Darwinian evolution - still a theory in crisis.

[1Tonne]

What you have done, and so many others in countless discussions like this have done, is take the Genesis account as being literally true (the conclusion) and then gone to look for evidence to try to prove it. Despite the galactically monstrous amount of evidence against it.

You should have brought this evidence forward when you had the chance. Especially if there is lots of it. The fact that you didn't just shows how weak your view is.

 

[1Tonne]

I'm certain that you haven't looked for it anywhere. But here's one single paper on the matter. It's 50 pages or so with about 70 cross references.

Evolutionary origins of the blood vascular system and endothelium - PMC

Every biological trait requires both a proximate and evolutionary explanation. The field of vascular biology is focused primarily on proximate mechanisms in health and disease. Comparatively little attention has been given to the evolutionary basis ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Don't bother responding to this. As you said, you're done. And I know you won't read it anyway because it is a reasonably long and complex paper that needs a lot of background knowledge. I'm only posting it to refute your ridiculously simplistic claims that evidence is missing. It's not. There are countless libraries full of it.

Sorry. I will answer this as you have posted it as 100% evidence.
"Evolutionary origins of the blood vascular system and endothelium" (PMC5378490)
While it’s informative, it also highlights several limitations that are worth pointing out:

1. No Fossil Evidence – The authors admit there's no fossil record of the cardiovascular system. So everything in the paper is based on inference from anatomy and genetics, not direct observation of step-by-step development.
2. Assumptions Drive Conclusions – Similarities in genes and body structures are interpreted as evidence for common ancestry. But that only makes sense if you already assume evolution is true. If you don’t, then shared features might just as easily suggest common design rather than common descent.
3. No Transitional Pathway Described – The leap from simple open systems (like in earthworms) to closed, high-pressure systems with endothelial linings (like in humans) is enormous. The paper offers no detailed, stepwise mechanism explaining how such a transition could occur.
4. Irreducible Complexity Is Unaddressed – A functional circulatory system depends on multiple parts (heart, vessels, blood, pressure regulation) working together. How do all these parts gradually evolve without the system failing in the process? The paper doesn't say.
5. Interpretation ≠ Evidence – Saying that "this structure looks similar to that one" doesn’t explain how one turned into the other. It may fit an evolutionary narrative, but it’s not direct proof of such a transformation.

So, while this article is useful for understanding the current thinking in evolutionary biology, it still raises more questions than it answers. We're looking at the interpretation of data, not the demonstration of a mechanism.

 

[Bradskii]

You should have brought this evidence forward when you had the chance. Especially if there is lots of it. The fact that you didn't just shows how weak your view is.

What? I should have brought evidence forward? No, my friend. It's you that should go looking for the evidence. You quite simply haven't bothered.

You asked for an evolutionary explanation of a closed circulatory system implying that it didn't exist. I literally typed 'evolutionary explanation of a closed circulatory system' into Google and gave you the very first link. How on earth you can suggest that it doesn't exist when it would take you about 5 seconds to find enough information that would take you weeks to absorb is utterly beyond me.

Want some info on the evolution of the heart itself? Well, here's another link: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/joa.12687

Want more on the evolution of the pulmonary system? Lung evolution in vertebrates and the water-to-land transition - PMC

I'll happily pump info in your direction all day and twice on a Sunday if you like. But you'll never read it. Well, unless you want to prove me wrong and you can study any one of the links paragraph by paragraph and you can point out where you see problems. In which case, let's do it. We'll both end up with a greater knowledge of the subject. But you're not interested. It's too much work to find out what the endothelium is. Or what molecular phylogenetic analyses are. Do you know how many kingdoms there are in eukaryotes? Is there a difference between animalia and metazoa? You have no idea.

And that's just the first 3 or 4 paragraphs. It'll take us a week of back and forth just to do one paper. Yeah, hard work, isn't it. Hard work which you aren't prepared to do. So please, don't give me any bulldust about not providing info. Don't give me any about 'missing my chance'. You aren't interested in an honest investigation of any evidence, except what you think backs up your fundamental interpretation of Genesis.

