Darwinian evolution - still a theory in crisis.

[BCP1928]

Let me get this straight:

1. God's creation cannot lie.
2. Mankind is God's creation.
3. Mankind can lie.

Is that what you want me to believe?

Don't you believe in Original Sin?

 

[AACJ]

Maybe you can explain this:

'Of course, all structuralists accepted that organisms exhibited adaptations to serve external environmental conditions. But these were considered to be, as Owen described them, “adaptive masks,” grafted as it were onto underlying ground plans or “primal patterns.” Thus the great diversity of vertebrate limbs—fins for swimming, hands for grasping, wings for flying—are all modifications of the same underlying ground plan or primal pattern, which serves no particular environmental necessity.'

Fins 'serve no particular environmental necessity'? Neither do wings? They come in pretty handy for swimming and flying. And indeed, we have wings that have evolved for use as fins. And fins likewise evolved to wings.

Perhaps you can explain. And in passing, the book mentioned in the OP is published by our old chums The Discovery Institute. And it's author kinda gives the game away when he says this quite early in the piece:

Here we touch on an important point, which needs emphasis : Organisms are complex systems, and their assembly during the course of evolution, by universal assent (e.g ., Darwin, Fisher, Dawkins, Fred Hoyle, Dennett ), could never have occurred by “pure chance.” Some form of direction is essential! (odd that he should mention an astronomer and a philosopher when discussing evolution).

Gee, whatever can he mean by a form of direction. Or should I say, whoever can he mean. I've read a lot of Dawkins, Darwin and Dennett and there is no indication from any of them that a direction is required, or indeed is in any way apparent. Unless you put your theological hat on.

You seem to be saying that the theory of evolution must be wrong because it is not complete or perfect, That naturalist abiogenesis must be wrong because it is not fully understood. Never mind, but just this word of advice: anybody who argues against the theory of evolution and starts out by calling it "Darwinism" has a political motive, not a scientific one. Keep you rhand on your wallet and you eyes on the exits at all t

You seem to be saying that the theory of evolution must be wrong because it is not complete or perfect, That naturalist abiogenesis must be wrong because it is not fully understood. Never mind, but just this word of advice: anybody who argues against the theory of evolution and starts out by calling it "Darwinism" has a political motive, not a scientific one. Keep you rhand on your wallet and you eyes on the exits at all time.

I believe your post is an ad hominem evasion. The critique isn’t that evolution is "incomplete"--it’s that key claims, (for example, unguided macroevolution and abiogenesis), lack empirical support. Even atheist scientists like Eugene Koonin (The Logic of Chance) admit Darwinism fails to explain life’s complexity. "Darwinism" is used neutrally by both proponents (Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker) and critics alike. Dismissing dissent as "political" ignores certain qualified skeptics like James Tour (MIT) or Günter Behe (Darwin’s Black Box). Science prospers on falsification, not dogma.

 

[The Barbarian]

Let me get this straight:

That would be a useful thing for you.

1. God's creation cannot lie.
2. Mankind is God's creation.
3. Mankind can lie.

Looks like you failed again.

Is that what you want me to believe?

Your statement. You get to support it. If you thought about it, I'm pretty sure you would realize what you have wrong there. Think about it.

 

[BCP1928]

I was referring to the use of the term in this forum. But let me make my point another way. Scientific conclusions are always provisional in nature and presented as such. I have observed consternation in Creationists who cannot fathom why we would prefer the provisional truth of evolution to the absolute and objective truth of a literal Genesis.

 

[The Barbarian]

I believe your post is an ad hominem evasion. The critique isn’t that evolution is "incomplete"--it’s that key claims, (for example, unguided macroevolution and abiogenesis)

Darwin's discovery was that evolution is not random. And of course, abiogenesis is not part of evolutionary theory. Darwin himself just supposed that God created the first living things. As usual not knowing about things is a huge impediment to understanding them.

Do some reading, and you'll find it easier in these discussions.

