Evolution conflict and division

[The Barbarian]

This reminds me of the 'lumpers and splitters' in taxonomy. Lumpers see any variation as within the species and splitters will see variations as a new species.

Good observation. If there were no evolution, we would see nice, discrete species with no in-between cases. But as Darwin pointed out, evolution would result in all sorts of intermediate cases. It's one of the reasons scientists accept Darwin's theory.

 

[The Barbarian]

Evolution theory is less an empirical science than an historiographical one.

Let's take a look. Darwin's theory:
1. More are born than can survive long enough to reproduce.
2. Every individual is slightly different than its parents.
3. Some of these differences affect likelihood of surviving to reproduce.
4. The useful differences tend to be retained in the population and the harmful ones tend to be removed, and this sometimes
leads to speciation.

Which of these are not observed? Right. Again, I suspect confusion between evolution and common descent.

Apparently you do not understand the principle. Common descent is not the issue that violates this principle: only devolution is possible, a loss of functionality.

Would you like to learn about a directly observed evolution of a new function? Even most YECs no longer deny that fact.

 

[stevevw]

Good observation. If there were no evolution, we would see nice, discrete species with no in-between cases. But as Darwin pointed out, evolution would result in all sorts of intermediate cases. It's one of the reasons scientists accept Darwin's theory.

I agree with the observations but not necessarily with how they came about. For example we can say a creature may end up evolving by adaptations to an environment but it not necessarily being from beneficial random mutations and natural selection.

But rather may primarily be the result of non random changes and the creations selection rather than natural selection. As though the creature itself was the director of its own evolution. Either through its own natural knowledge of nature and how to change environments to suit them.

Or through developmental bias and plasticity where pre existing genetic info is able to produce coordination and adaptable changes that are designed to help them adapt.

 

[The Barbarian]

I agree with the observations but not necessarily with how they came about. For example we can say a creature may end up evolving by adaptations to an environment but it not necessarily being from beneficial random mutations and natural selection.

There may be some lucky hits, but adaptation usually requires a number of changes in genome. As observations of the evolution of complex adaptions has shown, both random mutation and natural selection are involved.

Evolution on a Petri Dish

Several years ago I began a project whose major goal was to understand the variety of ways by which an organism can evolve new physiologic functions. How does an organism which is already well adapted to its environment evolve a new function to cope with an altered...

link.springer.com

And evolution happens to populations, not individuals. So a mutation, like the EPAS1 allele that allows Tibetans to survive at high altitudes, must then undergo natural selection in order for it to become fixed or widely established in a population. Darwin's great discovery was the way such adaptations become established in a population.

 

[stevevw]

There may be some lucky hits, but adaptation usually requires a number of changes in genome. As observations of the evolution of complex adaptions has shown, both random mutation and natural selection are involved.

Evolution on a Petri Dish

Several years ago I began a project whose major goal was to understand the variety of ways by which an organism can evolve new physiologic functions. How does an organism which is already well adapted to its environment evolve a new function to cope with an altered...

link.springer.com

I don't think they are lucky hits. I think evolution involves a holistic approach where just about everything that happens is within a broader connected web of influences that all have some effect on how evolution happens.

So I am not sure if there really is completely random mutations in the sense that they were not the result of something unrelated to the creature and its environment. The environmental pressures effect bodies which effect or perhaps activate responses which can trigger genetic changes.

I think a bit like epigenetics but within the regulatory genes. Basically I think all the genetic info is already there. Or rather the developmental mechanisms are capable of crafting well suited responses to enviromental conditions.

A holistic approach assumes that creatures and enviroments are not disconnected and work together. As well as working with other creatures in a web of evolution. But all the ingredients for sustaining life and allowing life to adapt or live together is already in the mix waiting to be utilised.

And evolution happens to populations, not individuals.

Yes but I don't think this explains the unique and different ways creatures can exist within those populations. I think populations genetics is too broad an understanding. It misses a lot of the ways life is its own director of evolution.

So a mutation, like the EPAS1 allele that allows Tibetans to survive at high altitudes, must then undergo natural selection in order for it to become fixed or widely established in a population. Darwin's great discovery was the way such adaptations become established in a population.

Yes and in some ways NS is a cold hard stat. Whatever lives on, lives on.

But I don't think its as simple as NS being some independent force that is doing the selecting. Or even a force that is just left to fate or nature. Its not that simple.

I think at least part of why the mutation that allows someone to adapt to high altitudes or any change that allows someone to adapt to the new envionment is not just a random mistake that happened again and again and theres all these variations of breathability.

I think the environmental pressure such as the difficulty to breath is the trigger for the beginning of the genome to be throwing up solutions for the creature to adapt to said environment.

And I think its specific to that pressure and this acts on the genome in a way that its targeting adaptive changes to that enviroment. Its not luck but a holistic evolution between creatures and environments organically.

You also have the idea that creatures also change environments rather than being changed to the environment. Also genetic plasticity where phenotype can change without genetic change. Then later the genome adapts to that change.

But for the most part genetic changes are the product of existing genetic info. Or the ability of the machinery to generate new responses. Like there is a fair degree of flexibility for creatures of adapt. Or rather the ability of whatever it is that gives life its life. Its not a rigid mathmatical equation but an organic evolution of life.

But much of this is supported with good research.

The extended evolutionary synthesis: its structure, assumptions and predictions

The extended evolutionary synthesis: its structure, assumptions and predictions - PubMed

Scientific activities take place within the structured sets of ideas and assumptions that define a field and its practices. The conceptual framework of evolutionary biology emerged with the Modern Synthesis in the early twentieth century and has since expanded into a highly successful research...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

By the way I am not a biologist so this is just my take.