I look forward to you coming back at some point with a refutation of astronomy. Really, I can't wait...

 

[Bradskii]

Sorry. I will answer this as you have posted it as 100% evidence.

Hey, a speed reader. Over 50 pages of rather dense biological information and you've read it all and summed it up in less than 60 minutes. It took me that long to go through the first two pages, cross referencing all the terms and checking the links. But that's what you class as examining the evidence?

Don't waste my time any further. But I'll check out your demolition of astronomy whenever you get to it. Want some links so I don't miss my chance of supplying them?

Black Holes | Center for Astrophysics | Harvard & Smithsonian

Black holes are some of the most fascinating and mind-bending objects in the cosmos. The very thing that characterizes a black hole also makes it hard to study: its intense gravity. All the mass in a black hole is concentrated in a tiny region, surrounded by a boundary called the “event...

www.cfa.harvard.edu

https://physicscore.com/articles/formation-of-black-holes-exploration/

Quite complex concepts there. It'll take you at least ten minutes to sum them up..

 

[1Tonne]

Hey, a speed reader. Over 50 pages of rather dense biological information and you've read it all and summed it up in less than 60 minutes. It took me that long to go through the first two pages, cross referencing all the terms and checking the links. But that's what you class as examining the evidence?

Don't waste my time any further. But I'll check out your demolition of astronomy whenever you get to it. Want some links so I don't miss my chance of supplying them?

Black Holes | Center for Astrophysics | Harvard & Smithsonian

Black holes are some of the most fascinating and mind-bending objects in the cosmos. The very thing that characterizes a black hole also makes it hard to study: its intense gravity. All the mass in a black hole is concentrated in a tiny region, surrounded by a boundary called the “event...

www.cfa.harvard.edu

https://physicscore.com/articles/formation-of-black-holes-exploration/
Quite complex concepts there. It'll take you at least ten minutes to sum them up..

It’s unfortunate that, rather than engaging with the points I raised, your response is to question my reading speed and dismiss the critique altogether.

Let me clarify I didn’t claim to master every technical nuance of that paper, nor did I need to in order to recognise the key assumptions driving its conclusions. I focused on the overarching structure, what evidence it lacks, how it interprets genetic and anatomical similarities, and where it leaves major explanatory gaps.
Also, let’s be honest: you brought the paper into the conversation. That makes it your responsibility to highlight and quote the parts that you believe specifically support your case. Expecting others to comb through 50+ pages just to figure out what you're trying to prove isn’t reasonable or fair debate, it’s deflection.
Yes, the paper is complex. But complexity doesn’t mean it’s conclusive, and it certainly doesn’t make its assumptions immune from critique. A stack of terminology doesn’t change the fact that the fossil record is silent on the step-by-step development of the circulatory system, and that most of the claims are speculative rather than demonstrative.

As for black holes and cosmology, I’m happy to engage there too. But tossing out Harvard links and snide remarks isn't a substitute for making a coherent argument. If you're confident in your views, engage with the actual points raised. If not, dismissing others based on assumptions about their reading speed just avoids the conversation.

But, as I said, I do want out of this conversation as I am struggling to find the time. And so far, hard evidence has not been presented when I have been told that there is stackloads of evidence.

 

[Bradskii]

And so far, hard evidence has not been presented when I have been told that there is stackloads of evidence.

You're having a laugh. Away with you. I'll not waste anymore of my time. Unsubscribing.

 

[1Tonne]

When I was a practicing Christian

Oh. I missed this.
You were a Christian? So, did you know God personally and have a relationship with Him? If yes, then why did you reject the God you personally knew?
To know that God is real and then to reject Him, knowing that when we die, we all give an account to Him, then that must be a fearful thing.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

So really, this thread has gone from MountainMike's bog-standard "Oh, it's not evolution I'm against. It's DARWINIAN EVOLUTION", to a singular Biblical literalist just basically decided to turn the thread into their personal apologetics.

