Destroying Evolution in less than 5 minutes

[NxNW]

If you believe in common descent

Who said anything about belief?

then yes, by your own framework, mammals (including monkeys) ultimately trace their ancestry back to fish-like creatures. That’s not "nonsense," that’s standard evolutionary teaching.

That's different than your description of "macroevolution, like a fish eventually becoming a monkey".

Try looking up lobe-finned fish, tiktaalik, or the vertebrate phylogenetic tree. If you're embarrassed by what your own theory implies, maybe it's time to re-examine it.

I've been talking about the Tiktaalik for awhile now. Nobody is claiming that they turn into monkeys.

If the case were truly airtight, there wouldn’t still be so many disagreements about the case itself. The fact that even evolutionists argue over which fossils count as transitional, how to interpret them, and what the tree of life even looks like just proves my point, it’s far from settled. "The details" are actually the foundation.

None of what you described above is "the foundation."

 

[NxNW]

On fine-tuning: yes, the full picture is complex and ongoing research continues. But that doesn’t erase the fact that many key constants fall within narrow ranges essential for life as we know it.

I just caught this; thus the separate reply. So it's "many constants", but not all? Can you comment on which ones are constant, and which ones are variable, and which ones fall outside the narrow range essential for life as we know it?

 

[1Tonne]

You were unnecessarily rude.



Yes, 3 million years is a short geological time, but when the topic is about the morphology of animals, biological beings, the time frame is still a great magnitude of time. We don't know how long the Cambrian lifeforms lived for; what their life expectancy was, how many years it took for a generation to become a generation, how many offspring they'd produce during reproduction. If they were short lived species that produced hundreds or even just dozens of young at a time, then 3,000,000 years isn't a barrier in the slightest for evolution to occur, especially if we do expand the time frame to the more commonly accepted timeframes of either 13,000,000 or 25,000,000 years. And yes, there are not a lot of precursor fossils to the Cambrian period (outside of those found in Avalon in Newfoundland that show such an explosion has happened before in Earth's history) but they do exist, otherwise we wouldn't be able to say what they evolved from.

Evolution is not linear and static process: it's dynamic, as the fossil record shows us, and other events outside of the Cambrian Explosion like the Great Dying/Permian-Triassic extinction event or the Late Devonian mass extinction event, or even the Cretaceous-Paleogene extinction event, show that in the right circumstances, evolution can and will occur very quickly.

You say that 3 million years isn't enough for the theory of evolution. I find your claims entirely lacking and without any merit.

You say my claims lack merit, but you're brushing past legitimate questions. I acknowledged your point that 3 million years is biologically significant. Still, it doesn't resolve the central issue: the sudden appearance of dozens of complex animal body plans (phyla) without a robust trail of transitional fossils, despite fossilisation bias being factored in. Even evolutionary biologists see this as a major puzzle, hence why they’ve proposed punctuated equilibrium, evo-devo, and other mechanisms to address it. If gradualism worked smoothly, why the need for these alternatives?
You also mention the Avalon fossils, but even those don’t show clear, step-by-step precursors to Cambrian phyla. There’s still a massive jump in complexity. And yes, extinctions may open niches, but rapid morphological innovation still requires mechanisms that generate new functional information, not just environmental opportunity.
And here's a practical example: Scientists have studied fruit flies (Drosophila) for decades across tens of thousands of generations under intense mutation-inducing conditions. What did they observe? Minor variations, yes. But no new organs, body plans, or species. As zoologist Pierre-Paul Grasse put it: “The fruit fly seems to have hit a ceiling.” That’s after what should’ve been ample opportunity for macroevolution to appear, yet it didn’t. This challenges the assumption that small changes automatically build into large ones given enough time.
So, no, my claims aren’t baseless. They reflect real gaps, real questions, and real caution about overstatements often made in defence of evolution.

"The origin of specified, functional systems with interdependent parts" is making a claim about something different than "functional biological information is about specific sequences that produce meaningful outcomes, like building proteins", which was the subject of your earlier claim. Do you think that random variation and selection can produce functional proteins or not?

You wrote, "Even under these very favourable conditions, we only get 500,000 beneficial mutations fixed across human evolution, but we supposedly need 30 million meaningful genetic changes. And in reality, beneficial mutations are rare and slow to fix in populations. The real numbers make the problem worse, not better." You were summarizing Harris's argument. Do you think Harris's argument was a false premise or not?

Yes, I believe Harris’s argument highlights a valid issue, the mismatch between the time available and the number of meaningful changes needed. As for proteins: yes, I believe random variation and selection can produce some functional proteins. But the origin of integrated, complex systems, where multiple parts must work together, requires far more than isolated protein function. That’s the distinction I’m making.

If you think the inferences drawn by evolutionary biologists are wrong, are based on an inaccurate framework, and are fundamentally flawed, you should start your own research program and show how your way of doing things and the inferences you make are better.