 

[The Barbarian]

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

Darwin's key finding is that it doesn't work by chance.

--philosophical naturalism dressed up as science. The Biblical account remains the only coherent, testable, and historically grounded explanation for life’s complexity.

The Bible offers no explanation for life's complexity. The Bible is about God and man and our relationship, not about how biology works. If you miss that, you miss the whole point of His word to us.

Some people have inserted their own wishes into scripture and want to make them God's word. But that's something else entirely.

 

[AV1611VET]

Your statement. You get to support it. If you thought about it, I'm pretty sure you would realize what you have wrong there. Think about it.

What I think is that you're confused.

 

[The Barbarian]

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.

It is very likely that there were a number of biologies in the very early Earth. So far, it appears that only one survived to populate the world.

 

[The Barbarian]

1. God's creation cannot lie.
2. Mankind is God's creation.
3. Mankind can lie.

If you thought about it, I'm pretty sure you would realize what you have wrong there. Think about it.

What I think is that you're confused.

Perhaps one of us is.

 

[1Tonne]

BTW, evolution can also decrease information.

You're right that evolution can lead to a loss of information. We see that through deletions and broken genes. But the real issue is the gain of new, functional, specified information. Evolution needs to add entirely new structures and systems, like complex biochemical machines, not just tweak existing ones or break things.
That kind of ordered information doesn't come from nowhere. It runs against entropy, which says systems tend toward disorder. Random mutations don't write books; they corrupt them. Loss is easy. Innovation is the challenge.
Here is something I wrote earlier on regarding the increase of information:
"We would laugh at someone who claimed that a book fell together by itself. That black ink just rained down from the sky, formed letters on a page, and somehow arranged those letters into words, sentences, and chapters that make sense. Then, colored ink fell and made beautiful illustrations of animals and landscapes. Then page numbers fell into the corners, all in the correct order. Finally, the pages bound themselves together into a complete book. We’d scoff at that because it’s absurd.
And yet, every one of us carries a book inside us, our DNA. It is a highly complex, information-rich code that tells your body how to function, develop, and repair itself. DNA contains more information than any book ever written. In fact, if you stretched out all the DNA in your body, it would reach to the moon and back multiple times.
So, if it’s unthinkable to believe that a simple book made itself by accident, how much more unreasonable is it to believe that the biological book of life, our DNA, formed itself through unguided processes? Information demands intelligence."

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

You’ve claimed irreducible complexity has evolved, but observing parts come together over time doesn’t prove irreducible complexity was overcome. Only that a system exists now with multiple parts. The key question remains: Were the intermediate stages functional and advantageous at each step? That’s the challenge irreducible complexity presents.
Just because something functions now as a complex unit doesn’t mean it evolved piece by piece through selective advantage. It may have started as an intact system, or evolved by loss or modification, not creation of new functional parts.

Can you give us an example?

You’ve said the flagellum isn't irreducibly complex because parts of it exist in other systems. But showing that components exist elsewhere isn’t the same as explaining how those parts assembled step-by-step into a fully functional rotary motor, with each step being beneficial and naturally selected. Can you show the actual evolutionary pathway with functional intermediates at each stage? That’s what’s needed, not just a list of parts, but a mechanism. Otherwise, the challenge of irreducible complexity still stands.

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

That’s a common deflection. Yes, evolution technically deals with changes in life, not its origin. But once you bring in systems like the bacterial flagellum or DNA replication, you're dealing with the origin of complex biological machinery, which evolution is assumed to account for. Saying “evolution doesn’t explain the origin” only strengthens the point: if it can’t account for the machinery life depends on, then it’s incomplete, and the question of origins remains unanswered.

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

That’s an assumption, not demonstrated proof. The claim is that mutations created new, fully functional components, not just slightly altered versions of existing ones. But those mutations had to produce coordinated, interdependent parts that only work together, which is the very definition of irreducible complexity. Saying “they evolved” isn’t enough; it needs to be shown that step-by-step changes, each offering a survival advantage, led to that system without relying on pre-existing, functional sequences doing similar work. That’s still unproven.

