Darwinian evolution - still a theory in crisis.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Tuesday at 2:47 PM

AV1611VET said:
Is man God's creation?

Yeah, the obfuscation won't work here.

Fervent · Tuesday at 2:47 PM

NxNW said:
If there were no contemporary records, then one wonders where the later "records" came from.

It depends on what you mean by "contemporary", as all of the NT documents were written within the 1st century, which is far better than we have for several other historical figures such as Alexander the Great.

NxNW · Tuesday at 2:50 PM

Fervent said:
Not quite, it's rather that the case depends on recognition of generally accepted facts which a mythicist denies unreasonably. Primarily, it depends on three facts 1)Jesus in all likelihood existed

Is it a likelihood or a fact? It can't be both.

Fervent said:
2) Jesus died by crucifixion and 3) within a very short time a community developed centered on testimony about encounters with the resurrected Christ.

If those were facts, you could prove them.

Fervent said:
It is the centrality of that claim to the community that requires some explanation, and if we hold to ordinary heuristics like Occam's razor and do not discount the possibility of resurrection on a prior basis the best explanation is a genuine resurrection event.

Given that the Christ story strongly resembles other religions from the era, it certainly seems reasonable to suspect that the stories were intermingled along the way.

Fervent said:
However, since the mythicist will not even admit to these limited admissions there is no point in making the full argument.

The Resurrection is a limited admission? I'm curious what a full-blown admission amounts to!

Fervent · Tuesday at 2:55 PM

NxNW said:
Is it a likelihood or a fact? It can't be both.

When dealing with history, it is always a matter of probability rather than certainty.

NxNW said:
If those were facts, you could prove them.

Proof is only possible in mathematics.

NxNW said:
Given that the Christ story strongly resembles other religions from the era, it certainly seems reasonable to suspect that the stories were intermingled along the way.

Citations needed. What stories, exactly? And what evidence is there that these stories predate the story of Jesus?

NxNW said:
The Resurrection is a limited admission? I'm curious what a full-blown admission amounts to!

The limited admission are the three generally agreed upon statements, that Jesus existed, that he died as a result of crucifixion, and that a community formed centered on reports of enounters with a resurrected Christ. None of which are controversial among mainline historians, and a basic circumstantial case can be made for the genuineness of the resurrection so long as we do not presuppose its impossibility.

1Tonne · Tuesday at 3:09 PM

BCP1928 said:
No examples of irreducible complexity have ever been found in nature. Your argument boils down do, "I can't figure out how evolution works so it couldn't have" and you refuse to learn why it does work.

That’s not an honest representation of the argument. Irreducible complexity isn’t “I can’t imagine it,” it’s the claim that certain systems, like the bacterial flagellum or the blood clotting cascade, require multiple interdependent parts to function at all. Remove one, and the system breaks down. Saying “evolution works” doesn’t answer how those specific, tightly integrated systems arose through step-by-step mutations where intermediate forms would be non-functional.

If you believe they’ve been explained, great, then explain them. But hand-waving and character attacks aren’t explanations. Science invites scrutiny, not blind acceptance.

Larniavc said:
Ray Comfort thinks God designed bananas. I wouldn’t rely too much on what he says.

Here is the banana story. The atheist society even asked him to speak.

2PhiloVoid said:
Sometimes, it depends on the kind of evidence one expects to find and is intent on looking for.

Regarding evolution:
We’re all looking at the same evidence, the same fossils, the same genetic data, the same observable world. But we interpret that evidence through different lenses. The atheist or evolutionist sees fossils with similarities and concludes they must be related through common ancestry. The creationist sees the same fossils and notices the differences, the distinct kinds, clear boundaries, and massive gaps between forms that don’t show the gradual transitions Darwinism predicts.
The issue isn’t the presence of similarities; it’s the assumption that similarity equals ancestry. That’s an interpretation, not a fact. And it ignores that many systems in biology, like the circulatory system, the bacterial flagellum, or the eye, don’t work if built in parts. They need to be fully formed to function at all.

So the question isn’t, “Is there evidence?” The question is, “Which interpretation best fits the evidence we see?” And many of us believe that intelligent design, not blind, stepwise processes, better accounts for the complexity, function, and variety of life.

The Creationist Thought Pattern:
“Wow, look at the breathtaking variety of fossils! Each creature fits clearly within its own kind, dogs are dogs, cats are cats, birds are birds, with no blending between them. The design, order, and purpose in each one points unmistakably to a Creator.”

