mammals.

The crucial transformation required to decouple the extra middle ear bones in mammals from the reptilian jaw joint is still not evidenced in the fossils.

That transformation exists in the ears of humans, for crying out loud.

This study also fails to appreciate why ontogeny is not a good guide for understanding phylogeny. Just because an embryo goes through a stage that looks like the adult condition of a presumed ‘ancestral’ trait, it does not mean that the embryonic trait was ever, in any way, functional in the genealogy of the organism with the ‘derived’ trait.

So it just a coincidence that embryonic atavisms just happen to align with known evolutionary pathways?

And the fossil is dated far too late in the evolutionary scheme to work as a chronological intermediate.

The date is just fine for a morphological intermediate which is what it has been described as from the very start.

Therefore, there is no reason to postulate evolution to explain this curious fossil. Rather, it makes better sense to envisage a single designer modifying the same basic developmental plan for his individual creatures, as the Bible declares."

Why would this designer be limited to a nested hierarchy? Why do we only see reptile-mammal intermediates, but never any bird-mammal intermediates? Only evolution explains this.

 

[Loudmouth]

Of course not, I'm not a scientist.

Google Scholar and Pubmed don't force you to be a scientist in order to read the primary lit.

http://scholar.google.com/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed

But you could probably track it down if you are really that skeptical and have the time to do so.

It is common practice to cite the primary literature when discussing science. It isn't up to the skeptics to support your argument.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

Well here's three to start you on the road to discovery:-
http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-2-chapter-10-argument-irreducible-complexity

I've watched a video on the complexity of the human eye and I have to say that to suggest that it could have come about by random, chance processes takes a hell of a lot more faith than I have. It's so obvious (or ought to be) that it was designed by an incredibly intelligent being that no wonder the Bible says:-
"Rom 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
Rom 1:21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.
Rom 1:22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fool"

 

[Not_By_Chance]

It is common practice to cite the primary literature when discussing science. It isn't up to the skeptics to support your argument.

Maybe in formal scientific circles, but this is a Christian forum to discuss how God's created universe best fits with the world we see around us. If science seems to be in conflict with what we read in scripture then we need to question the validity of the conclusions being drawn from the scientific literature to see if there is a better explanantion that fits in with what God has told us. This, I believe, is what the creation scientists are doing, since they understand the finer details much better than the general public. You won't of course agree with that because you are obviously anti anything that involves supernatural forces and are therefore restricted to trying to explain everything from naturalistic causes, no matter how far-fetched such explanations seem to many people. I've heard it said that evolution has a lot to say about everything but in the end, explains nothing about anything. Seems a fair conclusion to me.

 

[Loudmouth]

Well here's three to start you on the road to discovery:-
http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-2-chapter-10-argument-irreducible-complexity

I've watched a video on the complexity of the human eye and I have to say that to suggest that it could have come about by random, chance processes takes a hell of a lot more faith than I have.

Evolution is not a random process.

Also, why do you use faith as a pejorative term? Are you saying that faith is bad?

Also, why would scientists need to use faith when they have evidence for evolution?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

It's so obvious (or ought to be) that it was designed by an incredibly intelligent being that no wonder the Bible says:-
"Rom 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
Rom 1:21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.
Rom 1:22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fool"

If it's so obvious, it shouldn't be that hard to produce some scientific evidence demonstrating that lifeforms were created by a deity. So where is that evidence?

 

[Loudmouth]

Maybe in formal scientific circles,

In all scientific circles.

but this is a Christian forum to discuss how God's created universe best fits with the world we see around us.

I would agree that some ignore the scientific evidence in preference to their religious beliefs.

If science seems to be in conflict with what we read in scripture then we need to question the validity of the conclusions being drawn from the scientific literature to see if there is a better explanantion that fits in with what God has told us.

Shouldn't you also take another look at your interpretation of the Bible?

You won't of course agree with that because you are obviously anti anything that involves supernatural forces and are therefore restricted to trying to explain everything from naturalistic causes, no matter how far-fetched such explanations seem to many people. I've heard it said that evolution has a lot to say about everything but in the end, explains nothing about anything. Seems a fair conclusion to me.

I am only against unevidenced claims. If you have evidence for supernatural forces, I would love to see it.

 

[bhsmte]

IC is a massive problem for evolution, probably as big a problem as the beginning of life from non-living chemicals or the origin of the universe from nothing, but you'll never get the supporters of that story to admit it.

Really? Tell that to Michael Behe and his testimony at the Dover trial while under oath.

 

[The Cadet]

Well, here's one for starters (the link follows the quoted text):-

http://creation.com/what-about-the-big-bang#star

You know, this may sound mildly snobby, but when I sourced my claim, I referred to NASA, a university lecture, and a mainstream pop science resource. I think that trumps a site whose credibility literally could not be lower if it claimed that the earth was flat! I do not have access to the New Scientist article CMI is citing. However, given that various reliable university and scientific sources have offered me information on star formation which runs directly contrary to their claims, I would say that I have absolutely no reason to take them seriously. Then again, I fundamentally have no reason to take anything they say seriously at all until they remove the 15-year-old nonsense about the lost squadron.