 

[AACJ]

Darwin's key finding is that it doesn't work by chance.

The Bible offers no explanation for life's complexity. The Bible is about God and man and our relationship, not about how biology works. If you miss that, you miss the whole point of His word to us.

Some people have inserted their own wishes into scripture and want to make them God's word. But that's something else entirely.

Scripture actually does address biology, and that with incredible prescience. Examples include: Levitical quarantine laws (Leviticus 13–14) predated germ theory by millennia, demonstrating advanced hygienic knowledge. Job 26:7 describes the earth suspended in space, and Hebrews 11:3 affirms creation ex nihilo—both scientifically coherent. Even secular scholars like Dr. S.I. McMillen (None of These Diseases) confirm biblical medical insights outpaced their time. The Bible explains life's complexity through intelligent design--God created all things ex nihilo (Genesis 1:1, John 1:3) with irreducible complexity (Psalm 139:14). in In contrast to mindless naturalism, which relies on chance, Scripture affirms purposeful craftsmanship (Romans 1:20), where even the so-called "simple" cell reflects divine wisdom (Proverbs 3:19-20). (and just think, godless, ignorant scientist were actually convinced that with advancement in magnification technology, they would find reducible simplicity in the cell). Your reduction of Scripture ignores its holistic truth: it reveals both our relationship with God and His design in nature (Psalm 19:1, Romans 1:20).

 

[1Tonne]

I think someone has beat me to the flagellum.

Nope. Still failed.

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.)

I’ve skimmed the material and understand the general points being made. But let’s be honest, if someone shares a paper as evidence, they should be willing to summarise its key claims and how they support their argument. Expecting others to dig through pages of technical content without a clear point is a way of deflecting responsibility, not advancing the discussion. If you're confident in the argument, present it yourself.

 

[Hans Blaster]

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.

The point of a label is to encapsulate an idea or set of ideas. "Shifting the label" is not an evasion, it is a short-hand for describing a group of ideas.

 

[AACJ]

The point of a label is to encapsulate an idea or set of ideas. "Shifting the label" is not an evasion, it is a short-hand for describing a group of ideas.

Your right about labels representing one or more ideas, and as such they are necessary for good and efficient communication. But within the context of what I was responding to, whether labeled "neo-Darwinism" or "Extended Synthesis," these theories still suffer from a lack of observable evidence for macroevolution. The label game can’t mask the fact that unguided processes fail to explain biological complexity—only intelligent design does.

 

[The Barbarian]

You're right that evolution can lead to a loss of information. We see that through deletions and broken genes. But the real issue is the gain of new, functional, specified information.

Every new mutation in a population is an increase in information. Perhaps you don't know how information comes about. Let's take a look at a simple case.
Suppose there are two alleles for a given gene in a population, each with a frequency of 0.5. Then suppose a new mutation happens and eventually each of them have a frequency of about 0.333. What was the original information for that gene, and what was it after the mutation?
If you don't know how to calculate it, I'll do it for you in the next post.

That kind of ordered information doesn't come from nowhere. It runs against entropy, which says systems tend toward disorder.

That's wrong, too. Water, for example, becomes more ordered as entropy increases. And entropy only increases in closed systems. But the Earth is not a closed system. Energy inputs continue, and decrease entropy constantly. Do you see why?

mutations don't write books; they corrupt them. Loss is easy. Innovation is the challenge.
Here is something I wrote earlier on regarding the increase of information:
"We would laugh at someone who claimed that a book fell together by itself. That black ink just rained down from the sky, formed letters on a page, and somehow arranged those letters into words, sentences, and chapters that make sense. Then, colored ink fell and made beautiful illustrations of animals and landscapes. Then page numbers fell into the corners, all in the correct order. Finally, the pages bound themselves together into a complete book. We’d scoff at that because it’s absurd.