The Evolutionist Thought Pattern:
“There are similarities among fossils. Therefore, I’ll presuppose all life shares a common ancestor. Yes, most transitional forms are missing, but I’m confident they existed once upon a time, we just haven’t found them yet. Given enough time, unguided processes can build anything."
(But 150 years later, and they are still waiting. Darwin would have conceded by now. LOL)

The Barbarian said:
That's an oldie. Most creationists have abandoned the irreducible complexity argument. Show us some feature in an animal that could not evolve. You seem to have mistakenly assumed that irreducible complexity cannot evolve. There are quite a few ways that it does. Would you like to learn about some of them?

NxNW said:
Except we have many examples that refute this claim.

If you’re claiming there are many examples that refute irreducible complexity, then name one, and explain how its parts could evolve step-by-step, with each stage being functional and advantageous. Simply asserting it’s been refuted isn’t the same as demonstrating it. Be specific, not dismissive. (Don't just give me a paper to read)

NxNW said:
And so are you, just as you're related to a sponge and a caterpillar.

I do not believe that, and I would not be silly enough to make such a claim.

AV1611VET · Tuesday at 3:21 PM

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
Yeah, the obfuscation won't work here.

Especially in the classroom.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Tuesday at 3:27 PM

AV1611VET said:
Especially in the classroom.

Nope.

2PhiloVoid · Tuesday at 4:17 PM

1Tonne said:
Regarding evolution:
We’re all looking at the same evidence, the same fossils, the same genetic data, the same observable world. But we interpret that evidence through different lenses. The atheist or evolutionist sees fossils with similarities and concludes they must be related through common ancestry. The creationist sees the same fossils and notices the differences, the distinct kinds, clear boundaries, and massive gaps between forms that don’t show the gradual transitions Darwinism predicts.
The issue isn’t the presence of similarities; it’s the assumption that similarity equals ancestry. That’s an interpretation, not a fact. And it ignores that many systems in biology, like the circulatory system, the bacterial flagellum, or the eye, don’t work if built in parts. They need to be fully formed to function at all.

So the question isn’t, “Is there evidence?” The question is, “Which interpretation best fits the evidence we see?” And many of us believe that intelligent design, not blind, stepwise processes, better accounts for the complexity, function, and variety of life.

The Creationist Thought Pattern:
“Wow, look at the breathtaking variety of fossils! Each creature fits clearly within its own kind, dogs are dogs, cats are cats, birds are birds, with no blending between them. The design, order, and purpose in each one points unmistakably to a Creator.”

The Evolutionist Thought Pattern:
“There are similarities among fossils. Therefore, I’ll presuppose all life shares a common ancestor. Yes, most transitional forms are missing, but I’m confident they existed once upon a time, we just haven’t found them yet. Given enough time, unguided processes can build anything."
(But 150 years later, and they are still waiting. Darwin would have conceded by now. LOL)

Okay, 1Tonne. Go back and recheck the context in which I made my response about evidence. I think you missed the actual point I was briefly making to NxNW----it had little to do with evolutionary theory and mostly to do with the nature of our chosen praxis in interpreting evidence.

Larniavc · Tuesday at 4:41 PM

Fervent said:
I understand why an atheist wouldn't be willing to engage with a discussion of evidence without presumption, especially given the biased categorizations of "natural" vs "supernatural"

But you haven’t provided any evidence. You have conflated “not impossible but vanishingly unlikely” with “yeah definitely that; why are you unwilling to discuss the evidence?”

Something not being logically ruled out does not mean something is necessarily so. Especially when you need to invoke the supernatural.

Fervent · Tuesday at 4:48 PM

Larniavc said:
But you haven’t provided any evidence. You have conflated “not impossible but vanishingly unlikely” with “yeah definitely that; why are you unwilling to discuss the evidence?”

I haven't fleshed out the case, but I've identified the relevant facts that the circumstantial case is built upon and the heuristic that the argument is based upon. Natural explanations require all sorts of "well, and this happened as well" to make a sensible account of it. As for the likeliness of it, I'm not sure we can assign a value to that without begging the question in some form or fashion. The evidence is the historical community that can't adequately be accounted for through legend(because of the centrality of the supposed legendary material) and requires a host of additional considerations to make a naturalistic explanation. There's no "yeah definitely that", especialy since occam's razor is not a universal law by any stretch. The issue is that there is a circumstantial case to be made, which is not "no evidence" whether or not it is convincing to a given skeptic.