 

[The Barbarian]

So I am not sure if there really is are such as the difficulty to breath is the trigger for the beginning of the genome to be throwing up solutions for the creature to adapt to said environment.

That's the idea behind genetic algorithms, used by engineers to solve extremely complex problems. Toss up random changes, and keep whatever works better. The key is that there's more than one mutation in human populations for high-altitude adaptation. Some work better than others.

One of the things people miss (and I think this is what you're talking about) is that populations aren't just passive recepients of the changes of natural seletion. Populations also "push back" and modify environments in ways that affect natural selection.

But for the most part genetic changes are the product of existing genetic info. Or the ability of the machinery to generate new responses.

Right. For example, it would be great to have a second pair of arms. But the basic tetrapod configuration just won't allow the necessary useful transitional forms that would be required to evolve them.

You also have the idea that creatures also change environments rather than being changed to the environment. Also genetic plasticity where phenotype can change without genetic change. Then later the genome adapts to that change.

Yes. It's a complex interaction.

 

[Mercy Shown]

Evolution conflict and division.
Post by TGGIL

The Great Divide: Evolution vs. Creation
Let’s imagine the world split evenly in two. Half of humanity believes that the universe, Earth, the sun, and all life evolved naturally—through processes like the Big Bang and biological evolution. This group sees no need for a supreme, omnipresent creator. The other half believes in a spiritual, all-knowing God who created everything: space, time, matter, and life itself. These two worldviews stand in stark contrast, each with passionate followers and deep convictions.
The Question to Evolutionists
In a global debate arena, we pose a question to the evolution-believing half: Why would evolutionists ever invent the concept of God? If early humans evolved to reason and reflect, what sparked the idea of a supreme being—an invisible, omnipresent spirit called God? Was it fear, wonder, politics, or something else entirely?
⚔️ A Political Split in the Evolution Camp
Could the idea of God have emerged from a political or philosophical divide among early evolutionists themselves? Imagine two thinkers—brothers, perhaps—who shared a belief in evolution but disagreed on how society should be governed. Over time, their disagreements grew. Each brother attracted followers. Tensions escalated. Neither was evil, but both were convinced they were right.
The Birth of a New Belief
To end the conflict and create a clear separation, one brother conceived a radical idea: invent a spiritual creator. This wasn’t a scientific theory—it was a symbolic revolution. By introducing God, he rejected the shared evolutionary narrative and forged a new path. His followers embraced this divine origin story, not as fiction, but as truth. Books were written. Rituals formed. A new worldview took root.
The Power of Belief
This wasn’t just a clever tactic—it was transformative. The belief in God offered comfort, purpose, and unity. It created a distinct identity, separate from the scientific narrative. Over generations, this belief became deeply embedded in culture, law, and morality. Half the population now sees God not as an invention, but as the ultimate reality.
Who Created Whom?
So we return to the central question: Did evolution create God, or did God create evolution? Was the divine a product of human imagination, born from conflict and division? Or is God the eternal source of all things, including the very minds that question Him?

There is a real tension between evolutionary theory and biblical theology, and to pretend otherwise is simply burying one’s head in the sand. At the same time, attempts to force the two into seamless harmony often end up doing violence to both. When evolution is shoehorned into biblical theology, Scripture is stretched beyond its intent; when theology is bent to fit evolution, the scientific claims themselves are shielded from honest critique.

The Bible openly acknowledges that faith is required to believe its claims. What is less often admitted is that evolution, too, ultimately rests on faith—particularly when it comes to origins. While evolutionary biology can describe mechanisms of change and adaptation within life, it becomes increasingly speculative when asked to explain how life itself arose or how extraordinary biological complexity first emerged.

When one examines the intricate systems present even in the smallest organisms—systems that depend on precise coordination, information, and function—it strains credulity to believe they emerged solely through gradualism and natural selection. Such claims seem to run counter to entropy and the observable limits of spontaneous order. Adaptation explains variation within existing life; it does not adequately account for the origin of the information that makes life possible in the first place.

Even if biblical theology is entirely removed from the discussion, evolution as a comprehensive explanation for life’s origins remains, at best, a black box. It offers powerful descriptive tools, but when pressed on first causes, irreducible complexity, or the emergence of information, it often relies on assumptions rather than demonstrated mechanisms.

Acknowledging these limits is not an attack on science, nor is it a retreat into obscurantism. It is an invitation to intellectual honesty—one that allows both theology and science to speak within their proper domains without forcing either to answer questions they may not be equipped to resolve.

 

[The Barbarian]

There is a real tension between evolutionary theory and biblical theology

Between science and some people's interpretation of the Bible. But that's not a problem for Christians or scientists.

At the same time, attempts to force the two into seamless harmony often end up doing violence to both.

This is true. Science is about understanding the physical universe. The Bible is about God and man and our relationship. You might as well try to force plumbing into harmony with the Bible.

The Bible openly acknowledges that faith is required to believe its claims.

However...
Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Absent invincible ignorance, His eternal power and Godhead are manifest to us in this world.

When one examines the intricate systems present even in the smallest organisms—systems that depend on precise coordination, information, and function—it strains credulity to believe they emerged solely through gradualism and natural selection.

Not to anyone familiar with the evidence. Let's test your assumption; show us any step between bacteria and vertebrates that could not have evolved thereby. This is not a rhetorical challenge. I'd really like to see your answer. What do you have?

Such claims seem to run counter to entropy and the observable limits of spontaneous order.