Here, you've confused human artifacts with natural things like plate tectonics and biology. We see many cases of order arising from natural processes. Would you like some more examples?

You’ve claimed irreducible complexity has evolved, but observing parts come together over time doesn’t prove irreducible complexity was overcome.

By Behe's own definition, Dr. Hall's bacteria evolved a new, irreducibly complex system. Reality is a compelling argument.

The key question remains: Were the intermediate stages functional and advantageous at each step?

Yes. The first interation of the new enzyme was functional but not very effective, over time, it evolved to become more so.

Just because something functions now as a complex unit doesn’t mean it evolved piece by piece through selective advantage.

That's the beauty of Dr. Hall's experiment; the culture started with one cell and the evolutionary process was observed over the course of the experiment.

Can you show the actual evolutionary pathway with functional intermediates at each stage?

Can you show that it was impossible? The evidence indicates it evolved. Failing to show it was impossible, you only have belief to support your belief.

Abstract​

Elucidating the origins of complex biological structures has been one of the major challenges of evolutionary studies. The bacterial flagellum is a primary example of a complex apparatus whose origins and evolutionary history have proven difficult to reconstruct. The gene clusters encoding the components of the flagellum can include >50 genes, but these clusters vary greatly in their numbers and contents among bacterial phyla. To investigate how this diversity arose, we identified all homologs of all flagellar proteins encoded in the complete genome sequences of 41 flagellated species from 11 bacterial phyla. Based on the phylogenetic occurrence and histories of each of these proteins, we could distinguish an ancient core set of 24 structural genes that were present in the common ancestor to all Bacteria. Within a genome, many of these core genes show sequence similarity only to other flagellar core genes, indicating that they were derived from one another, and the relationships among these genes suggest the probable order in which the structural components of the bacterial flagellum arose. These results show that core components of the bacterial flagellum originated through the successive duplication and modification of a few, or perhaps even a single, precursor gene.

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0700266104

Yes, evolution technically deals with changes in life, not its origin. But once you bring in systems like the bacterial flagellum or DNA replication, you're dealing with the origin of complex biological machinery,

See above. No point in denial.

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

That’s an assumption

Wrong. It's an observation by Dr. Hall, who was monitoring changes in the culture. And because it is possible to start a culture with a single cell, there's no question about the initial state of the bacterium.

The claim is that mutations created new, fully functional components, not just slightly altered versions of existing ones.

As you learned recently, that's what evolution does. It modifies things already there. And that process, as you now realize, produced an irreducibly complex enzyme system. By Behe's own definition.

Saying “they evolved” isn’t enough; it needs to be shown that step-by-step changes, each offering a survival advantage, led to that system without relying on pre-existing, functional sequences doing similar work.

That's what Dr. Hall did. No point in denial. Would you like to read his paper?

 

[The Barbarian]

Your reduction of Scripture ignores its holistic truth: it reveals both our relationship with God and His design in nature

You misunderstand Romans 1:20, for example. Paul is pointing out that there are authoritative sources for God outside of scripture. The Bible itself rejects Sola Scriptura. But apprehending God in nature is not the same thing as understanding how living things function. You're trying to revise God's word to purposes for which He did not intend it to be used.

 

[The Barbarian]

The Bible explains life's complexity through intelligent design--God created all things ex nihilo (Genesis 1:1, John 1:3) with irreducible complexity

Are you not a creation of God? And he produced you, not ex nihilo, but by natural processes. Except for your soul, of course; that is given by Him directly. Life itself was not created ex nihilo, but brought forth by existing created matter. Why not accept it God's way?

 

[AACJ]

Are you not a creation of God? And he produced you, not ex nihilo, but by natural processes. Except for your soul, of course; that is given by Him directly. Life itself was not created ex nihilo, but brought forth by existing created matter. Why not accept it God's way?