I don’t need to start my own research program, there are already several active ones challenging evolutionary assumptions. Groups like Answers in Genesis, Institute for Creation Research, and Discovery Institute are doing exactly that: offering alternative frameworks, publishing critiques, and conducting research from different starting assumptions.

No, the fact that you thought the argument put forth in the OP "destroys evolution in 5 minutes" even though it was based on fundamental errors any undergrad would quickly spot is a good indication of your level of understanding of the science.

That’s a bold claim, especially when no one here has actually refuted the core of Haldane’s dilemma, only waved it away. The argument highlights real mathematical constraints on how fast beneficial mutations can realistically spread, and despite decades of evolutionary research, it hasn’t been decisively answered. Mocking the OP doesn’t erase that. If undergrads can “spot the errors,” maybe you can point to a peer-reviewed paper that definitively resolves Haldane’s dilemma rather than just dismissing it.

I'm still curious how ID Creationists measure their special versions of "Information".

Earlier @1Tonne agreed it was functional genetic sequences, which has been seen to evolve countless times. So now he's talking about the origin of the very first genetic sequences.

Yes, I did refer to functional biological information as sequences that produce meaningful outcomes (like proteins), but you're oversimplifying my position. The point was that functional information isn't just any genetic sequence, it’s about specified, interdependent systems that work only when arranged correctly, not random noise that selection happens to stumble upon.
Saying “functional sequences have been seen to evolve countless times” ignores the deeper question: how do such sequences originate in the first place, and what are the probabilistic limits involved? That’s the heart of the information argument, not just that sequences exist, but how they arise in the first place, especially in the absence of prior function.
The distinction I made is between Shannon information (mere sequences) and functional or specified information (sequences that do something biologically useful), and that context still stands.

He's just the relief pitcher. I don't think 1tonne will be back in this particular game.

How could I not come back? I love you guys. This is fun.

The question is, what part does God play in the evolution process? Is there some moment where we could have observed a biological miracle taking place? Or were there multiple moments? Note that I'm not talking about Adam & Eve.

From a creationist perspective, evolution as a naturalistic, undirected process isn’t how God created life. Rather than tweaking things over millions of years, Scripture points to intentional acts of creation. So, it’s not about spotting a “miracle” in the process, it’s about recognising that the whole process was a miracle, by design, not chance.

If it was clear, we wouldn't be arguing about it. Exactly when did God supposedly act during the evolution process? The evidence isn't consistent with Adam & Eve being created out of the blue. Was it just one miracle, or was there a miracle for every hominid species? Did the miracle take place in just one individual per species, or in an entire population? What testable hypotheses can you give us?

I don’t accept the evolutionary framework, so I don’t try to fit God into it. Scripture presents creation as a purposeful act, not a series of undirected mutations. The burden isn’t on me to find where God fits into an evolutionary process that I believe didn’t happen.

I notice you left out the speed of light and the weak nuclear force, which (as I pointed out) Creationists claim are variable. What is your response to the Creationist claim that they vary?

They’ve shifted the conversation to fringe speculation to counter real, evidence-based discussion:
Dose of Reality:
-Speed of light (c) and weak nuclear force are not observed to vary under normal conditions. They’re consistent constants in physics. Claims otherwise come from speculative models and are not accepted by mainstream science mragheb.com+11en.wikipedia.org+11arxiv.org+11.
-As for radioactive decay rates, the overwhelming data supports their constancy. Yes, small variations have been observed in rare isotopes under extreme conditions (like ionized beryllium or solar events)—but these changes are tiny (typically <1–2%) and don't undermine the reliability of radiometric dating for long-term geological timescales dl0.creation.com+2creation.com+2.

So, pointing to these fringe claims as proof that fine-tuning is baseless is like using alchemy to disprove modern chemistry. It doesn’t invalidate the main point: actual, observed constants consistently fall within narrow ranges critical for life, and that remains the foundation of the fine-tuning observation.
If someone insists that Josh creationists disagree, they haven’t engaged with the actual scientific literature on tuning and constants themselves.

Don't forget the recent discovery of fossils in the Grand Canyon, which push may back the beginning of the Cambrian. So it's not as sudden as some claim.

That discovery doesn’t erase the Cambrian explosion, it still represents the relatively sudden appearance of nearly all major animal body plans in a narrow window of geological time. Even if the start date shifts slightly, the core issue remains: where are the gradual precursors? The problem isn’t the exact date, it’s the pattern.

That's a thing I hate about these arguments, when someone espousing a very niche and not entirely evidence argument says "It's clearly this or that! Why are we having this argument?"

If it was clear, then we wouldn't be having the argument in the first place! This thread is a whole and clear example of that.

It's absolutely clear that God made everything and that evolution is a sham. The only reason we argue is that simple people fall for simple theories. (The bible has another name other than simple for these people, but if I said it on here, people would report me.)