I'm thinking you don't know what "entropy" is. But let's test that assumption, too. Show me any process required for evolution, that is prohibited by thermodynamics. Until the sun burns out, and the Earth's heat from radioactive decay ends, there won't be an entropy problem for life. Again, I'd really like to see your answer.

Even if biblical theology is entirely removed from the discussion, evolution as a comprehensive explanation for life’s origins remains, at best, a black box.

So you don't know what evolutionary theory is, either. Evolutionary theory makes no claims about the origin of life. Darwin himself just assumed that God created the first living things.

It offers powerful descriptive tools, but when pressed on first causes, irreducible complexity, or the emergence of information, it often relies on assumptions rather than demonstrated mechanisms.

You don't seem to understand what "irreducible complexity" is. It's been directly observed to evolve. Would you like me to show you an example? Let me know. And every new mutation in a population increases information in that population. Would you like me to show you the math? Let me know.

Acknowledging these limits is not an attack on science,

It seems that your assumptions are based on not knowing how any of this works. If you will, answer my questions, and tell me which of my comments you'd like to see supported with evidence. I'll be happy to respond.

 

[Mercy Shown]

Not to anyone familiar with the evidence. Let's test your assumption; show us any step between bacteria and vertebrates that could not have evolved thereby. This is not a rhetorical challenge. I'd really like to see your answer. What do you have?

For those familiar with the evidence, the tension between evolutionary theory and questions of origin doesn’t disappear by assertion alone. So let’s test an assumption often made: that every step from bacteria to vertebrates is fully explained by known evolutionary mechanisms. This is not a rhetorical challenge. It’s an honest request for clarity.

Evolutionary biology does an impressive job explaining adaptation and variation within life. Where the discussion becomes more difficult is at the major transitions—points where complexity, coordination, and information increase dramatically.

Take the move from bacteria to complex eukaryotic cells. Endosymbiosis is well supported and explains parts of the story, but it does not fully account for the origin of the nucleus, integrated regulation, or the coordination of multiple genomes into a single, functioning system. These are inferred, not observed.

The jump from single-celled life to true multicellularity raises deeper questions. Multicellular organisms require irreversible cell differentiation, developmental timing, programmed cell death, and organism-level coordination. These systems must emerge together to be viable. How selection favors such tightly integrated systems before organisms exist as selectable units remains largely speculative.

Then there is the Cambrian explosion, where most major animal body plans appear abruptly in the fossil record, with limited evidence of gradual precursors. Genetic similarities are real, but similarity alone does not explain the origin of novel anatomy, nervous systems, or developmental blueprints.

Finally, the transition to vertebrates introduces uniquely complex features—neural crest cells, centralized nervous systems, advanced sensory organs—that depend on precise developmental coordination. Partial or nonfunctional intermediates raise legitimate questions about selectability at each stage.

Running through all of this is a persistent issue: the origin of biological information. Mutation and natural selection explain modification, loss, and optimization of existing information. What remains far less clear is how entirely new regulatory networks, body plans, and integrated systems arise. The assumption that unguided processes must be sufficient is reasonable within methodological naturalism—but it is still an assumption.

None of this is an argument against science, nor a claim that evolution explains nothing. It is a call for intellectual honesty about where evidence is strong, where inference is doing the work, and where belief in explanatory sufficiency goes beyond direct observation.

In that sense, evolution—especially as a total account of life’s origins—does involve a kind of faith. Not religious faith, but confidence that processes we have never directly observed generating new biological information are nevertheless capable of doing so.

Recognizing these limits does not weaken inquiry. It strengthens it.

 

[Mercy Shown]

I'm thinking you don't know what "entropy" is. But let's test that assumption, too. Show me any process required for evolution, that is prohibited by thermodynamics. Until the sun burns out, and the Earth's heat from radioactive decay ends, there won't be an entropy problem for life. Again, I'd really like to see your answer.

The claim that “there is no entropy problem for evolution as long as the sun shines” is often presented as a conversation-ender. It sounds decisive, but it rests on a category mistake—confusing energy availability with the origin of organized, information-rich systems.

No one seriously argues that evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics in a simple, closed-system sense. Earth is not closed; energy flows in. That point is uncontested and, frankly, beside the deeper issue.

The real question is not whether energy is available, but whether undirected processes can convert that energy into the kind of ordered, functional, and information-bearing structures required by life.

Entropy Does Not Forbid Disorder—But It Explains Resistance to Organization

Thermodynamics allows local decreases in entropy when energy is supplied. But it does not guarantee that supplied energy will produce meaningful organization. In fact, raw energy more often produces chaos, not code.

A tornado passing through a junkyard adds energy to the system. It does not assemble a functioning aircraft.

The problem for evolutionary explanations of origins is not that order is impossible, but that specific order is extraordinarily improbable without guiding constraints.

 

[Mercy Shown]

So you don't know what evolutionary theory is, either. Evolutionary theory makes no claims about the origin of life. Darwin himself just assumed that God created the first living things.

It is often claimed that evolutionary theory “makes no claims about the origin of life” and that “Darwin assumed God created the first living things.” While this statement is sometimes presented as a corrective, it is at best incomplete and at worst historically misleading.

It is true that Darwin’s theory of natural selection primarily addressed the diversification of life, not the first appearance of life itself. But it is not true that evolutionary thought—either in Darwin’s own writings or in modern evolutionary biology—has remained silent on origins.

Let’s look at the record.

Darwin Did Not Consistently Assume Divine Creation of First Life. He publicly avoided speculation about origins in On the Origin of Species (1859), largely because the chemistry of life was unknown. But privately, he was far less theologically confident.