Please extend to me the curtesy of including all of my post in you reply posts to keep everything in context.

 

[BCP1928]

Nope. Still failed.

Can you discuss the material presented? You are making an a priori argument "the flagellum could not have evolved" therefore a rebuttal showing a plausible hypothetical evolutionary pathway is sufficient. "Could have evolved."

I’ve skimmed the material and understand the general points being made. But let’s be honest, if someone shares a paper as evidence, they should be willing to summarise its key claims and how they support their argument. Expecting others to dig through pages of technical content without a clear point is a way of deflecting responsibility, not advancing the discussion. If you're confident in the argument, present it yourself.

Sorry that you haven't followed the discussion about the flagellum.

 

[BCP1928]

You're right that evolution can lead to a loss of information. We see that through deletions and broken genes. But the real issue is the gain of new, functional, specified information. Evolution needs to add entirely new structures and systems, like complex biochemical machines, not just tweak existing ones or break things.
That kind of ordered information doesn't come from nowhere. It runs against entropy, which says systems tend toward disorder. Random mutations don't write books; they corrupt them. Loss is easy. Innovation is the challenge.
Here is something I wrote earlier on regarding the increase of information:
"We would laugh at someone who claimed that a book fell together by itself. That black ink just rained down from the sky, formed letters on a page, and somehow arranged those letters into words, sentences, and chapters that make sense. Then, colored ink fell and made beautiful illustrations of animals and landscapes. Then page numbers fell into the corners, all in the correct order. Finally, the pages bound themselves together into a complete book. We’d scoff at that because it’s absurd.
And yet, every one of us carries a book inside us, our DNA. It is a highly complex, information-rich code that tells your body how to function, develop, and repair itself. DNA contains more information than any book ever written. In fact, if you stretched out all the DNA in your body, it would reach to the moon and back multiple times.
So, if it’s unthinkable to believe that a simple book made itself by accident, how much more unreasonable is it to believe that the biological book of life, our DNA, formed itself through unguided processes? Information demands intelligence."

You’ve claimed irreducible complexity has evolved, but observing parts come together over time doesn’t prove irreducible complexity was overcome. Only that a system exists now with multiple parts. The key question remains: Were the intermediate stages functional and advantageous at each step? That’s the challenge irreducible complexity presents.
Just because something functions now as a complex unit doesn’t mean it evolved piece by piece through selective advantage. It may have started as an intact system, or evolved by loss or modification, not creation of new functional parts.

You’ve said the flagellum isn't irreducibly complex because parts of it exist in other systems. But showing that components exist elsewhere isn’t the same as explaining how those parts assembled step-by-step into a fully functional rotary motor, with each step being beneficial and naturally selected. Can you show the actual evolutionary pathway with functional intermediates at each stage? That’s what’s needed, not just a list of parts, but a mechanism. Otherwise, the challenge of irreducible complexity still stands.

That’s a common deflection. Yes, evolution technically deals with changes in life, not its origin. But once you bring in systems like the bacterial flagellum or DNA replication, you're dealing with the origin of complex biological machinery, which evolution is assumed to account for. Saying “evolution doesn’t explain the origin” only strengthens the point: if it can’t account for the machinery life depends on, then it’s incomplete, and the question of origins remains unanswered.

That’s an assumption, not demonstrated proof. The claim is that mutations created new, fully functional components, not just slightly altered versions of existing ones. But those mutations had to produce coordinated, interdependent parts that only work together, which is the very definition of irreducible complexity. Saying “they evolved” isn’t enough; it needs to be shown that step-by-step changes, each offering a survival advantage, led to that system without relying on pre-existing, functional sequences doing similar work. That’s still unproven.

A couple of points: random mutation is not the same as random variation. Random variation is expressed in the phenotype. random mutation is something that happens to genetic material. The short answer (since you are not going to respond, the short answer is enough) is that natural selection decreases the information content of the gene pool and random mutation replenishes it.