I'm trying to figure out how creationists claim that the universal constants are both fine-tuned and variable. Which is it?

You're confusing different claims. Fine-tuning refers to the constants as they are now, allowing life to exist. Some creationists explore whether constants may have varied in the past within limits, but that doesn’t undermine fine-tuning; it highlights how even small changes could make life impossible. The point stands, our universe is exquisitely balanced.

I just caught this; thus the separate reply. So it's "many constants", but not all? Can you comment on which ones are constant, and which ones are variable, and which ones fall outside the narrow range essential for life as we know it?

The focus is on constants that, if changed even slightly, like the gravitational constant, cosmological constant, or fine-structure constant, would make life impossible. Whether some others are variable or not doesn’t undo the observed fine-tuning of those that are critical for life. The core point remains: life-permitting values exist within extremely narrow ranges.

 

[1Tonne]

That was a long post

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You say my claims lack merit, but you're brushing past legitimate questions. I acknowledged your point that 3 million years is biologically significant. Still, it doesn't resolve the central issue: the sudden appearance of dozens of complex animal body plans (phyla) without a robust trail of transitional fossils, despite fossilisation bias being factored in. Even evolutionary biologists see this as a major puzzle, hence why they’ve proposed punctuated equilibrium, evo-devo, and other mechanisms to address it. If gradualism worked smoothly, why the need for these alternatives?
You also mention the Avalon fossils, but even those don’t show clear, step-by-step precursors to Cambrian phyla. There’s still a massive jump in complexity. And yes, extinctions may open niches, but rapid morphological innovation still requires mechanisms that generate new functional information, not just environmental opportunity.
And here's a practical example: Scientists have studied fruit flies (Drosophila) for decades across tens of thousands of generations under intense mutation-inducing conditions. What did they observe? Minor variations, yes. But no new organs, body plans, or species. As zoologist Pierre-Paul Grasse put it: “The fruit fly seems to have hit a ceiling.” That’s after what should’ve been ample opportunity for macroevolution to appear, yet it didn’t. This challenges the assumption that small changes automatically build into large ones given enough time.
So, no, my claims aren’t baseless. They reflect real gaps, real questions, and real caution about overstatements often made in defence of evolution.

But we know why there's few precursor/transitional fossils; because the species that came before the Cambrian were, for the largest part, soft bodied animals and soft bodied animals do not fossilize well or easily. It is only when hard bodied animals, which coincidentally came to the scene on Earth during the Cambrian period, that fossilization became easier (for lack of a better term) because hard bodied/shelled animals have harder components which can be left behind when they die and become fossils. The Avalon fossils show that before the Cambrian period, there were mainly soft-bodied animals around which were the precursor to hard-bodies animals.

The use of fruit flies as a rebuttal is, in all honesty, worthless because they fill an environmental niche that they fill so well that they only need the tiniest of variations to evolve to continue surviving. Like sharks and crocodiles, their bodies do not need to undergo majorly varied changes in morphology since their niche is so widespread and utilitarian that they don't need to evolve past what they are.

So, yes, your claims are baseless.

It's absolutely clear that God made everything and that evolution is a sham. The only reason we argue is that simple people fall for simple theories. (The bible has another name other than simple for these people, but if I said it on here, people would report me.)

And that comment is just pig-ignorance and rudeness from you. There is nothing simple about evolution; it's complicated, messy and frankly gives me a headache sometimes, and we sure as heck know exactly what you mean when you call it a 'simple theory' for 'simple people'.

 

[sjastro]

Thanks for the overview. Still, I think these models don’t fully address the origin of complex, specified information or the deeper philosophical questions about purpose and design.

Is this supposed to be specific criticism of the use of models in evolution or science in general?
If it is the former then why should evolution as a science be treated any differently, because you see it as a threat to your faith?
If it is the latter the use the model based reality has shaped the world you live in and changes nothing by asking these deeper philosophical questions which by their nature are unfalsifiable in science.

Model Type	Core Theory/Model	Resulting Technologies	Real-World Applications
Quantum Mechanics	Schrödinger Equation, Band Theory	Transistors, Semiconductors, Lasers	Computers, smartphones, MRI machines, fiber-optic internet
Computation Theory	Turing Machine, Finite Automata	Digital Computers, Algorithms, Cryptography	Cloud computing, blockchain, operating systems (Windows, Linux)
Neural Networks	Backpropagation, Deep Learning	AI Chatbots, Image Recognition, Autonomous Systems	ChatGPT, facial ID, self-driving cars, recommendation engines
Fluid Dynamics	Navier–Stokes Equations	Jet Engines, Wind Turbines, CFD Software	Aircraft, renewable energy, Formula 1 design, HVAC systems
Relativity	Special & General Relativity	GPS Time Correction, Particle Accelerators	Navigation (Google Maps), nuclear medicine, CERN research
Economic Theory	Game Theory, Supply–Demand Models	Algorithmic Trading, Predictive Market Analytics	Stock trading bots, Uber surge pricing, AI supply chains

There is an underlying philosophy to the use of modelling in science it’s called model dependant realism, whether it is mainstream philosophy I don’t know, perhaps @2PhiloVoid can shed light on the subject.