In an 1871 letter to Joseph Hooker, Darwin famously wrote:

“It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could ever have been present. But if (and oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, etc., present, that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes…”

This is explicit speculation about abiogenesis, not an appeal to divine creation.

Darwin did not assert God created the first life; he admitted ignorance publicly and speculated naturalistically in private.

Leading Evolutionists Explicitly Extend Evolution to Life’s Origin

Whatever Darwin’s caution, modern evolutionary theory does not stop at existing life.

Richard Dawkins is explicit:

“Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”
(The Blind Watchmaker, 1986)

And more directly:

“The origin of life was almost certainly a chemical event, but we don’t know exactly how it happened.”
(The Blind Watchmaker)

Dawkins clearly treats abiogenesis as a natural extension of evolutionary explanation, not a separate, unrelated issue.

Evolutionary Biology Routinely Addresses Abiogenesis

George Gaylord Simpson, one of the architects of the Modern Synthesis, wrote:

“Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind.”
(The Meaning of Evolution, 1949)

That “natural process” explicitly includes the entire history of life, not merely post-origin diversification.

Similarly, Jacques Monod stated:

“Chance alone is at the source of every innovation, of all creation in the biosphere.”
(Chance and Necessity, 1970)

This is not a limited claim about speciation—it is a claim about origins.

Abiogenesis Is Treated as Part of the Evolutionary Framework

Francis Crick, co-discoverer of DNA, wrote:

“The origin of life appears almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.”
(Life Itself, 1981)

Crick did not exclude the origin of life from evolutionary consideration; he regarded it as a profound problem within naturalistic biology.

Likewise, Ernst Mayr:

“The origin of life is a problem that must ultimately be solved by chemistry and physics.”
(What Evolution Is, 2001)

Again, no appeal to divine creation—only natural mechanisms.

Why the Claim Persists (and Why It Misleads)

The statement “evolution doesn’t address the origin of life” is often used rhetorically to shield evolutionary theory from critique at its weakest point. While natural selection strictly requires life to already exist, the broader evolutionary worldview explicitly assumes that life arose through unguided natural processes.

That assumption is not theological neutrality—it is philosophical naturalism.

Darwin’s caution does not bind modern evolutionists, and many of the most influential voices in evolutionary biology have been explicit: life’s origin is expected to be explained by the same unguided processes that explain its diversity.

Yes, Darwin focused on diversification rather than first life.
No, he did not clearly assert divine creation of the first organisms.
And modern evolutionary theory—far from remaining silent—actively asserts that life arose naturally, even if the mechanism remains unresolved.

 

[Mercy Shown]

You don't seem to understand what "irreducible complexity" is. It's been directly observed to evolve. Would you like me to show you an example? Let me know. And every new mutation in a population increases information in that population. Would you like me to show you the math? Let me know.

The claim that irreducible complexity has been “directly observed to evolve” depends almost entirely on how the term is defined. Irreducible complexity does not mean that parts of a system could never have had prior functions. It refers to systems in which multiple, interacting components are all required for the system’s core function to exist at all. The question is not whether parts can be repurposed, but whether unguided processes can assemble a tightly integrated system in which function only emerges when all the necessary components are present simultaneously.

The most frequently cited counterexample is the bacterial flagellum, often dismissed by pointing out that some of its proteins resemble those in the Type III Secretion System. But similarity does not equal explanation. The secretion system lacks propulsion, regulation, and coordinated assembly, and does not function as a motility device. Pointing to shared parts shows possible common ancestry, not a selectable step-by-step pathway where each intermediate confers the same function. The flagellum’s problem is not part reuse; it is system-level coordination.

Another common example is the blood-clotting cascade, where it is argued that simpler clotting systems exist in some organisms. But this cuts both ways. A simpler system does not show how a more complex, multi-step cascade evolved incrementally without catastrophic failure. Removing or altering steps in the human clotting system leads to either uncontrolled bleeding or fatal clotting. Demonstrating that different organisms use different systems does not demonstrate a gradual, selectable pathway between them.

Lenski’s long-term E. coli experiment is often cited as direct observation of new complexity. The most famous innovation—the ability to metabolize citrate under aerobic conditions—did not arise from new molecular machinery, but from a regulatory change that repurposed an existing transporter. This is adaptation, not the origin of a novel integrated system. No new irreducibly complex molecular machine emerged; existing parts were rearranged.

The immune system is sometimes invoked as another refutation, but here again the issue is misframed. Yes, immune systems evolve and adapt. But the origin of the immune system itself—requiring receptors, signaling pathways, feedback loops, and memory—remains unexplained by direct observation. Evolutionary explanations presuppose a functioning system before selection can refine it.

The second claim—that every new mutation increases information—is simply incorrect. Most mutations are neutral or harmful, and many involve loss of function. Gene duplication can increase raw sequence length, but length alone is not functional information. A duplicated gene only increases information if it acquires a new, specific, selectable function. Noise, variability, and redundancy are not the same as instruction.

Even population genetics acknowledges this. The Neutral Theory holds that most mutations drift without functional effect. Selection can preserve improvements, but it does not explain the origin of the tightly specified arrangements those improvements depend on. Mathematical models can describe allele frequency changes, but they do not demonstrate the spontaneous generation of new molecular machines.

In every case, the examples offered show modification of existing systems, not the de novo origin of irreducibly complex ones. They assume functioning frameworks, regulatory environments, and informational context already in place. That assumption is precisely what is under discussion.