Ugh. Doing the same as @Bradskii, I'm unsubscribing from this mess.

 

[Ophiolite]

Oh. I missed this.
You were a Christian? So, did you know God personally and have a relationship with Him? If yes, then why did you reject the God you personally knew?
To know that God is real and then to reject Him, knowing that when we die, we all give an account to Him, then that must be a fearful thing.

I will answer your question even although it has nothing to do with the subject matter of this thread, which is the alleged crisis of evolutionary theory. Whether or not there is such a crisis is wholly unaffected by my former faith, or current apostasy. And my acceptance of evolutionary theory was at least as strong, arguably stronger, when I was a Christian as it is today.

I have heard and discussed and read of multiple descriptions of the personal relationship with God. I suspect you may have a particular one in mind. I think spiritual experience is difficult to verbalise and certainly extremely difficult to communicate with clarity. Keep that in mind as you read these words: a simultaneous sense of the immensity and complexity of the universe, of the intricacy of the processes by which it operates and the miniscule significance I had as an ephemeral entitiy, combined with the awesome privilege of being able to experience it.

I have never rejected that. I simply no longer attribute that awesome connectivity and sense of place and purpose to the entity described in scripture, or to any conscious entity. I did not reject God. I rejected the utility of faith that tied that spiritual connectivity to the God of the Bible. While I understand the importance of faith to many (most, all) Christians, I consider it to be a foolish, dangerous, insidious concept.

As to your last point, I repeat - I did not reject God, I jettisoned the harmfull use of faith that had enabled me to believe in something for which there was no substantive evidence. To continue to do so would have been the fearful thing, the wrong thing.

Again, this has nothing to do with the thread topic. If you wish to respond I suggest you do so by pm.

I remain interested to explore your account of specified complexity. Other members have, understandably, rejected it out of hand. I remain ready to be convinced of its efficacy by reasoned argument and quantitative data. The door is open for you.

 

[BCP1928]

Sorry. I will answer this as you have posted it as 100% evidence.
"Evolutionary origins of the blood vascular system and endothelium" (PMC5378490)
While it’s informative, it also highlights several limitations that are worth pointing out:

1. No Fossil Evidence – The authors admit there's no fossil record of the cardiovascular system. So everything in the paper is based on inference from anatomy and genetics, not direct observation of step-by-step development.
2. Assumptions Drive Conclusions – Similarities in genes and body structures are interpreted as evidence for common ancestry. But that only makes sense if you already assume evolution is true. If you don’t, then shared features might just as easily suggest common design rather than common descent.
3. No Transitional Pathway Described – The leap from simple open systems (like in earthworms) to closed, high-pressure systems with endothelial linings (like in humans) is enormous. The paper offers no detailed, stepwise mechanism explaining how such a transition could occur.
4. Irreducible Complexity Is Unaddressed – A functional circulatory system depends on multiple parts (heart, vessels, blood, pressure regulation) working together. How do all these parts gradually evolve without the system failing in the process? The paper doesn't say.
5. Interpretation ≠ Evidence – Saying that "this structure looks similar to that one" doesn’t explain how one turned into the other. It may fit an evolutionary narrative, but it’s not direct proof of such a transformation.

So, while this article is useful for understanding the current thinking in evolutionary biology, it still raises more questions than it answers. We're looking at the interpretation of data, not the demonstration of a mechanism.

Irreducible complexity was not addressed in that paper because irreducible complexity does not exist in nature. You keep asserting it as if it was a self-evident truth which cannot be discussed or explained. We don't have to "address" it until you show that it exists.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Paul also says discussions on evolution (or "endless genealogies," as he calls it) ministers ques ...

Well, here, I'll let him explain it:

1 Timothy 1:4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.

The Theory of Evolution isn't a fable or a Jewish (or even a pagan) genealogy. It comes out of a completely different form of epistemology and practice than do the former ancient items. Surely, you can discern this distinction and also thereby refrain from applying 2 Timothy 3:7 to someone like myself who happens to have read and studied, quite a bit actually, if not to show myself approved, at least to show that I haven't built my house out of cards.