 

[1Tonne]

But we know why there's few precursor/transitional fossils; because the species that came before the Cambrian were, for the largest part, soft bodied animals and soft bodied animals do not fossilize well or easily. It is only when hard bodied animals, which coincidentally came to the scene on Earth during the Cambrian period, that fossilization became easier (for lack of a better term) because hard bodied/shelled animals have harder components which can be left behind when they die and become fossils. The Avalon fossils show that before the Cambrian period, there were mainly soft-bodied animals around which were the precursor to hard-bodies animals.

The use of fruit flies as a rebuttal is, in all honesty, worthless because they fill an environmental niche that they fill so well that they only need the tiniest of variations to evolve to continue surviving. Like sharks and crocodiles, their bodies do not need to undergo majorly varied changes in morphology since their niche is so widespread and utilitarian that they don't need to evolve past what they are.

So, yes, your claims are baseless.

Soft-bodied precursors are often cited, but even with that limitation, we still find detailed fossils from earlier eras, yet not the transitional forms leading to the sudden explosion of complex body plans. The abrupt appearance of diverse phyla remains a major evolutionary puzzle, acknowledged by leading researchers.
As for fruit flies, the point isn’t niche adaptation, it’s that after tens of thousands of generations under artificial selection and induced mutation, no novel body plans or new functional systems emerged. That suggests limits to the creative power of mutation and selection, which is central to the debate. This isn’t baseless, it’s an open scientific question.

Is this supposed to be specific criticism of the use of models in evolution or science in general?
If it is the former then why should evolution as a science be treated any differently, because you see it as a threat to your faith?
If it is the latter the use the model based reality has shaped the world you live in and changes nothing by asking these deeper philosophical questions which by their nature are unfalsifiable in science.

Model Type	Core Theory/Model	Resulting Technologies	Real-World Applications
Quantum Mechanics	Schrödinger Equation, Band Theory	Transistors, Semiconductors, Lasers	Computers, smartphones, MRI machines, fiber-optic internet
Computation Theory	Turing Machine, Finite Automata	Digital Computers, Algorithms, Cryptography	Cloud computing, blockchain, operating systems (Windows, Linux)
Neural Networks	Backpropagation, Deep Learning	AI Chatbots, Image Recognition, Autonomous Systems	ChatGPT, facial ID, self-driving cars, recommendation engines
Fluid Dynamics	Navier–Stokes Equations	Jet Engines, Wind Turbines, CFD Software	Aircraft, renewable energy, Formula 1 design, HVAC systems
Relativity	Special & General Relativity	GPS Time Correction, Particle Accelerators	Navigation (Google Maps), nuclear medicine, CERN research
Economic Theory	Game Theory, Supply–Demand Models	Algorithmic Trading, Predictive Market Analytics	Stock trading bots, Uber surge pricing, AI supply chains

There is an underlying philosophy to the use of modelling in science it’s called model dependant realism, whether it is mainstream philosophy I don’t know, perhaps @2PhiloVoid can shed light on the subject.

I’m not dismissing the usefulness of models in science; clearly, they’ve led to remarkable advancements. My point is that when it comes to evolution, models that explain variation within types don’t automatically account for the origin of new, complex, specified systems or biological information. That’s not a matter of fearing a threat to faith, it’s a legitimate question about the limits of the models themselves, especially when they’re extended beyond observable testability.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Soft-bodied precursors are often cited, but even with that limitation, we still find detailed fossils from earlier eras, yet not the transitional forms leading to the sudden explosion of complex body plans. The abrupt appearance of diverse phyla remains a major evolutionary puzzle, acknowledged by leading researchers.

And yet it's not a problem for the theory of evolution.

As for fruit flies, the point isn’t niche adaptation, it’s that after tens of thousands of generations under artificial selection and induced mutation, no novel body plans or new functional systems emerged. That suggests limits to the creative power of mutation and selection, which is central to the debate. This isn’t baseless, it’s an open scientific question.

And for Dr Lenski using E.coli to evolve to eat citrate, and bear in mind that in ideal conditions E.coli can reproduce every 20 minutes versus the fruit flies 11 days, it took him until 2008 before an E.coli population could eat citrates after he started the experiment in 1988. 20 years. For the same thing in fruit flies, it would take nearly 391 years for a new novel trait to evolve. So this clearly shows that there isn't a limit to evolution when there's a need and a pressure to evolve.

But guess what? Flies don't need to evolve a new novel trait to live in the environment they live in because they're no pressure on them to do. It doesn't mean that they can't do it, they just don't have the need to do so.