None of this denies evolution’s ability to adapt, optimize, or diversify life. It challenges the claim that the hardest explanatory work—the origin of integrated, information-rich systems—has been directly observed or mathematically settled. Promising to “show the math” or “show an example” is easy. Showing a genuinely stepwise, selectable path from non-function to integrated function remains the real challenge.

 

[Mercy Shown]

Between science and some people's interpretation of the Bible. But that's not a problem for Christians or scientists.

This is true. Science is about understanding the physical universe. The Bible is about God and man and our relationship. You might as well try to force plumbing into harmony with the Bible.

However...
Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Absent invincible ignorance, His eternal power and Godhead are manifest to us in this world.


Not to anyone familiar with the evidence. Let's test your assumption; show us any step between bacteria and vertebrates that could not have evolved thereby. This is not a rhetorical challenge. I'd really like to see your answer. What do you have?


I'm thinking you don't know what "entropy" is. But let's test that assumption, too. Show me any process required for evolution, that is prohibited by thermodynamics. Until the sun burns out, and the Earth's heat from radioactive decay ends, there won't be an entropy problem for life. Again, I'd really like to see your answer.


So you don't know what evolutionary theory is, either. Evolutionary theory makes no claims about the origin of life. Darwin himself just assumed that God created the first living things.


You don't seem to understand what "irreducible complexity" is. It's been directly observed to evolve. Would you like me to show you an example? Let me know. And every new mutation in a population increases information in that population. Would you like me to show you the math? Let me know.


It seems that your assumptions are based on not knowing how any of this works. If you will, answer my questions, and tell me which of my comments you'd like to see supported with evidence. I'll be happy to respond.

I think you have a lot of faith in evolution just as creationists have faith in creation. I have spent years delving into this subject and apart from faith my answer is often just "I don't know."

 

[The Barbarian]

I think you have a lot of faith in evolution

One does not have "faith in" a natural phenomenon. One merely observes it Nor does one have "faith in" a theory that explains it One merely checks to see if the predictions of the theory have been validated by subsequent evidence. As I suggested, if you understood more about these issues, they wouldn't be so confusing for you.

just as creationists have faith in creation

Rather they have faith in their own ideas about creation.

I have spent years delving into this subject

Then perhaps you could answer the questions I gave you about it. So will we see those answers?

The claim that irreducible complexity has been “directly observed to evolve” depends almost entirely on how the term is defined.

O.K The term was invented by Michael Behe:

... a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.[1]

Michael Behe Darwin's Black Box:

Want to see an example?

You mentioned one. The blood clotting cascade. Some of the parts can be removed and a clotting system still works, meeting Behe's definition.

The second claim—that every new mutation increases information—is simply incorrect.

Well, that's a testable assumption. Information was first worked out by Claude Shannon, who applied it to biological systems. He defined information as the uncertainty about a message before it was read. If you know exactly what's in a message before reading it, the message has an infomation of 0.0.

So the formula for genetic information is:

Where xi is the frequency of the ith allele of a gene. Let's look at a simple example. If a population has two alleles, each with a frequency of 0.5, then the information for that gene is about 3.0 Now suppose a mutation happens and it eventually goes so that each allele has a frequency of 0.333. Then the information for that gene is about 0.48.

A duplicated gene only increases information if it acquires a new, specific, selectable function.

This is wrong. For one thing, "selectable" only means something in terms of environment. Because you didn't know what "information" means, you were misled.

Even population genetics acknowledges this.

No. Shannon information is the way genetic information is calculated. Guess how we know you've never read a text on population genetics.

Mathematical models can describe allele frequency changes, but they do not demonstrate the spontaneous generation of new molecular machines.

In every case, the examples offered show modification of existing systems, not the de novo origin of irreducibly complex ones.

And this is another example of you not knowing what evolution is. Evolution never produces anything de novo. It always modifies something already there.

Promising to “show the math” or “show an example” is easy.

It is, if one knows what information is, and how it is calculated.

Showing a genuinely stepwise, selectable path from non-function to integrated function remains the real challenge.

The lac operon, for example. Would you like to learn about that?

 

[The Barbarian]

It is often claimed that evolutionary theory “makes no claims about the origin of life” and that “Darwin assumed God created the first living things.”

Well, let's take a look...
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and
that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Charles Darwin, last sentence of On the Origin of Species

Of Darwin's four points of evolutionary theory, tell us which of them is about the origin of life? If you don't know what evolutionary theory says, I'll put it up here for you. Do I need to do that?

But it is not true that evolutionary thought—either in Darwin’s own writings or in modern evolutionary biology—has remained silent on origins.

See above. You've been badly misled. He suggested that God did it, using created matter. Which, BTW, is what God says. Would you like me to show you that?

While natural selection strictly requires life to already exist, the broader evolutionary worldview explicitly assumes that life arose through unguided natural processes.

See above. That wasn't Darwin's idea.

Similarly, Jacques Monod stated:

“Chance alone is at the source of every innovation, of all creation in the biosphere.”
(Chance and Necessity, 1970)

As you just learned, Darwin's great discovery was that it wasn't by chance. Natural selection is the antithesis of chance.

No, he did not clearly assert divine creation of the first organisms.

Let me show you again:
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and
that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Charles Darwin, last sentence of On the Origin of Species

"Know the truth and the truth will set you free."

And modern evolutionary theory—far from remaining silent—actively asserts that life arose naturally, even if the mechanism remains unresolved.

But you can't show it? We all know why. Neither Darwinian theory nor any accepted modification of it, has anything to say about the origin of life. That's a different theory, abiogenesis. And it supports what God said in Genesis. He says He used nature to create life, as Darwin assumed. Why not just accept it God's way?