Larniavc said:
Something not being logically ruled out does not mean something is necessarily so. Especially when you need to invoke the supernatural.

I don't make a distinction between natural and supernatural, as I don't find the terms particularly enlightening. All objecting to it on the basis of "supernatural" shows is a presupposition that biases any evaluation.

The Barbarian · Tuesday at 5:50 PM

1Tonne said:
That’s not an honest representation of the argument. Irreducible complexity isn’t “I can’t imagine it,” it’s the claim that certain systems, like the bacterial flagellum or the blood clotting cascade, require multiple interdependent parts to function at all. Remove one, and the system breaks down. Saying “evolution works” doesn’t answer how those specific, tightly integrated systems arose through step-by-step mutations where intermediate forms would be non-functional.

The bacterial flagellum, for example:
Although these two machineries clearly differ both in overall structure and function, at their core, they both consist of a conserved machinery for protein export, the type III secretion system (T3SS). In the flagellum, the T3SS is used to export the distal flagellar components and build the extracellular filament. Within the injectisome, the T3SS is at the centre of the export machinery and enables both the formation of the extracellular needle and the direct transfer of substrates from the bacterial cytosol into the host cells. While the term ‘type III secretion system’ is often applied to the whole injectisome, we will use it for the export machinery within both systems (and, accordingly, for statements valid in both cases) and use ‘flagellum’ or ‘injectisome’ to specify the respective complete system.

Type III secretion systems: the bacterial flagellum and the injectisome - PMC

The flagellum and the injectisome are two of the most complex and fascinating bacterial nanomachines. At their core, they share a type III secretion system (T3SS), a transmembrane export complex that forms the extracellular appendages, the flagellar ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Each flagellum is made of around 40 different protein components. The proponents of an offshoot of creationism known as intelligent design argue that a flagellum is useless without every single one of these components, so such a structure could not have emerged gradually via mutation and selection. It must have been created instead.

In reality, the term “the bacterial flagellum” is misleading. While much remains to be discovered, we now know there are thousands of different flagella in bacteria, which vary considerably in form and even function.

Evolution myths: The bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex

Actually, flagella vary widely from one species to another, and some of the components can perform useful functions by themselves. They are anything but irreducibly complex It is a highly complex molecular machine. Protruding from many bacteria are long spiral propellers attached to motors that...

www.newscientist.com

I happen to have a degree in bacteriology. The truth is a lot more interesting than Dr. Behe suspected when he wrote his book. Which particular flagellum do you want to present as "irreducibly complex?" And what makes you think irreducible complexity can't evolve? Even Dr. Behe now admits that it can, although he thinks it usually doesn't. My first question would be "Which bacterial flagelum? There are a number of them, and they have different components."

1Tonne said:
blood clotting cascade

Evolution of the complement system

Abstract

The ancestral form o f the alternative pathway of complement activation probably originated as a primitive independent immune system. Subsequent evolution of an adaptive immune response drove the specialization o f the classical pathway to connect antibody-mediated nonself recognition to the complement-dependent effector mechanisms. In this article Timothy Farries and John Atkinson consider how the contemporary complexity arose by a succession of credible alterations at the genetic level, and the selective advantages provided at each step.

https://profiles.wustl.edu/en/publications/evolution-of-the-complement-system

How could this happen?

1Tonne said:
Regarding evolution:
We’re all looking at the same evidence, the same fossils, the same genetic data, the same observable world. But we interpret that evidence through different lenses. The atheist or evolutionist sees fossils with similarities and concludes they must be related through common ancestry. The creationist sees the same fossils and notices the differences, the distinct kinds, clear boundaries, and massive gaps between forms that don’t show the gradual transitions Darwinism predicts.

Well, let's ask a YEC who actually knows what the evidence is...

Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species — include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation — of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates — has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and
Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact.

https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j09_2/j09_2_216-222.pdf

1Tonne said:
So the question isn’t, “Is there evidence?” The question is, “Which interpretation best fits the evidence we see?”

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)

Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason. Faith is enough. If God said it, that should settle it. Maybe that's not enough for your scoffing professor or your non-Christian friends, but it should be enough for you.