So, while the actual scientific question isn't baseless, your claims that it somehow disproves evolutionary theory are. Because that is what this whole thread is about: the claim that evolutionary theory can be debunked so easily when the preponderance of evolution shows that is not the case at all.

 

[BCP1928]

I

That was a long post

t would help quite a bit if you would address individual posters in individual posts rather than a single long post. Please

 

[BCP1928]

As for fruit flies, the point isn’t niche adaptation, it’s that after tens of thousands of generations under artificial selection and induced mutation, no novel body plans or new functional systems emerged. .

No new body plans emerged because, for fruit flies the body plan was already fixed. In order for a trait to evolve it must exhibit reproductive variation. Without that, the trait is fixed and will not evolve further..

 

[BCP1928]

Yes, I did refer to functional biological information as sequences that produce meaningful outcomes (like proteins), but you're oversimplifying my position. The point was that functional information isn't just any genetic sequence, it’s about specified, interdependent systems that work only when arranged correctly, not random noise that selection happens to stumble upon.
Saying “functional sequences have been seen to evolve countless times” ignores the deeper question: how do such sequences originate in the first place, and what are the probabilistic limits involved? That’s the heart of the information argument, not just that sequences exist, but how they arise in the first place, especially in the absence of prior function.

That sounds rather like Behe's "irreducible complexity" which turned out to be a dud.

The distinction I made is between Shannon information (mere sequences) and functional or specified information (sequences that do something biologically useful), and that context still stands.

How could I not come back? I love you guys. This is fun.

I was hoping that when you did come back you would have a new game, but given the sources you list, I guess not. Still, it would be helpful if you would clear up a few things. In particular, you speak often of "new complex specified information." I have a vague idea of what you might mean by that, because we all are thoroughly familiar with the sources you list, but it would help if you explain how you see it in detail.

 

[1Tonne]

And for Dr Lenski using E.coli to evolve to eat citrate, and bear in mind that in ideal conditions E.coli can reproduce every 20 minutes versus the fruit flies 11 days, it took him until 2008 before an E.coli population could eat citrates after he started the experiment in 1988. 20 years. For the same thing in fruit flies, it would take nearly 391 years for a new novel trait to evolve. So this clearly shows that there isn't a limit to evolution when there's a need and a pressure to evolve.

But guess what? Flies don't need to evolve a new novel trait to live in the environment they live in because they're no pressure on them to do. It doesn't mean that they can't do it, they just don't have the need to do so.

So, while the actual scientific question isn't baseless, your claims that it somehow disproves evolutionary theory are. Because that is what this whole thread is about: the claim that evolutionary theory can be debunked so easily when the preponderance of evolution shows that is not the case at all.

Thanks for the clarification. My point is that there are observable limits to what mutation and selection have produced in experimental settings, even under intense conditions. The Lenski experiment is interesting, but the citrate-eating E. coli didn't evolve a new body plan or organ, it repurposed existing mechanisms, which some argue is microevolution, not the kind of large-scale innovation we see in the Cambrian explosion.
So yes, evolution within types happens. But the question remains: can those same processes generate entirely new, integrated biological systems over time? That's the heart of the debate, not whether evolution happens, but whether the mechanisms we observe are sufficient to account for all the complexity we see in life.

No new body plans emerged because, for fruit flies the body plan was already fixed. In order for a trait to evolve it must exhibit reproductive variation. Without that, the trait is fixed and will not evolve further..

That’s exactly the point. If core traits like body plans are so constrained that they don’t exhibit the variation necessary for change, then it raises a legitimate question about how those complex traits supposedly evolved in the first place. If the raw material for major transitions isn’t present, even under extreme conditions, it suggests real limits to what mutation and selection can achieve.

That sounds rather like Behe's "irreducible complexity" which turned out to be a dud.

Behe’s concept sparked debate, but the core issue remains: how do interdependent, functional systems arise when intermediate steps offer no advantage? Dismissing the question by labelling it a "dud" doesn’t answer it. The origin of specified, functional information is still a valid and open question in biology.

I was hoping that when you did come back you would have a new game, but given the sources you list, I guess not. Still, it would be helpful if you would clear up a few things. In particular, you speak often of "new complex specified information." I have a vague idea of what you might mean by that, because we all are thoroughly familiar with the sources you list, but it would help if you explain how you see it in detail.

By “new complex specified information,” I mean a novel arrangement of genetic material that is both complex (not easily compressible or reducible) and specified (achieves a particular biological function). It’s not just random sequences, but those that work in coordinated systems, like molecular machines or regulatory networks, that only function if many parts are correctly arranged. The question isn’t whether such systems exist, but how they originate under unguided processes.

 

[sjastro]

I’m not dismissing the usefulness of models in science; clearly, they’ve led to remarkable advancements. My point is that when it comes to evolution, models that explain variation within types don’t automatically account for the origin of new, complex, specified systems or biological information. That’s not a matter of fearing a threat to faith, it’s a legitimate question about the limits of the models themselves, especially when they’re extended beyond observable testability.