 

[The Barbarian]

Evolutionary biology does an impressive job explaining adaptation and variation within life. Where the discussion becomes more difficult is at the major transitions—points where complexity, coordination, and information increase dramatically.

Take the move from bacteria to complex eukaryotic cells. Endosymbiosis is well supported and explains parts of the story, but it does not fully account for the origin of the nucleus, integrated regulation, or the coordination of multiple genomes into a single, functioning system.These are inferred, not observed.

But you can't find even one of these changes that are impossible to have evolved? There's a good reason for that.

Origin of the nucleus:

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.305.5685.766

We then discuss recent progress in understanding the evolution of the eukaryotic cell from archaeal and bacterial ancestors, focusing on phylogenetic and experimental data which have revealed that many eukaryotic machines with nuclear activities have archaeal counter parts. In addition, we review the literature describing the cell biology of representatives of the TACK and Asgardarchaeaota - the closest known living archaeal relatives of eukaryotes. Finally, bringing these strands together, we propose a model for the archaeal origin of the nucleus that explains much of the current data, including predictions that can be used to put the model to the test

https://www2.mrc-lmb.cam.ac.uk/groups/baum/wp-content/uploads/sites/36/2024/09/baum-et-al-2023-on-the-origin-of-the-nucleus-a-hypothesis.pdf

The coordination of multiple genomes into a single, functioning system:

The large, free-living amoebae are inherently phagocytic. They capture, ingest and digest microbes within their phagolysosomes, including those that survive in other cells. One exception is an unidentified strain of Gram-negative, rod-shaped bacteria that spontaneously infected the D strain of Amoeba proteus and came to survive inside them. These bacteria established a stable symbiotic relationship with amoebae that has resulted in phenotypic modulation of the host and mutual dependence for survival.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0962892400889667

These are observed, not inferred.

 

[The Barbarian]

Selection can preserve improvements, but it does not explain the origin of the tightly specified arrangements those improvements depend on.

As you have seen, things like the complement cascade show exactly that.

Origin and Evolution of the Complement System​

The vertebrate immune system is composed of two parts, innate immunity which recognizes the invading microbes using germline-encoded molecules, and adaptive immunity, which depends on recognition molecules generated by somatic mechanisms during the ontogeny of each individual organism (Medzhitov and Janeway 1997). All data available to date indicate that adaptive immunity became established at the early stage of vertebrate evolution around the time of cartilaginous fish emergence. Thus the genes which encode the pivotal elements of adaptive immunity, such as immunoglobulin (Litman et al. 1993), T-cell receptor (Rast et al. 1997), major histocompatibility complex (MHC) class I (Hasulmoto et al. 1992) and class II molecules (Kasahara et al. 1992; Bartle and Weissman 1994) and recombination activating gene (Greenhalgh and Steiner 1995) have been identified in cartilaginous fish and higher vertebrates. None of the attempts to isolate these genes from the most primitive extant vertebrates, cyclostomes, has yet succeeded. In contrast, vertebrate innate immunity is believed to have a more ancient origin, and an apparently primitive complement system has been found in lamprey (Nonaka et al. 1983). However, it was not clear until recently whether the origin of the complement system can be traced back to invertebrate. Identification of C3/C4/C5-like expressed sequence tag (Est) from sea urchin coelomocytes (Smith et al. 1996) and molecular studies of the complement system in sea urchin and ascidian established the presence of the multicomponent, opsonic complement system in invertebrates.

Origin and Evolution of the Complement System

The vertebrate immune system is composed of two parts, innate immunity which recognizes the invading microbes using germline-encoded molecules, and adaptive immunity, which depends on recognition molecules generated by somatic mechanisms during the ontogeny of each...

link.springer.com

 

[Mercy Shown]

As you have seen, things like the complement cascade show exactly that.

Origin and Evolution of the Complement System​

The vertebrate immune system is composed of two parts, innate immunity which recognizes the invading microbes using germline-encoded molecules, and adaptive immunity, which depends on recognition molecules generated by somatic mechanisms during the ontogeny of each individual organism (Medzhitov and Janeway 1997). All data available to date indicate that adaptive immunity became established at the early stage of vertebrate evolution around the time of cartilaginous fish emergence. Thus the genes which encode the pivotal elements of adaptive immunity, such as immunoglobulin (Litman et al. 1993), T-cell receptor (Rast et al. 1997), major histocompatibility complex (MHC) class I (Hasulmoto et al. 1992) and class II molecules (Kasahara et al. 1992; Bartle and Weissman 1994) and recombination activating gene (Greenhalgh and Steiner 1995) have been identified in cartilaginous fish and higher vertebrates. None of the attempts to isolate these genes from the most primitive extant vertebrates, cyclostomes, has yet succeeded. In contrast, vertebrate innate immunity is believed to have a more ancient origin, and an apparently primitive complement system has been found in lamprey (Nonaka et al. 1983). However, it was not clear until recently whether the origin of the complement system can be traced back to invertebrate. Identification of C3/C4/C5-like expressed sequence tag (Est) from sea urchin coelomocytes (Smith et al. 1996) and molecular studies of the complement system in sea urchin and ascidian established the presence of the multicomponent, opsonic complement system in invertebrates.

Origin and Evolution of the Complement System

The vertebrate immune system is composed of two parts, innate immunity which recognizes the invading microbes using germline-encoded molecules, and adaptive immunity, which depends on recognition molecules generated by somatic mechanisms during the ontogeny of each...

link.springer.com

Appealing to the complement cascade as a counterexample does not actually address the point being made. The issue is not whether complex biological systems exist, nor whether they can be modified once they are in place. The issue is whether selection explains the origin of tightly specified, multi-component systems whose core function depends on the coordinated presence of all parts.