The truth about evolution

A blog about the creation/evolution debate from the president of Core Academy of Science.

toddcwood.blogspot.com

1Tonne said:
The Evolutionist Thought Pattern:
“There are similarities among fossils. Therefore, I’ll presuppose all life shares a common ancestor. Yes, most transitional forms are missing, but I’m confident they existed once upon a time, we just haven’t found them yet. Given enough time, unguided processes can build anything."

That's demonstrably wrong. In fact, Darwin's great discovery was that evolution isn't random, and scientists don't suppose that evolution can build anything, given enough time. Darwin himself pointed out that each step in an evolutionary process had to be at worst, neutral in order to work. It would be nice for humans to have an extra pair of arms. But tetrapods can't
evolve that sort of thing because the transitional states would be maladaptive.

1Tonne said:
If you’re claiming there are many examples that refute irreducible complexity, then name one, and explain how its parts could evolve step-by-step, with each stage being functional and advantageous. Simply asserting it’s been refuted isn’t the same as demonstrating it. Be specific, not dismissive. (Don't just give me a paper to read)

Sure. Dr. Barry Hall observed the evolution of a new enzyme in a culture of bacteria, previously unable to use a specific nutrient. Over time, they became able to effectively use it by a series of mutations that produced a new enzyme. But it didn't end there. Unexpectedly, the culture also evolved a regulator, which means that the enzyme is not produced unless the substrate is present. Which makes the system irreducibly complex. It now requires all three components in order to work, and the absence of one of them makes it inoperative. Yet it was observed to evolve.

Thus an entire system of lactose utilization had evolved, consisting of changes in enzyme structure enabling hydrolysis of the substrate; alteration of a regulatory gene so that the enzyme can be synthesized in response to the substrate; and the evolution of an enzyme reaction that induces the permease needed for the entry of the substrate. One could not wish for a batter demonstration of the neoDarwinian principle that mutation and natural selection in concert are the source of complex adaptations.
[ DJ Futuyma , Evolution, ©1986, Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA. pp. 477-478.]

(humans share ancestry with caterpillars)

1Tonne said:
I do not believe that, and I would not be silly enough to make such a claim.

Comes down to evidence. Again, the conclusion is supported by the fossil record, genetics, and embryology. Would you like to learn more about it?

Bilateria - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Barbarian · Tuesday at 5:57 PM

AV1611VET said:
Is man God's creation?

Yes. The issue is that you don't approve of the way He created man.

AV1611VET · Tuesday at 6:12 PM

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
And since the Bible was written by man and God's creation cannot lie...

AV1611VET said:
Is man God's creation?

The Barbarian said:
Yes.

Can man lie?

The Barbarian · Tuesday at 6:18 PM

AV1611VET said:
Is man God's creation?

Yes. The issue is that you don't approve of the way He created man.

AV1611VET said:
Can man lie?

I don't think you're lying. I think you're so tied to man's interpretation that you can't accept His word as it is.

partinobodycular · Tuesday at 7:29 PM

AV1611VET said:
Is man God's creation?

It's far more reasonable to assume that God is man's creation, for the simple fact that we can be certain of man's ability to create Gods, but we can't be certain of God's ability to create man.

1Tonne · Tuesday at 8:07 PM

2PhiloVoid said:
Okay, 1Tonne. Go back and recheck the context in which I made my response about evidence. I think you missed the actual point I was briefly making to NxNW----it had little to do with evolutionary theory and mostly to do with the nature of our chosen praxis in interpreting evidence.

I knew that. That is why I thought I would write at the top of it, "Regarding Evolution"
I probably should have looked to a better quote from another person. Sorry about that.

The Barbarian said:
The bacterial flagellum, for example:
Although these two machineries clearly differ both in overall structure and function, at their core, they both consist of a conserved machinery for protein export, the type III secretion system (T3SS). In the flagellum, the T3SS is used to export the distal flagellar components and build the extracellular filament. Within the injectisome, the T3SS is at the centre of the export machinery and enables both the formation of the extracellular needle and the direct transfer of substrates from the bacterial cytosol into the host cells. While the term ‘type III secretion system’ is often applied to the whole injectisome, we will use it for the export machinery within both systems (and, accordingly, for statements valid in both cases) and use ‘flagellum’ or ‘injectisome’ to specify the respective complete system.