I suggest you re-examine the table in post 250 because the various models do explain “new, complex, specified systems or biological information”.
You either refuse to accept the models because they do in fact represent a perceived threat to your faith or you not understand the contents which is explained in greater detail below.

Population Genetics Models – New mutations, recombination, and gene flow introduce genetic variants; selection and drift filter these, allowing beneficial alleles to accumulate and combine into more complex traits over generations.
Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution – Neutral mutations steadily add raw genetic variation; some variants later gain function through environmental change or selection, serving as building blocks for new systems.
Adaptive Landscape Models – Populations can shift between fitness peaks via intermediate mutations; this stepwise adaptation can assemble entirely new functions and integrated systems from existing genetic components.
Coalescent Theory – By tracing the genealogies of genes, it reveals when and where novel alleles arose and spread, showing how advantageous innovations became fixed and integrated into complex traits.
Sexual Selection Models – Preference-driven evolution can produce elaborate morphological and behavioral traits, which over time can evolve into highly complex display systems, mating behaviors, and even sensory adaptations.
Host–Parasite Coevolution Models (Red Queen Hypothesis) – Continuous reciprocal adaptation pressures drive the evolution of sophisticated immune responses, pathogen countermeasures, and complex molecular recognition systems.

Since you haven’t been able to explain how introducing God into evolution makes it a more robust “theory”, the alternative is the false dichotomy fallacy of invoking God as a default position because of your misperceptions of evolution being unable to explain “new, complex, specified systems or biological information”.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I don’t need to start my own research program, there are already several active ones challenging evolutionary assumptions. Groups like Answers in Genesis, Institute for Creation Research, and Discovery Institute are doing exactly that: offering alternative frameworks, publishing critiques, and conducting research from different starting assumptions.

They aren't doing research. AiG and ICR don't do "research" and DI only pretends to. (In 20+ years they have published almost nothing in their own in house journal that they claim is science, but even the few published things are rather iffy.) Their primary work is apologetics, which is not science or even respectable.

 

[BCP1928]

Thanks for the clarification. My point is that there are observable limits to what mutation and selection have produced in experimental settings, even under intense conditions. The Lenski experiment is interesting, but the citrate-eating E. coli didn't evolve a new body plan or organ, it repurposed existing mechanisms, which some argue is microevolution, not the kind of large-scale innovation we see in the Cambrian explosion.
So yes, evolution within types happens. But the question remains: can those same processes generate entirely new, integrated biological systems over time? That's the heart of the debate, not whether evolution happens, but whether the mechanisms we observe are sufficient to account for all the complexity we see in life.

Yes, that is the question which we are satisfied that the theory of evolution answers. I still don't know what you mean by "entirely new."

That’s exactly the point. If core traits like body plans are so constrained that they don’t exhibit the variation necessary for change, then it raises a legitimate question about how those complex traits supposedly evolved in the first place.

Because once upon a time body plans were in variation. Way back before the Cambrian when critters were just blobby kinds of things putting out various numbers of limb-like structures. But you should ask an evolutionary biologists. My background is in math and I am convinced of the theory of evolution because I am aware that all the things which mystefyyou can be modeled mathematicallu

If the raw material for major transitions isn’t present, even under extreme conditions, it suggests real limits to what mutation and selection can achieve.

Behe’s concept sparked debate, but the core issue remains: how do interdependent, functional systems arise when intermediate steps offer no advantage?

They don't.

Dismissing the question by labelling it a "dud" doesn’t answer it.

Irreducible complexity is a dud because Behe could never convincingly demonstrate its existence in biological structures

The origin of specified, functional information is still a valid and open question in biology.

Assuming for purposes of argument that the concept has any relevance at all to molecular genetics, it is not an open question except for creationists.

By “new complex specified information,” I mean a novel arrangement of genetic material that is both complex (not easily compressible or reducible) and specified (achieves a particular biological function). It’s not just random sequences, but those that work in coordinated systems, like molecular machines or regulatory networks, that only function if many parts are correctly arranged. The question isn’t whether such systems exist, but how they originate under unguided processes.

The short answer is, if both (or several) related traits exhibit reproductive variation and are subject to selection, the selective environment not only includes the environment external to the creature but the other related developing traits as well.

 

[1Tonne]

I suggest you re-examine the table in post 250 because the various models do explain “new, complex, specified systems or biological information”.
You either refuse to accept the models because they do in fact represent a perceived threat to your faith or you not understand the contents which is explained in greater detail below.

