Darwin Debunks himself? what did we miss?

[Bouke285]

It was Darwin who said

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species: A Facsimile of the First Edition, Harvard University Press, 1964, p. 189.

This is very, very interesting I know there are many of you out there who call yourselves "Theist Evolutionists" who most definitely follow Darwins theorys of evolution.

It is interesting how back then 1809-1882 the technology to see even the simpelest yet extrordinarly complex cells that each organ is made up of did not exist.

How would you explain this?

 

[Mallon]

Actually, microscopes capable of resolving cells were around nearly 200 years before Darwin was even born, Bouke.

Still, I'm not sure what you're asking. Can you please rephrase yourself?

 

[busterdog]

It was Darwin who said

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species: A Facsimile of the First Edition, Harvard University Press, 1964, p. 189.

This is very, very interesting I know there are many of you out there who call yourselves "Theist Evolutionists" who most definitely follow Darwins theorys of evolution.

It is interesting how back then 1809-1882 the technology to see even the simpelest yet extrordinarly complex cells that each organ is made up of did not exist.

How would you explain this?

Because scientists already agree that enzymes themselves, let alone complex organs, could not be created by slight changes. Rather changes must leap enormously tall buildings of probability in a single bound.

This is what is called neoDarwinism now. They have rejected random mutation and natural selection as the mechanism of evolution. Rather the the constituents of life must have a tendency to overcome the very, very improbable.

What this means is that the watchmaker argument is a fallacy. The proper analogy would be a super-computer with artificial intelligence that designs and makes watches all by its lonesome. And of course, the computer was created by a tornado in a junkyard.

 

[Chesterton]

Actually, microscopes capable of resolving cells were around nearly 200 years before Darwin was even born, Bouke.

But they couldn't see the parts of the cell, could they? With microscopes in Darwin's time didn't a cell just look like a blob of goo, or a blob with a dark spot inside?

 

[Mallon]

This is what is called neoDarwinism now. They have rejected random mutation and natural selection as the mechanism of evolution.

Actually, neodarwinian evolution isn't an outright rejection of random mutation and natural selection. It is simply a recognition that there is more to evolution than these two factors alone.

Rather the the constituents of life must have a tendency to overcome the very, very improbable.

What this means is that the watchmaker argument is a fallacy. The proper analogy would be a super-computer with artificial intelligence that designs and makes watches all by its lonesome. And of course, the computer was created by a tornado in a junkyard.

This is both an abuse of probability statistics and a misrepresentation of the theory of evolution.

 

[Mallon]

But they couldn't see the parts of the cell, could they? With microscopes in Darwin's time didn't a cell just look like a blob of goo, or a blob with a dark spot inside?

The largest organelles likely would have been resolvable by Darwin's time. Regardless, I still don't understand how this relates to the question Bouke is asking in the OP.

 

[Bouke285]

My question was how would you explain why people still agree with any of what Darwin said related to evolution by natural selection? When today even he wouldn't agree with his theorys.

 

[Mallon]

My question was how would you explain why people still agree with any of what Darwin said related to evolution by natural selection? When today even he wouldn't agree with his theorys.

Scientists don't blindly agree with everything Darwin wrote in Origin. We've come a long way in the 150 years since Darwin first proposed his theory, and like all good science, we have discarded what is demonstrably wrong and have kept what is right. We have since modified Darwin's theory.

(I still don't understand what this has to do with resolving cells under the microscope.)

 

[Bouke285]

Scientists don't blindly agree with everything Darwin wrote in Origin. We've come a long way in the 150 years since Darwin first proposed his theory, and like all good science, we have discarded what is demonstrably wrong and have kept what is right. We have since modified Darwin's theory.

(I still don't understand what this has to do with resolving cells under the microscope.)

Darwin's quote which in simplified terms is saying that if life at that time was any more complex then they thought it was. His theorys would not work. You may say they had microscopes back then maybe ones as powerfull as today's magnifine glasses. They could not see the cells of an organism, and how each tissue is made up of complex substructures which we know so well today.

 

[Mallon]

Darwin's quote which in simplified terms is saying that if life at that time was any more complex then they thought it was. His theorys would not work.

You have misinterpreted what Darwin is saying here. Darwin is not saying that if life is complex, his theory breaks down.
What Darwin is saying is that, if it could be shown that complex lifeforms could not have evolved in tiny, incremental steps, his theory would break down. And in this sense, Darwin's theory HAS broken down. We now recognize that evolution does not always unfold in such tiny, incremental steps. Great leaps are also possible, resulting from simple point mutations in regulatory genes. That doesn't mean Darwin's entire theory of evolution via natural selection was wrong. Much of it is still salvageable, but we have done away with Darwin's chorus of evolution non facit saltum.