Type III secretion systems: the bacterial flagellum and the injectisome - PMC

The flagellum and the injectisome are two of the most complex and fascinating bacterial nanomachines. At their core, they share a type III secretion system (T3SS), a transmembrane export complex that forms the extracellular appendages, the flagellar ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Each flagellum is made of around 40 different protein components. The proponents of an offshoot of creationism known as intelligent design argue that a flagellum is useless without every single one of these components, so such a structure could not have emerged gradually via mutation and selection. It must have been created instead.

In reality, the term “the bacterial flagellum” is misleading. While much remains to be discovered, we now know there are thousands of different flagella in bacteria, which vary considerably in form and even function.

Evolution myths: The bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex

Actually, flagella vary widely from one species to another, and some of the components can perform useful functions by themselves. They are anything but irreducibly complex It is a highly complex molecular machine. Protruding from many bacteria are long spiral propellers attached to motors that...

www.newscientist.com

I happen to have a degree in bacteriology. The truth is a lot more interesting than Dr. Behe suspected when he wrote his book. Which particular flagellum do you want to present as "irreducibly complex?" And what makes you think irreducible complexity can't evolve? Even Dr. Behe now admits that it can, although he thinks it usually doesn't. My first question would be "Which bacterial flagelum? There are a number of them, and they have different components."

Thanks for sharing the links and your thoughts.

You're right that the bacterial flagellum and the injectisome both use a shared core system called the Type III Secretion System (T3SS). That’s interesting and shows they have some parts in common. But just having some shared parts doesn’t explain how a fully working flagellum came about.

Here's what I mean:
-Using the same part doesn't explain the whole machine
Just because the flagellum and injectisome share a basic structure doesn’t mean one gradually turned into the other. You still have to explain how all the other parts came together step-by-step and worked at each stage. That’s what’s missing.
-Variation doesn’t explain origin
Saying there are different kinds of flagella today shows that they’ve changed over time—but it doesn’t explain how the first one came to be. That’s what irreducible complexity is really about: how the full system began.
-Irreducible complexity isn’t about imagination
It’s not “I can’t imagine it.” It’s: if you take away one key part, the system stops working. So how could such a system evolve slowly, if it doesn’t work until everything is in place?

Even Michael Behe, who first explained irreducible complexity, still argues that systems like the flagellum are best explained by design, not just step-by-step mutation and selection.

So, unless someone can show each step working along the way, with real evidence, the challenge of irreducible complexity still stands.
If you have a model that shows how that works, I’d be happy to look at it.

The Barbarian said:
Evolution of the complement system
Abstract

The ancestral form o f the alternative pathway of complement activation probably originated as a primitive independent immune system. Subsequent evolution of an adaptive immune response drove the specialization o f the classical pathway to connect antibody-mediated nonself recognition to the complement-dependent effector mechanisms. In this article Timothy Farries and John Atkinson consider how the contemporary complexity arose by a succession of credible alterations at the genetic level, and the selective advantages provided at each step.
https://profiles.wustl.edu/en/publications/evolution-of-the-complement-system
How could this happen?

Thanks for sharing the article on the complement system’s evolution. It’s interesting to see proposed genetic alterations and advantages, but let’s acknowledge what it doesn’t provide:

1. Hypothesis, not demonstration
The authors outline a plausible sequence of genetic changes. But they don’t show documented, step‑by‑step evidence that each intermediate version of the system actually existed in nature and functioned effectively. It’s a model, not a fossil‑based or experimental chain of transitions.
2. Assumes gradual benefit
They suggest each alteration provided a selective advantage. That may be possible, but it’s not established as fact. We don’t know for sure how those intermediate versions actually worked or how beneficial they were in real organisms.
3. Still doesn’t resolve irreducible complexity
Even if parts were added gradually, the crux of the argument remains: without the full system, complete with all its interdependent proteins and feedback mechanisms, it won’t function. A partially built system is often useless or even harmful. That core challenge isn’t fully addressed.

In short, evolutionary models like this one offer plausible explanations, but they’re not the same as demonstrated evolutionary pathways. Until we have strong empirical evidence showing functional intermediates step-by-step, the challenge of how complex, interdependent systems originate remains open.

If someone has data showing each version worked as predicted and was naturally selected, that would be compelling. Please share it.

The Barbarian said:
Well, let's ask a YEC who actually knows what the evidence is...

Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species — include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation — of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates — has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and
Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact.
https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j09_2/j09_2_216-222.pdf

Thanks for sharing the examples and your source.