If you want a fable or some other competing ancient genealogical story time to point and blame over, go blame those who focus their study on Lilith, or Jannes and Jambres.

Fortunately for me, I know better than to "heed" those stories and/or affirm the naming of names for which we do not actually have historical identification.

 

[Jerry N.]

I will answer your question even although it has nothing to do with the subject matter of this thread, which is the alleged crisis of evolutionary theory. Whether or not there is such a crisis is wholly unaffected by my former faith, or current apostasy. And my acceptance of evolutionary theory was at least as strong, arguably stronger, when I was a Christian as it is today.

I have heard and discussed and read of multiple descriptions of the personal relationship with God. I suspect you may have a particular one in mind. I think spiritual experience is difficult to verbalise and certainly extremely difficult to communicate with clarity. Keep that in mind as you read these words: a simultaneous sense of the immensity and complexity of the universe, of the intricacy of the processes by which it operates and the miniscule significance I had as an ephemeral entitiy, combined with the awesome privilege of being able to experience it.

I have never rejected that. I simply no longer attribute that awesome connectivity and sense of place and purpose to the entity described in scripture, or to any conscious entity. I did not reject God. I rejected the utility of faith that tied that spiritual connectivity to the God of the Bible. While I understand the importance of faith to many (most, all) Christians, I consider it to be a foolish, dangerous, insidious concept.

As to your last point, I repeat - I did not reject God, I jettisoned the harmfull use of faith that had enabled me to believe in something for which there was no substantive evidence. To continue to do so would have been the fearful thing, the wrong thing.

Again, this has nothing to do with the thread topic. If you wish to respond I suggest you do so by pm.

I remain interested to explore your account of specified complexity. Other members have, understandably, rejected it out of hand. I remain ready to be convinced of its efficacy by reasoned argument and quantitative data. The door is open for you.

This was recommended by Amo2 on another thread:

You might find it interesting.

 

[Ophiolite]

This was recommended by Amo2 on another thread:

You might find it interesting.

Thank you Jerry. I might, indeed, find it interesting, but I am generally disinclined to view videos without some proper insight into their contents. I hope you will agree that the text on YouTube thumbnails typically falls into the category of clickbait. And since I dislike manipulation of any kind I am more likely to use the the text as a reason not to view it.
However, you have taken the time to post this, so I won't reject it out of hand. If you would summarise for me the content and the argument I would happy to take a look. Also, if you are willing, I would be interested to hear your motivation for suggesting it.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Oh. I missed this.
You were a Christian? So, did you know God personally and have a relationship with Him? If yes, then why did you reject the God you personally knew?
To know that God is real and then to reject Him, knowing that when we die, we all give an account to Him, then that must be a fearful thing.

You guys need to stop this guilt tripping tactic. It makes for a terrible, dysfunctional mode of evangelizing.

Really. Seriously.

I mean, I'm a Christian, but even I find it irritating when I hear it being used by another Christian, especially when it's used upon a former Christian.

 

[Jerry N.]

Thank you Jerry. I might, indeed, find it interesting, but I am generally disinclined to view videos without some proper insight into their contents. I hope you will agree that the text on YouTube thumbnails typically falls into the category of clickbait. And since I dislike manipulation of any kind I am more likely to use the the text as a reason not to view it.
However, you have taken the time to post this, so I won't reject it out of hand. If you would summarise for me the content and the argument I would happy to take a look. Also, if you are willing, I would be interested to hear your motivation for suggesting it.

Genetic studies are not my cup of tea, but my wife is pretty knowledgeable and “educates’ me at the breakfast table, so I will do my best to point out what I found most interesting. Dr. Robert Carter has a PhD in Marine Biology from the University of Miami and is considered an expert on DNA. His observations go something like this: Assume you have an organism with perfect DNA, i.e. no extra junk, no damaged chains, and no mismatched segments. Over time, the DNA becomes so full of problems that the offspring is a pathetic shadow of its original. The total time it takes for the organism to become unable to reproduce can be measured in thousands rather than millions of years. It is basically the law of entropy for DNA reproduction. The other point is that DNA in dead tissue cannot be preserved for more than about 4500 years, even in cold and dry conditions like the arctic. He describes things with the proper terms and in some detail. I suspect one can check his theories. I find it interesting, because I studied engineering and entropy always seemed the most persuasive argument against evolution. Nothing gets better with age except wine, so I don’t see how biology should be different.