Population Genetics Models – New mutations, recombination, and gene flow introduce genetic variants; selection and drift filter these, allowing beneficial alleles to accumulate and combine into more complex traits over generations.
Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution – Neutral mutations steadily add raw genetic variation; some variants later gain function through environmental change or selection, serving as building blocks for new systems.
Adaptive Landscape Models – Populations can shift between fitness peaks via intermediate mutations; this stepwise adaptation can assemble entirely new functions and integrated systems from existing genetic components.
Coalescent Theory – By tracing the genealogies of genes, it reveals when and where novel alleles arose and spread, showing how advantageous innovations became fixed and integrated into complex traits.
Sexual Selection Models – Preference-driven evolution can produce elaborate morphological and behavioral traits, which over time can evolve into highly complex display systems, mating behaviors, and even sensory adaptations.
Host–Parasite Coevolution Models (Red Queen Hypothesis) – Continuous reciprocal adaptation pressures drive the evolution of sophisticated immune responses, pathogen countermeasures, and complex molecular recognition systems.

Since you haven’t been able to explain how introducing God into evolution makes it a more robust “theory”, the alternative is the false dichotomy fallacy of invoking God as a default position because of your misperceptions of evolution being unable to explain “new, complex, specified systems or biological information”.

I’m not denying the model's explanatory power within certain boundaries. My point is that they operate on existing biological systems and variation, they presuppose what needs explaining: the origin of functionally integrated, information-rich systems in the first place. Showing how traits shift or fix over time isn’t the same as explaining how those traits, or the systems enabling them, arose to begin with.

Irreducible complexity is a dud because Behe could never convincingly demonstrate its existence in biological structures

Behe’s concept of irreducible complexity may be debated, but calling it a “dud” overlooks the fact that it raised valid questions about the limits of stepwise evolution. The debate over structures like the bacterial flagellum or blood clotting cascade hasn’t been settled conclusively; it’s still largely a matter of interpretive framework. There are evolutionary explanations that rely heavily on assumed pathways, while intelligent design proponents highlight the improbability of unguided assembly. The issue isn’t that the structures don’t exist, but whether their complexity is better explained by chance and selection or design.

Assuming for purposes of argument that the concept has any relevance at all to molecular genetics, it is not an open question except for creationists.

That response actually illustrates the very issue I raised. Declaring the question settled except for creationists suggests the answer is framed more by worldview than by conclusive science. The origin of specified, functional information, where sequences not only exist but carry meaningful, functional roles in biological systems, is a legitimate question, regardless of who asks it. Dismissing it because of who’s raising the challenge doesn’t resolve the issue; it just avoids it. (Thanks for proving my point)

The short answer is, if both (or several) related traits exhibit reproductive variation and are subject to selection, the selective environment not only includes the environment external to the creature but the other related developing traits as well.

That explains how traits might co-adapt once they already exist and are subject to variation. But my point is about the origin of the system as a whole, how multiple interdependent parts, which have no function apart from the whole, could arise through unguided processes. Selection only acts on what already exists and confers some advantage. So how do you get a coordinated system where the parts are non-functional in isolation, but only work when fully integrated? That’s the central challenge behind the question of new complex specified information.

 

[NxNW]

From a creationist perspective, evolution as a naturalistic, undirected process isn’t how God created life. Rather than tweaking things over millions of years, Scripture points to intentional acts of creation. So, it’s not about spotting a “miracle” in the process, it’s about recognising that the whole process was a miracle, by design, not chance.

But are you claiming that all forms of life appeared at once?

I don’t accept the evolutionary framework, so I don’t try to fit God into it. Scripture presents creation as a purposeful act, not a series of undirected mutations. The burden isn’t on me to find where God fits into an evolutionary process that I believe didn’t happen.

My question is, how do you reconcile the record showing different species appearing and developing over millions of years, with humans only arriving a few million years ago? It's one thing to nitpick evolution, but the biblical account isn't even remotely close to supporting what we see.

They’ve shifted the conversation to fringe speculation to counter real, evidence-based discussion:
Dose of Reality:
-Speed of light (c) and weak nuclear force are not observed to vary under normal conditions. They’re consistent constants in physics. Claims otherwise come from speculative models and are not accepted by mainstream science

WHOA, pardner. Suddenly you're quoting mainstream science to support your claim that science doesn't work? I won't accept that. There are claims on this very site that these two forces are not constant (no, I'm not going to spend an hour digging up old threads). It's a constant, widespread claim by creationists.

So, pointing to these fringe claims as proof that fine-tuning is baseless is like using alchemy to disprove modern chemistry.

I submit that they are not fringe claims, and again, won't accept your trying to use scientific findings to try to prove science doesn't work.

If someone insists that Josh creationists disagree, they haven’t engaged with the actual scientific literature on tuning and constants themselves.

The creationist 'research' sites you referred to earlier don't accept actual scientific literature, either.

It's absolutely clear that God made everything and that evolution is a sham.

If it was clear, the biblical record would match the fossil record.

The only reason we argue is that simple people fall for simple theories.