Those examples, Baragwanathia (early vascular plants), Pikaia (early chordate), Purgatorius, Proconsul, mammal-like reptiles, early whale and horse series, are interesting. But again, let’s be honest about what they show and what they don’t:
1. They fit a pattern of similarity and expected age, not direct ancestral lines. For example, Baragwanathia is a lycophyte, but it’s already a fully formed vascular plant, not a missing link evolving into one.
2. Pikaia and others are suggestive, but not definitive. They’re often interpreted as possible early chordates based on some features, but they don’t show detailed, step-by-step transformations into vertebrates.
3. Series like the horse lineage illustrate changes over time, but they largely involve shifts in size, teeth, and toes, not radical leaps in body plans or innovations like new organs or genetic control systems.

Bottom Line:
-These fossils show variation over time, expected within lineages.
-They do not demonstrate fully documented, functional intermediate forms working at each stage to build complex systems.
-That’s the core issue: do these fossils truly show how new, integrated systems arose gradually? So far, we’ve seen interesting patterns, not complete pathways.

If someone has a well-supported, step-by-step evolutionary pathway for a complex organ or body plan that includes functional intermediates with genetic and developmental evidence, I’d be eager to see it. It has still not been shown.

The Barbarian said:
Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)

Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason. Faith is enough. If God said it, that should settle it. Maybe that's not enough for your scoffing professor or your non-Christian friends, but it should be enough for you.

The truth about evolution

A blog about the creation/evolution debate from the president of Core Academy of Science.

toddcwood.blogspot.com

I respect Todd Wood’s attempt to be fair to the scientific community, but I fundamentally disagree that evolution is a viable model, even within naturalistic assumptions. The claim that evolution “works” doesn’t answer the deeper problems: it still fails to explain the origin of information, irreducibly complex systems, and the sudden appearance of fully formed body plans.
A model isn’t vindicated just because it fits a framework; it must match reality. And evolution doesn’t.

The Barbarian said:
ure. Dr. Barry Hall observed the evolution of a new enzyme in a culture of bacteria, previously unable to use a specific nutrient. Over time, they became able to effectively use it by a series of mutations that produced a new enzyme. But it didn't end there. Unexpectedly, the culture also evolved a regulator, which means that the enzyme is not produced unless the substrate is present. Which makes the system irreducibly complex. It now requires all three components in order to work, and the absence of one of them makes it inoperative. Yet it was observed to evolve.

Thus an entire system of lactose utilization had evolved, consisting of changes in enzyme structure enabling hydrolysis of the substrate; alteration of a regulatory gene so that the enzyme can be synthesized in response to the substrate; and the evolution of an enzyme reaction that induces the permease needed for the entry of the substrate. One could not wish for a batter demonstration of the neoDarwinian principle that mutation and natural selection in concert are the source of complex adaptations.
[ DJ Futuyma , Evolution, ©1986, Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA. pp. 477-478.]

(humans share ancestry with caterpillars)

That example actually proves the point of intelligent systems within organisms. It shows bacteria can adapt by reusing and modifying existing genetic machinery. But it doesn’t explain the origin of that machinery in the first place. The components used (enzymes, regulatory genes, permeases) were already functional and present in the genome. Tinkering with existing parts is not the same as building irreducibly complex systems from scratch.
Evolution explaining small tweaks is not the same as explaining the origin of entire systems where no part functions on its own. That’s the real challenge.

The Barbarian · Tuesday at 9:16 PM

1Tonne said:
Thanks for sharing the links and your thoughts.

You're right that the bacterial flagellum and the injectisome both use a shared core system called the Type III Secretion System (T3SS). That’s interesting and shows they have some parts in common.

It's more than interesting. It shows that these parts were recruited for different functions over time. Remember, there are lots of different kinds of bacterial flagella, and that alone torpedoes Behe's belief that "the bacterial flagellum" is irreducibly complex. They are of varying degrees of complexity.

1Tonne said:
I respect Todd Wood’s attempt to be fair to the scientific community, but I fundamentally disagree that evolution is a viable model, even within naturalistic assumptions.

Wood and other YECs in the sciences disagree with you, and they actually know the evidence. As Dr. Wood points out, evolutionary theory works and it works well.

1Tonne said:
Bottom Line:
-These fossils show variation over time, expected within lineages.