Pointing to the complement cascade assumes what needs to be shown.

Yes, the complement system is complex. Yes, it is involved in immunity. But citing its existence—or citing an article that describes its function or evolutionary history—does not demonstrate a step-by-step, selectable pathway from non-function to function. It simply presupposes a functioning cascade and then explains how variations of it appear across organisms.

That is not an explanation of origin; it is a description of diversification.

Functional Dependence Is the Key Issue

The complement cascade is a tightly regulated, sequential system. Premature activation causes host damage; insufficient activation results in immune failure. Its components are not loosely associated parts that can drift into place independently. They must be present in coordinated form for the system to work at all.

Selection can preserve improvements once such coordination exists, but it does not explain how the coordination itself arises. Pointing to a present-day working system and asserting that it evolved is not the same as showing how it was assembled.

“Simpler Versions Exist” Is Not a Mechanism

It is often argued that simpler complement systems exist in other organisms. But that observation does not demonstrate a gradual, selectable path. A simpler system is not an ancestral system unless a viable sequence of functional intermediates can be shown.

Different systems solving similar problems do not automatically form a historical ladder.

The Appeal to Authority Problem

Posting an article and declaring the issue settled is not an argument; it is an appeal to authority. Scientific papers describe models, inferences, and hypotheses. They do not replace the need to demonstrate the specific claim at hand: that selection explains the origin of tightly specified arrangements rather than merely refining them.

Authorities can propose pathways. What matters is whether those pathways show: Continuous functionality, Selectability at each step, No reliance on post hoc redefinition of function

Simply asserting that experts say it happened does not answer that.

The original statement remains unrefuted:

Selection can preserve improvements, but it does not explain the origin of the tightly specified arrangements those improvements depend on.

Invoking the complement cascade does not contradict this. It assumes the arrangement and explains its variation. That is categorically different.

Until a detailed, testable pathway shows how a multi-step immune cascade arises from non-cascade precursors through selectable intermediates—without redefining function—the origin question remains open.

That is not denial. It is precision.

 

[Mercy Shown]

But you can't find even one of these changes that are impossible to have evolved? There's a good reason for that.

Origin of the nucleus:

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.305.5685.766

We then discuss recent progress in understanding the evolution of the eukaryotic cell from archaeal and bacterial ancestors, focusing on phylogenetic and experimental data which have revealed that many eukaryotic machines with nuclear activities have archaeal counter parts. In addition, we review the literature describing the cell biology of representatives of the TACK and Asgardarchaeaota - the closest known living archaeal relatives of eukaryotes. Finally, bringing these strands together, we propose a model for the archaeal origin of the nucleus that explains much of the current data, including predictions that can be used to put the model to the test

https://www2.mrc-lmb.cam.ac.uk/groups/baum/wp-content/uploads/sites/36/2024/09/baum-et-al-2023-on-the-origin-of-the-nucleus-a-hypothesis.pdf

The coordination of multiple genomes into a single, functioning system:

The large, free-living amoebae are inherently phagocytic. They capture, ingest and digest microbes within their phagolysosomes, including those that survive in other cells. One exception is an unidentified strain of Gram-negative, rod-shaped bacteria that spontaneously infected the D strain of Amoeba proteus and came to survive inside them. These bacteria established a stable symbiotic relationship with amoebae that has resulted in phenotypic modulation of the host and mutual dependence for survival.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0962892400889667

These are observed, not inferred.

The response misunderstands the original claim and then answers a different question. I did not argue that the origin of the nucleus or genome coordination is “impossible” in principle. I argued that these transitions are not directly observed and that current explanations remain inferential models, even when well-supported. Pointing to papers that propose models or document modern symbioses does not change that distinction.

Let’s look at the examples offered.

The Origin of the Nucleus: Models Are Not Observations. The cited Science article and the Baum et al. paper explicitly describe their work as a hypothesis and a model. That is not a criticism—it is their own terminology. They infer the origin of nuclear components by comparing archaeal proteins with eukaryotic machinery and proposing a plausible evolutionary sequence.

But no one has observed a prokaryotic cell transitioning into a nucleus-bearing eukaryote

The stepwise emergence of nuclear membranes, pore complexes, chromatin organization, and regulated transport as a selectable sequence. An intermediate cell where partial nuclear compartmentalization confers a clear, selectable advantage without disrupting replication and transcription

Phylogenetic similarity shows relatedness, not process. Homology does not demonstrate a historical pathway with continuous function at every step. The papers themselves acknowledge gaps and make predictions precisely because the transition has not been observed.

Inference from comparative data is legitimate science—but it is still inference, not observation.

Archaeal Counterparts Do Not Solve the Coordination Problem. Finding archaeal analogs to nuclear proteins is interesting and important. But parts alone do not make a system. The nucleus is not just a collection of proteins; it is a coordinated architecture involving, Compartmentalized transcription, Controlled nuclear–cytoplasmic transport, Cell-cycle synchronization, Genome protection and regulation

Showing that pieces existed elsewhere does not explain how they were integrated into a single, tightly regulated system without catastrophic dysfunction at intermediate stages. That integration problem is exactly what is under discussion—and it remains unresolved by part similarity alone.

Modern Symbiosis Is Not the Origin of Genome Integration. The Amoeba proteus example documents a stable endosymbiotic relationship, not the emergence of a unified genome or eukaryotic regulatory system. No genome fusion occurs. No shared replication control emerges. No irreversible dependency analogous to mitochondria–nucleus coordination is formed.