 

[Ophiolite]

Genetic studies are not my cup of tea, but my wife is pretty knowledgeable and “educates’ me at the breakfast table, so I will do my best to point out what I found most interesting. Dr. Robert Carter has a PhD in Marine Biology from the University of Miami and is considered an expert on DNA. His observations go something like this: Assume you have an organism with perfect DNA, i.e. no extra junk, no damaged chains, and no mismatched segments. Over time, the DNA becomes so full of problems that the offspring is a pathetic shadow of its original. The total time it takes for the organism to become unable to reproduce can be measured in thousands rather than millions of years. It is basically the law of entropy for DNA reproduction. The other point is that DNA in dead tissue cannot be preserved for more than about 4500 years, even in cold and dry conditions like the arctic. He describes things with the proper terms and in some detail. I suspect one can check his theories. I find it interesting, because I studied engineering and entropy always seemed the most persuasive argument against evolution. Nothing gets better with age except wine, so I don’t see how biology should be different.

Thank you for that prompt and detailed reply. I shall watch the video, probably multiple times, and let you know my thoughts. Don't expect a quick turnaround, but if the silence seems interminable please do give me a nudge - on this thread, or via a pm.

 

[Jerry N.]

Thank you for that prompt and detailed reply. I shall watch the video, probably multiple times, and let you know my thoughts. Don't expect a quick turnaround, but if the silence seems interminable please do give me a nudge - on this thread, or via a pm.

I'll be watching for your reply. I have my own ideas about Adam and Eve and the genetic background of Noah, but his thoughts on them are also interesting.

 

[BCP1928]

Genetic studies are not my cup of tea, but my wife is pretty knowledgeable and “educates’ me at the breakfast table, so I will do my best to point out what I found most interesting. Dr. Robert Carter has a PhD in Marine Biology from the University of Miami and is considered an expert on DNA. His observations go something like this: Assume you have an organism with perfect DNA, i.e. no extra junk, no damaged chains, and no mismatched segments. Over time, the DNA becomes so full of problems that the offspring is a pathetic shadow of its original. The total time it takes for the organism to become unable to reproduce can be measured in thousands rather than millions of years. It is basically the law of entropy for DNA reproduction. The other point is that DNA in dead tissue cannot be preserved for more than about 4500 years, even in cold and dry conditions like the arctic. He describes things with the proper terms and in some detail. I suspect one can check his theories. I find it interesting, because I studied engineering and entropy always seemed the most persuasive argument against evolution. Nothing gets better with age except wine, so I don’t see how biology should be different.

I look forward to lurking for this discussion. My background is in math and engineering and I am certainly no more than a layman in biology but even I can already see a few clangers in your description of it. Good luck.

 

[BCP1928]

You guys need to stop this guilt tripping tactic. It makes for a terrible, dysfunctional mode of evangelizing.

Really. Seriously.

I mean, I'm a Christian, but even I find it irritating when I hear it being used by another Christian, especially when it's used upon a former Christian.

Stop? It's an essential part of the program.

 

[Jerry N.]

You guys need to stop this guilt tripping tactic. It makes for a terrible, dysfunctional mode of evangelizing.

Really. Seriously.

I mean, I'm a Christian, but even I find it irritating when I hear it being used by another Christian, especially when it's used upon a former Christian.

You are right. Some of the atheists on this forum can get unpleasant, but Christians should remain understanding. Some atheists just think the whole idea of God is a bother and silly, but most just don’t like God, so they say that He doesn’t exists. One doesn’t know what pain might be hiding deep inside. One friend of mine rejected God when his young wife died a horrible death from cancer.