Sorry, that's wrong. For example, we see the evolution of the mammalian ear out of things like reptilian jaw joint and other parts. It's well-demonstrated in the fossil record. One of the major misconceptions YECs have about evolution is that they suppose it requires entirely new structures to evolve ex nihilo. If you think about it, I'm sure you see how absurd that it. Evolution never creates anything entirely new; it modifies things already present. Would you like some more examples?

1Tonne said:
-They do not demonstrate fully documented, functional intermediate forms working at each stage to build complex systems.

And that's also wrong. The transition from the multibone reptilian lower jaw to the single-bone mammalian jaw is well-documented. Would you like to learn about that? It's interesting that some modern mammals demonstrate that transition in utero, showing that the reptilian genes remain, but in a modified form.

1Tonne said:
The claim that evolution “works” doesn’t answer the deeper problems: it still fails to explain the origin of information

Perhaps you don't know how information is produced in populations. Would you like me to show you the math for a simple case wherein information increases or decreases in a population? It's no mystery how new information happens in evolution. BTW, evolution can also decrease information. Fixation, for example. In biology, we use Shannon information theory. And we know it works because it's used to accurately transmit information from low-powered transmitters over billions of kilometers of space.

1Tonne said:
, irreducibly complex systems,

As you have seen, irreducible complexity evolves. It's even been observed directly to evolve.

1Tonne said:
and the sudden appearance of fully formed body plans.

Can you give us an example?

1Tonne said:
A model isn’t vindicated just because it fits a framework; it must match reality. And evolution doesn’t.

You've confused models and theories here. Evolutionary theory is accepted by almost all biologists, because its predictions have been repeatedly confirmed by subsequent evidence. That's mating reality. It's like gravity; an observed phenomenon. Once again, you've confused common descent with evolution.

Thus an entire system of lactose utilization had evolved, consisting of changes in enzyme structure enabling hydrolysis of the substrate; alteration of a regulatory gene so that the enzyme can be synthesized in response to the substrate; and the evolution of an enzyme reaction that induces the permease needed for the entry of the substrate. One could not wish for a batter demonstration of the neoDarwinian principle that mutation and natural selection in concert are the source of complex adaptations.
[ DJ Futuyma , Evolution, ©1986, Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA. pp. 477-478.]

1Tonne said:
That example actually proves the point of intelligent systems within organisms. It shows bacteria can adapt by reusing and modifying existing genetic machinery.

That's what evolution does. Thought you knew. It is true that new genes can come from mutations to non-coding DNA as well, but that's really the same process, isn't it? And of course, the process was shown to have been by random mutations, sorted out by natural selection. No intelligence required, other than a Creator who made a world in which such things happen by the natural processes He created.

1Tonne said:
But it doesn’t explain the origin of that machinery in the first place.

That's another YEC misconception. Evolutionary theory isn't about the origin of life. It assumes life appeared, and describes how it changes.

1Tonne said:
The components used (enzymes, regulatory genes, permeases) were already functional and present in the genome.

No. Neither the new enzyme nor the regulator existed in the initial population. These were produced by mutations and natural selection.

1Tonne said:
Tinkering with existing parts is not the same as building irreducibly complex systems from scratch.

You were apparently unaware that evolution works by tinkering with existing parts. That's (for example) how legs evolved. Would you like to learn how we know this?

1Tonne said:
Evolution explaining small tweaks is not the same as explaining the origin of entire systems where no part functions on its own.

In biology, everything is tied to everything else. But as you have seen, irreducible complexity can easily evolve by a number of means. Would you like to see more examples?

AACJ · Tuesday at 9:28 PM

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
Then it's a good thing that Darwinian evolution isn't the go-to theory of evolution anymore.

Ever hear of the Modern synthesis, mike? Or how about the extended modern synthesis by Pigliucci? Or what about the post-modern evolutionary synthesis by Koonin?

And no, we don't need to read a book published in 1985 and roundly decried by scientists as something that distorts and misrepresents evolution.

Shifting labels doesn’t change the fatal flaws. Whether it's labeled "modern" or "post-modern," these syntheses still rely on unobserved macroevolution and blind chance--philosophical naturalism dressed up as science. The Biblical account remains the only coherent, testable, and historically grounded explanation for life’s complexity.