That 'simple theory' was put together over a 20-year period and has never been falsified. I went to a symposium a few years ago with a half dozen Nobel winners on the stage. They all considered Evolution the greatest scientific achievement of all time. The host remarked, "Einstein and Newton get great press, but Darwin did more."

(The bible has another name other than simple for these people, but if I said it on here, people would report me.)

How precious!

You're confusing different claims. Fine-tuning refers to the constants as they are now, allowing life to exist. Some creationists explore whether constants may have varied in the past within limits, but that doesn’t undermine fine-tuning;

Well, yes it does.

it highlights how even small changes could make life impossible.

Which contradicts your claim that "constants may have varied in the past".

The focus is on constants that, if changed even slightly, like the gravitational constant, cosmological constant, or fine-structure constant, would make life impossible. Whether some others are variable or not doesn’t undo the observed fine-tuning of those that are critical for life. The core point remains: life-permitting values exist within extremely narrow ranges.

The vast majority of the universe is hostile to life. Only a very narrow envelope on Earth can support it, which does not support the idea that the entire universe was created for humans.

 

[BCP1928]

I’m not denying the model's explanatory power within certain boundaries. My point is that they operate on existing biological systems and variation, they presuppose what needs explaining: the origin of functionally integrated, information-rich systems in the first place. Showing how traits shift or fix over time isn’t the same as explaining how those traits, or the systems enabling them, arose to begin with.

Step by step in a stochastic process. You seem to be looking for discontinuous processes which if you could find any would really cause trouble for evolution, but nobody has yet. That would be the kind of evidence some of us have been asking for .

Behe’s concept of irreducible complexity may be debated, but calling it a “dud” overlooks the fact that it raised valid questions about the limits of stepwise evolution. The debate over structures like the bacterial flagellum or blood clotting cascade hasn’t been settled conclusively; it’s still largely a matter of interpretive framework. There are evolutionary explanations that rely heavily on assumed pathways, while intelligent design proponents highlight the improbability of unguided assembly. The issue isn’t that the structures don’t exist, but whether their complexity is better explained by chance and selection or design.

Assumed pathways are logically sufficient. You are making an a priori argument. "Could not have" can be answered by "could have." The actual pathway would rarely be direct because of the continuous functionality requirement and would be only one of many possible pathways.

That response actually illustrates the very issue I raised. Declaring the question settled except for creationists suggests the answer is framed more by worldview than by conclusive science. The origin of specified, functional information, where sequences not only exist but carry meaningful, functional roles in biological systems, is a legitimate question, regardless of who asks it. Dismissing it because of who’s raising the challenge doesn’t resolve the issue; it just avoids it. (Thanks for proving my point)

I'm not dismissing it because of who made the challenge, but because it has been met by evolutionary biology. I was offering to introduce you to the mathematical models which makes this all plausible, but I see sjastro has beat me to it. You dismissed them but haven't yet shown us your math.

That explains how traits might co-adapt once they already exist and are subject to variation. But my point is about the origin of the system as a whole, how multiple interdependent parts, which have no function apart from the whole, could arise through unguided processes. Selection only acts on what already exists and confers some advantage. So how do you get a coordinated system where the parts are non-functional in isolation, but only work when fully integrated? That’s the central challenge behind the question of new complex specified information.

Because they are not in isolation. If they were in isolation before they became related parts of s system they would be independently functional.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I’m not denying the model's explanatory power within certain boundaries. My point is that they operate on existing biological systems and variation, they presuppose what needs explaining: the origin of functionally integrated, information-rich systems in the first place. Showing how traits shift or fix over time isn’t the same as explaining how those traits, or the systems enabling them, arose to begin with.

Two of the items you blithely zipped right past were about generating variation which you ignore and then move right back to your talking points.

 

[NxNW]

My point is that there are observable limits to what mutation and selection have produced in experimental settings, even under intense conditions. The Lenski experiment is interesting, but the citrate-eating E. coli didn't evolve a new body plan or organ, it repurposed existing mechanisms

Which refutes the notion of irreducible complexity, which claims that mechanisms can't change purposes.

So yes, evolution within types happens. But the question remains: can those same processes generate entirely new, integrated biological systems over time?

You mean like the Tiktaalik, which grew legs allowing it to walk on land?

That’s exactly the point. If core traits like body plans are so constrained that they don’t exhibit the variation necessary for change, then it raises a legitimate question about how those complex traits supposedly evolved in the first place.

I'd say that fish developing legs is a pretty big change to a body plan.

Behe’s concept sparked debate, but the core issue remains: how do interdependent, functional systems arise when intermediate steps offer no advantage?

Citrate-eating E. coli is a nice example of interdependent, functional systems changing purpose. Or the ice fish re-designing its blood to accommodate cold water. The blood had one purpose, and that purpose changed. The intermediate step of red blood - which was part of an interdependent, functional system, was necessary before these interdependent systems could change function into the clear 'blood' that exists now.