Modern symbioses demonstrate that organisms can coexist. They do not demonstrate, The origin of organelles, The transfer and regulation of genes across genomes, The emergence of irreversible interdependence

Using a present-day symbiosis as evidence for the origin of eukaryotic cellular integration assumes that coexistence naturally leads to full coordination. That assumption is precisely what needs to be demonstrated.

What is being labeled “observed” here is actually, Observed similarities, Observed modern analogs, Observed end states.

The historical transition itself—the assembly of a nucleus-bearing, genome-coordinated eukaryotic cell—has not been observed. It is reconstructed retrospectively through comparative methods.

That does not make it illegitimate. But it does make it inferential, not observational.

The Original Claim Still Stands. Nothing presented refutes the original statement:

"Evolutionary biology does an impressive job explaining adaptation and variation within life. Where the discussion becomes more difficult is at the major transitions—points where complexity, coordination, and information increase dramatically."

Endosymbiosis explains association. Phylogeny explains relatedness. Neither directly demonstrates the origin of integrated cellular systems with coordinated regulation across multiple genomes.

Saying “we have good models” is not the same as saying “we have observed the process.” Conflating the two weakens the argument rather than strengthening it.

Conclusion

The cited research is valuable and ongoing. But presenting hypotheses and modern analogs as settled, observed mechanisms overstates what the evidence actually shows. The origin of the nucleus and coordinated genome regulation remains one of the most difficult and actively debated transitions in evolutionary biology.

Acknowledging that difficulty is not ignorance of evolutionary theory—it is an accurate reading of its current limits.

 

[Mercy Shown]

Well, let's take a look...
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and
that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Charles Darwin, last sentence of On the Origin of Species

Of Darwin's four points of evolutionary theory, tell us which of them is about the origin of life? If you don't know what evolutionary theory says, I'll put it up here for you. Do I need to do that?


See above. You've been badly misled. He suggested that God did it, using created matter. Which, BTW, is what God says. Would you like me to show you that?


See above. That wasn't Darwin's idea.

As you just learned, Darwin's great discovery was that it wasn't by chance. Natural selection is the antithesis of chance.


Let me show you again:
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and
that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Charles Darwin, last sentence of On the Origin of Species

"Know the truth and the truth will set you free."


But you can't show it? We all know why. Neither Darwinian theory nor any accepted modification of it, has anything to say about the origin of life. That's a different theory, abiogenesis. And it supports what God said in Genesis. He says He used nature to create life, as Darwin assumed. Why not just accept it God's way?

Quoting the final sentence of On the Origin of Species does not resolve the point at issue—it illustrates it.

No one disputes that Darwin publicly framed his work in theistic language, especially in Origin. That was well known, culturally prudent in Victorian England, and consistent with Darwin’s own caution about overreaching his argument. The claim I made was not that Darwin denied a Creator in print, but that his public restraint should not be confused with his private views or with how evolutionary theory has been extended since.

That distinction matters—and it was supported by multiple examples that have been ignored in this response.

Darwin deliberately avoided discussing the origin of life in Origin of Species because he lacked the chemical knowledge to do so, not because he believed divine creation was the scientific conclusion. His private correspondence makes this clear.

In an 1871 letter to Joseph Hooker, Darwin speculated about life arising naturally in a “warm little pond” through chemical processes. That is not an appeal to special creation. It is explicit naturalistic speculation—offered privately, not publicly.

So yes, Darwin closed Origin with a reference to the Creator. That does not negate the fact that he did not consistently assume divine creation as an explanation, nor that he considered naturalistic origins plausible.

Both facts must be acknowledged. Quoting only one while ignoring the other is incomplete.

Asking which of Darwin’s “four points” addresses the origin of life misses the broader argument.

It is true, narrowly speaking, that natural selection requires life to already exist. No one disputes that. But evolutionary theory as practiced today does not exist in a vacuum. It is embedded in a broader naturalistic framework that explicitly assumes life arose through unguided processes—even if the mechanism remains unknown.

That is why modern evolutionary biologists routinely treat abiogenesis as a scientific problem to be solved by chemistry and physics rather than theology. That is not my assertion—it is theirs, as demonstrated by the examples already given and not addressed.

Appealing to Darwin’s formal theory while ignoring how evolutionary explanation is actually applied today is a category mistake.

Ignoring the Examples Does Not Refute Them. The response selectively quoted Origin while bypassing Darwin’s private correspondence and explicit statements by modern evolutionists

Clear acknowledgments that life’s origin is assumed to be naturalistic within evolutionary biology

If those examples are wrong, they should be addressed directly—not bypassed by returning to a single, well-known quotation that does not contradict them.


The claim under discussion was this:
It is often said that evolutionary theory makes no claims about the origin of life and that Darwin assumed God created the first living things.

The evidence shows:
Darwin publicly avoided the question, not resolved it. Privately, he speculated naturalistically

Modern evolutionary biology overwhelmingly treats life’s origin as a natural phenomenon, not a divine insertion. None of that is refuted by pointing out that Darwin did not include abiogenesis in his four core arguments for natural selection. That fact was never in dispute.

If this is going to be a substantive discussion, it needs to engage all the evidence presented, not just the portions that are easiest to quote. Selective engagement is not clarification—it is avoidance.

I’m happy to discuss Darwin’s theory, its limits, and its extensions. But that discussion has to deal with the full historical and scientific context, not just a single sentence taken as a conversation-stopper.