BCP1928 · Tuesday at 9:45 PM

1Tonne said:
That’s not an honest representation of the argument. Irreducible complexity isn’t “I can’t imagine it,” it’s the claim that certain systems, like the bacterial flagellum or the blood clotting cascade, require multiple interdependent parts to function at all. Remove one, and the system breaks down. Saying “evolution works” doesn’t answer how those specific, tightly integrated systems arose through step-by-step mutations where intermediate forms would be non-functional.

How do you know they would be non-functional. What prevents each intermediate stepr from being funcitional?

1Tonne said:
If you believe they’ve been explained, great, then explain them. But hand-waving and character attacks aren’t explanations. Science invites scrutiny, not blind acceptance.

Here is the banana story. The atheist society even asked him to speak.

I can't watch the video at my present location, but did not somebody explain that the banana as we know it today is the product of human selective breeding?

1Tonne said:
Regarding evolution:
We’re all looking at the same evidence, the same fossils, the same genetic data, the same observable world. But we interpret that evidence through different lenses. The atheist or evolutionist sees fossils with similarities and concludes they must be related through common ancestry. The creationist sees the same fossils and notices the differences, the distinct kinds, clear boundaries, and massive gaps between forms that don’t show the gradual transitions Darwinism predicts.
The issue isn’t the presence of similarities; it’s the assumption that similarity equals ancestry. That’s an interpretation, not a fact. And it ignores that many systems in biology, like the circulatory system, the bacterial flagellum, or the eye, don’t work if built in parts. They need to be fully formed to function at all.

Yes, "irreducible complexity." But irreducible complexity has never been found in nature--I think even Behe has given up on it and it was his idea.
I think one of the problems may be (and correct me if I'm wrong) that you have the sense that there is an ultimate goal or target for an evolutionary development which somehow must carry on through useless intermediate forms, gradually approaching the perfected limb or organ. While you clamor for evidence you are going to have to pay more attention to what the theory of evolution actually claims so you will know what you are actually asking evidence for.

1Tonne said:
So the question isn’t, “Is there evidence?” The question is, “Which interpretation best fits the evidence we see?” And many of us believe that intelligent design, not blind, stepwise processes, better accounts for the complexity, function, and variety of life.

The Creationist Thought Pattern:
“Wow, look at the breathtaking variety of fossils! Each creature fits clearly within its own kind, dogs are dogs, cats are cats, birds are birds, with no blending between them. The design, order, and purpose in each one points unmistakably to a Creator.”

The Evolutionist Thought Pattern:
“There are similarities among fossils. Therefore, I’ll presuppose all life shares a common ancestor. Yes, most transitional forms are missing, but I’m confident they existed once upon a time, we just haven’t found them yet. Given enough time, unguided processes can build anything."
(But 150 years later, and they are still waiting. Darwin would have conceded by now. LOL)

You are going to insult science with that misrepresentation of evolutionary biology? Common ancestry is not an "assumption." it is a prediction of the theory which is perhaps untestable. Indeed, it might be possible to trace the biosphere back to more than one occurrence of abiogenesis.
But because common ancestry is a prediction of the theory rather than a fundamental principle, the truth of the theory does not rest on it.

1Tonne said:
If you’re claiming there are many examples that refute irreducible complexity, then name one, and explain how its parts could evolve step-by-step, with each stage being functional and advantageous. Simply asserting it’s been refuted isn’t the same as demonstrating it. Be specific, not dismissive. (Don't just give me a paper to read)

I think someone has beat me to the flagellum. I hope you can force yourself to actually read the paper. If you are going to continue in this forum you are going to have to read papers. After all, we have to wade through all of the creationist stuff you present; it's only fair.

(I can't wait 'till we get on to actual math.)

1Tonne said:
I do not believe that, and I would not be silly enough to make such a claim.

AV1611VET · Tuesday at 9:45 PM

The Barbarian said:
Yes. The issue is that you don't approve of the way He created man.

I don't think you're lying. I think you're so tied to man's interpretation that you can't accept His word as it is.

Let me get this straight:

God's creation cannot lie.
Mankind is God's creation.
Mankind can lie.

Is that what you want me to believe?

Darwinian evolution - still a theory in crisis.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

I learned to "count"!

I’m the best.

Well-Known Member

Crabby Old White Guy

Evolution of the complement system​

Abstract​

Crabby Old White Guy

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Crabby Old White Guy

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Evolution of the complement system​

Abstract​

Crabby Old White Guy

Please Pray

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Similar threads

Evolution of the complement system

Abstract

Evolution of the complement system

Abstract