Transitional Fossils and the Theory of Evolution in relation to Genesis Accounts

[stoplooklisten]

Techno2000:

No , the point is… all the components have to be in the right place, right from the get-go for it to run, there’s no time to wait for evolution to do it’s thing .

Professor Behe was correct that irreducibly complex systems cannot evolve by the direct route. However, such systems can evolve by indirect routes, and have been shown to evolve by such routes.

An arch is an irreducibly complex system; it cannot stand until the keystone is in place, and you cannot place the keystone until the rest of the arch is complete. How to solve the problem? Use scaffolding to support the arch while it is being constructed and then remove the scaffolding.

That is how natural arches are formed, and one of the possible indirect routes for evolution is called the ‘Scaffolding’ route: where an additional component is used initially and then later removed.

It takes an intelligent design to create the scaffolding to build via the indirect route. Random mutation and natural selection are blind and non-intelligent. Natural selection kills. It doesn’t design. Random mutations are subject to genetic entropy. Random mutations are a cause of cancer.

Now, your heart and brain are irreducibly complex (Thank you, Almighty Creator. Thank you, Dr. Behe for observing)… The heart and brain have coordinated structures and won’t work without them. The heart has four chambers. The brain has the mendulla oblongata, the cerebrum and the cerebellum. it also has left and right halves.

If your brain was not designed but was assembled by unintelligent processes, how could you know it is working properly?

 

[rossum]

It takes an intelligent design to create the scaffolding to build via the indirect route.

No it does not. Here is a picture of an arch:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

The ‘scaffolding’ holding the arch up was solid rock, which was later eroded. The arch could not have formed in its current shape. It had to form as a normal solid promontory and then the sea eroded the space forming the arch. This one is at Durdle Door in Dorset.

Natural processes are capable of forming irreducibly complex systems, but they have to do so by indirect methods. Evolution is capable of forming irreducibly complex systems, but it has to do so by indirect methods.

If your brain was not designed but was assembled by unintelligent processes, how could you know it is working properly?

I know it does not work properly. I see ‘water’ in a mirage when there is no water present. That is an example of my brain not working properly. It sees ‘water’ when in fact what it is seeing is a layer of warmer air near the ground. Because of its incorrect working it fails to see the difference.

 

[Techno2000]

stoplooklisten:

It takes an intelligent design to create the scaffolding to build via the indirect route.

No it does not. Here is a picture of an arch:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

The ‘scaffolding’ holding the arch up was solid rock, which was later eroded. The arch could not have formed in its current shape. It had to form as a normal solid promontory and then the sea eroded the space forming the arch. This one is at Durdle Door in Dorset.

Natural processes are capable of forming irreducibly complex systems, but they have to do so by indirect methods. Evolution is capable of forming irreducibly complex systems, but it has to do so by indirect methods.

If your brain was not designed but was assembled by unintelligent processes, how could you know it is working properly?

I know it does not work properly. I see ‘water’ in a mirage when there is no water present. That is an example of my brain not working properly. It sees ‘water’ when in fact what it is seeing is a layer of warmer air near the ground. Because of its incorrect working it fails to see the difference.

Can a car run without sparkplugs, belts, or gears…of course not. All that has to be designed first, and then put in place all at the same time for the engine to run.

 

[Dan123]

Can a car run without sparkplugs, belts, or gears…of course not.

Can a car run without fuel injection?
If no, how did cars work before fuel injection?
If yes, can I go remove the fuel injection system from my car and expect it to run?

 

[Techno2000]

Techno2000:

Can a car run without sparkplugs, belts, or gears…of course not.

Can a car run without fuel injection?
If no, how did cars work before fuel injection?
If yes, can I go remove the fuel injection system from my car and expect it to run?

The fuel injection system still has to be in place at the same time with all the other components for it to run.

 

[rossum]

Can a car run without sparkplugs, belts, or gears…of course not. All that has to be designed first, and then put in place all at the same time for the engine to run.

Nobody doubts that a car is designed. Where is your evidence that a sea-arch is designed?

Natural processes are capable of making irreducibly complex systems, such as sea-arches, but they have to do so via indirect routes. Professor Behe was correct to say that the direct route is not possible. He was incorrect to assert that indirect routes were impossible.

 

[Techno2000]

sea-arch

sea-arch …, one time it rained real hard and my backyard turn into a little pond, without no designer.

 

[rossum]

sea-arch …, one time it rained real hard and my backyard turn into a little pond, without no designer.

A pond is not irreducibly complex. An arch is. You might want to read up a little more on the topic before posting.

 

[Techno2000]

Techno2000:

sea-arch …, one time it rained real hard and my backyard turn into a little pond, without no designer.

A pond is not irreducibly complex. An arch is. You might want to read up a little more on the topic before posting.

Nothing complex about water knocking sand off rocks.

 

[Freddy]

rossum:

Techno2000:

sea-arch …, one time it rained real hard and my backyard turn into a little pond, without no designer.

A pond is not irreducibly complex. An arch is. You might want to read up a little more on the topic before posting.

Nothing complex about water knocking sand off rocks.

I’m afraid there’s not enough forum time left for you to understand the process.