I've watched a video on the complexity of the human eye and I have to say that to suggest that it could have come about by random, chance processes takes a hell of a lot more faith than I have.

Not_By_Chance, let me just offer you a little heart-to-heart here.

You don't understand evolution. At all. You have no training in the field, you have no expertise, you don't understand the basic facts, and anyone who visited German high school has forgotten more about the subject than you ever took the time to learn and still knows more than you about it.

And you know what? There's nothing wrong with that. Honestly, there's tons of things people don't know much about, either due to lack of interest, or lack of access to information, or whatever. I don't get quantum physics, mostly because I don't particularly care about it very much; it's not my field, not my interest. But I have the courtesy to recognize that I don't get it, and not bum around discussion forums where it is a topic of interest offering my uninformed opinion in a way that essentially all the people who do know what they're talking about agree is really wrong.

Your understanding of the topic is as good as my understanding of quantum physics, or Kent Hovind's understanding of the tax code (or, you know, evolution). The fact that you would refer to evolution as a random, chance process shows a foundational lack of understanding about it. The evolution of the human eye is well-understood - we can point out an evolutionary pathway, and we can point to intermediaries all the way through the fossil record, indicating that yes, this is how eyesight evolved. It is not some point of contention, it is not something scientists are still puzzling over, it is well-understood and has been well-understood since before Darwin's days. Darwin himself explained this problem, one that CMI apparently still has yet to grasp, in "On The Origin Of Species", and explained how to resolve it.

CMI either doesn't understand evolution, or hopes you don't. As stated previously, any reasonable debate with them is impossible, because they care less about where the evidence leads than about their foregone conclusions. And as a result, they get so, so much wrong that it hurts. Even these examples of "irreducible complexity" do nothing more than either ignore the research on the subject or distort it. When they say, for example:

"Minnich points out that only about 10 of the 40 components can be explained by co-option, but the other 30 are brand new. Also, the very process of assembly in the right sequence requires other regulatory machines, so is in itself irreducibly complex.9"

This is wrong, and we've known this is wrong for almost a decade. At best, CMI is so out of date as to be worthless; at worst, they're intentionally lying. Same issue as with the lost squadron; same issue as with their claims of "new information" (this is one we've known to be wrong since before the internet existed, so they really have no excuse); same as god knows how many other claims made. I wonder if I could find a single page on there without some non-trivial error. Either way, they are not a good source for anyone, least of all someone who, like you, has no formal training or education on the subject!

I'm really not saying this to be mean. Honestly, I'm not. But I need you to recognize this. You're attacking an extremely well-established, very complex scientific theory, and you know almost nothing about it. At some point, there should be a little voice in your head that pipes up, and says, "Hang on, do I really think I know better than all of these well-established experts?" When that little guy speaks up, please, for the love of Batman, listen to him. You say that IC is a serious problem for evolution? Why is it that you can't find any significant portion of evolutionary biologists who agree? Why do the experts all disagree? When a website that flat-out states that the evidence is less important than what we hold on faith goes against a massive scientific consensus in order to prop up its religious faith, maybe take its claims with a grain of salt instead of swallowing them wholesale?

 

[Shemjaza]

The point you're not getting is that evolution altogether is built on the presupposition that abiogenesis occurred in the first place.

No. It is not.

We do not know exactly how abiogenesis can occur, it is also irrelevant to the process of evolution. If the very early life on Earth had been created billions of years ago by a miracle then evolution would be completely unchanged.

Given that you are trying to distract from your earlier assertion that the science of evolution is based on presuppositions, casn I assume that you have conceded the point and won't use it anymore?

 

[RickG]

You know, this may sound mildly snobby, but when I sourced my claim, I referred to NASA, a university lecture, and a mainstream pop science resource. I think that trumps a site whose credibility literally could not be lower if it claimed that the earth was flat! I do not have access to the New Scientist article CMI is citing. However, given that various reliable university and scientific sources have offered me information on star formation which runs directly contrary to their claims, I would say that I have absolutely no reason to take them seriously. Then again, I fundamentally have no reason to take anything they say seriously at all until they remove the 15-year-old nonsense about the lost squadron.

(Bold and extra empahsis added)

For those supporters of CMI who don't know, the article mentioned and previously linked by The Cadet, is an article written by Carl Wieland, who has no academic training, much less experience in either the field of Glaciaology or Paleoclimatology where the science is used. The article supposedly demonstrates that ice core chronology doesn't work. What is so disingenuous about the article is that it doesn't even address the science in the least. Instead, he makes several unrelated comments as if they had something to do with ice core chronology, which they don't. The whole idea is that the forced landing of a WWII squadron on Greenland that was found some 50 years later to be covered in some 250 ft. of snow and ice, is proof that the method does not work. The analogy is completely laughable and has no merit whatsoever.

Here's the article: http://creation.com/the-lost-squadron

 

[Not_By_Chance]

The fact that you would refer to evolution as a random, chance process shows a foundational lack of understanding about it.

So let me get this straight - mutations are not random, so they must be guided then and if so, by whom or what? What about chance, which antonym are you going to apply to that word as there are many possibilities?