 

[Assyrian]

I wonder if that is such an accurate assessment of Darwin's POV. As our understanding of biology got more microscopic, did the idea of incremental steps get smaller and smaller? So when the infinitesimal increments were overturned, it seemed Darwin had got that bit wrong. But would darwin have thought of these changes as giant leaps, or are they on the scale he would have thought incremental?

 

[Chesterton]

The largest organelles likely would have been resolvable by Darwin's time. Regardless, I still don't understand how this relates to the question Bouke is asking in the OP.

One of many reasons I came to believe in God is the extremely high probability that what is observable will always be divisible. Whether in physics, chemistry or biology, the human mind’s ability to perceive the floor, or the bottom fundamental, of reality can never reached, just as described by the writers of Genesis, Job, Psalms, etc., millennia ago.

What looked like goo, or at best a simple machine, to Darwin, now looks like a super-computerized complex factory to us. What more will we discover of this factory 150 years from now? I’m sure it will be intricate, but I’m also sure that “the things of God are hidden”.

 

[busterdog]

What looked like goo, or at best a simple machine, to Darwin, now looks like a super-computerized complex factory to us. What more will we discover of this factory 150 years from now? I’m sure it will be intricate, but I’m also sure that “the things of God are hidden”.

Some would say that cataloging the minutiae is the same as understanding why it is what it is. What do you say? Does it seem that folks are getting closer to understanding the organism as they collect more of the minutiae?

 

[Chesterton]

Some would say that cataloging the minutiae is the same as understanding why it is what it is. What do you say?

I think “cataloging” and “understanding” are barely even related. I think a fool like me can look at a tree through my eyes, and a smarter fool can look at a tree through the best microscope. We’re both looking at the same irreducible thing.

Does it seem that folks are getting closer to understanding the organism as they collect more of the minutiae?

All I remember from studying calculus is: the closer you get, the more fully you realize that you’ll never get there.

 

[Bouke285]

What is it that makes each of you believe TE? Why don't you believe that God created everything. You know if it's because of the dating methods used by many scientists "proving" how old the earth is. Then maybe you should take a look there is just as much science disproving this only less advertised.

 

[Bouke285]

One of many reasons I came to believe in God is the extremely high probability that what is observable will always be divisible. Whether in physics, chemistry or biology, the human mind’s ability to perceive the floor, or the bottom fundamental, of reality can never reached, just as described by the writers of Genesis, Job, Psalms, etc., millennia ago.

What looked like goo, or at best a simple machine, to Darwin, now looks like a super-computerized complex factory to us. What more will we discover of this factory 150 years from now? I’m sure it will be intricate, but I’m also sure that “the things of God are hidden”.

I like what you are saying I always think of the most basic particles we know about today. And how when our technology increases (if we are still here) we will find that there is another basic particle making up these basic particles. We will never fully understand everything.

Also think about why our lives were cut so much shorter after the flood. What would we have been able to figure out if we lived 400 years each?
There are some things God doesn't allow or want us to understand.

 

[Melethiel]

What is it that makes each of you believe TE? Why don't you believe that God created everything. You know if it's because of the dating methods used by many scientists "proving" how old the earth is. Then maybe you should take a look there is just as much science disproving this only less advertised.

What makes you think we don't believe God created everything?

Seems to me you have a faulty understanding of TE. We not only believe God created everything, we believe God is continually sustaining his creation, and is involved in every aspect of creation.

Tell me, did God create you form you in your mother's womb, or did you develop from the union of a sperm and egg?

 

[Mallon]

What is it that makes each of you believe TE? Why don't you believe that God created everything.

We DO believe that God created everything. What has anyone said here that makes you think He didn't?
Evolution is a means by which God creates. Likewise, you and I are a creation (Psalm 139:13-14), even though God didn't miraculously poof us into existence in our mothers' wombs.

You know if it's because of the dating methods used by many scientists "proving" how old the earth is. Then maybe you should take a look there is just as much science disproving this only less advertised.

That old argument has been falsified a thousand times. See here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CD
That we can corroborate our radiometric dating techniques using other means of dating (e.g., dendrochronology, ice cores, varves, etc.) suggests that the methodology is relatively sound.

 

[Bouke285]

What makes you think we don't believe God created everything?

Seems to me you have a faulty understanding of TE. We not only believe God created everything, we believe God is continually sustaining his creation, and is involved in every aspect of creation.

Tell me, did God create you form you in your mother's womb, or did you develop from the union of a sperm and egg?

Actually I have a fine understanding. There are many different understandings of TE some of you think God created just the basic particles and pointed them in the right direction. Others think God created the organisms and single cells.

I guess I should refrase that. Why don't you believe God created us as humans and trees as trees directly?

 

[Bouke285]

That old argument has been falsified a thousand times. See here. That we can corroborate our radiometric dating techniques using other means of dating (e.g., dendrochronology, ice cores, varves, etc.) suggests that the methodology is relatively sound.

I am not talking about the old arguments I am talking about any of them. There is so much proof showing the age of the earth isn't over a few thousand years.