 

[rossum]

Nothing complex about water knocking sand off rocks.

So erosion is something else you need to study. Do you think the arch could stand if it were made of sand? What held the arch up while the rocks that now form the arch solidified?

That is why an arch is irreducibly complex. You obviously need to study more about the theory of Intelligent Design as well.

 

[Usagi]

Plants don’t attack other plants the way that animals attack other animals and eat them.

No, but animals eat plants. Some plants take over resources and thus kill other plants (see mistletoe). Various natural phenomena or aspects of the environment can kill plants or make it harder or easier for them to reproduce. Thus it is possible for one plant to be better adapted to its environment – more fit in the sense of having more of its genes survive into future generations – than another.

I mean, you know about plants that have spines or poisons or scary shapes to deter animals that want to eat them, right? Or plants that survive well in the desert or the swamp, where many other plants are not adapted to survive. Plants that use wind or hungry animals to spread their seeds or pollen. Plants have all kinds of survival strategies even if they don’t literally need to physically run away from, or defend their offspring from, other plants.

 

[stoplooklisten]

stoplooklisten:

Plants don’t attack other plants the way that animals attack other animals and eat them.

No, but animals eat plants. Some plants take over resources and thus kill other plants (see mistletoe). Various natural phenomena or aspects of the environment can kill plants or make it harder or easier for them to reproduce. Thus it is possible for one plant to be better adapted to its environment – more fit in the sense of having more of its genes survive into future generations – than another.

I mean, you know about plants that have spines or poisons or scary shapes to deter animals that want to eat them, right? Or plants that survive well in the desert or the swamp, where many other plants are not adapted to survive. Plants that use wind or hungry animals to spread their seeds or pollen. Plants have all kinds of survival strategies even if they don’t literally need to physically run away from, or defend their offspring from, other plants.

Usagi, welcome to the discussion.

Even the simplest plankton or algae or diatom or amoeba is more vastly complex than what blind natural forces could ever produce on their own. Nature has no mechanism to program genetic code. And, where did natural matter and natural forces come from? It regresses back to a Creator. The Creator is the best explanation. Books have authors; bridges have builders; universes have Creators.

But, the Creator as revealed in the Judeo-Christian tradition will ask you to subscribe to moral standards and to repent. In that tradition, prophets like Moses and Elijah and John the Baptism came calling people to repent. Jesus Christ came to provide a Redemption and make possible the offer of pardon and mercy and forgiveness of sins. Jesus Christ rose from the dead and that is the destiny of all of us (to die once and rise again to stand before the Judgment Seat of Christ).

The Christian view is not the same as atheistic nihilism or a Buddhist assumption of reincarnations and universal destinies (rather than a stark set of contrasting destinies called heaven and hell).

It is best to acknowledge the Creator and to embrace the gospel offer of mercy made possible by a Savior.

 

[Usagi]

Dude, I’m a Catholic. I didn’t address any of that other stuff, just that it clearly isn’t impossible for natural selection to happen to plants.

 

[rossum]

Nothing complex about water knocking sand off rocks.

The water was eroding rock, not sand. The process is not complex. In this case the result is irreducibly complex. See you ID textbook for a longer explanation of what irreducibly complex means.

 

[Freddy]

This topic will close in 21 days.

Oh, sweet and blessed relief!

 

[Techno2000]

Techno2000:

Nothing complex about water knocking sand off rocks.

The water was eroding rock, not sand. The process is not complex. In this case the result is irreducibly complex. See you ID textbook for a longer explanation of what irreducibly complex means.

What meant was, the water is breaking the rock into particles of sand, nothing is complex about that…is it ?

 

[rossum]

What meant was, the water is breaking the rock into particles of sand, nothing is complex about that…is it ?

As I said, erosion is not complex. The arch produced by the erosion is irreducibly complex.

 

[stoplooklisten]

As I said, erosion is not complex. The arch produced by the erosion is irreducibly complex.

The arch is inorganic and not organic. The rock was there before it was reduced by erosion into the form of an arch.

Irreducible complexity arguments as used in debates against the theory of evolution apply to organic structures.

For example, the human heart which wouldn’t make any sense to evolve incrementally because the four chambers, the arteries, the veins, the lungs and more all need to work together in coordinated circulatory and pulmonary systems.

 

[Pattylt]

For example, the human heart which wouldn’t make any sense to evolve incrementally because the four chambers, the arteries, the veins, the lungs and more all need to work together in coordinated circulatory and pulmonary systems.

Could you explain why the need is there for these to have no earlier, more simplistic forms that didn’t need each other? These earlier simpler forms exist in nature now and are not interdependent like the human organs are. Once they did all tie together, the efficiencies were a great improvement but nothing required them to be interdependent other than being better able to work in harmony.

Once again, it’s the inability to think that a mousetrap is worthless if any single piece is missing but not looking at what the individual parts may also function as before they came together as a mousetrap.

Same with the flagellum. Before it became a rotary motor, it was a primitive electron pump. Each of the parts served other functions and once it came together, it became a motion generator…it just didn’t start with that in mind. It became something new and advantageous at that point. Before that point, the parts all served other functions. Is that impossible for some to envision?