Darwin's most vexing problem

[Hockeycowboy]

Common ancestry of species is a genetic fact.

No, it isn’t. It’s an assumption.
That organisms have similar genes, is a fact.
To say species got those genes from sharing DNA through ancestry, is assumption.

Fact: Only DNA, through amino acid sequences, produces proteins. Yet proteins are necessary to make DNA.
First, science needs to answer how sequence information is related to structures and functions, i,e., how both of these structures originate and operate through amino acid sequencing.

But as it is, to say that organisms share the same genes because they share ancestry, is in the realm of supposition, philosophy. It’s almost farcical.

Because this assumption / belief, that the more genes two organisms share indicates a closer ancestral relationship, would make the Rock Hyrax a cousin to the elephant.

They share the same Creator, not the same ancestry.

 

[McBell]

No, it isn’t. It’s an assumption.
That organisms have similar genes, is a fact.
To say species got those genes from sharing DNA through ancestry, is assumption.

Fact: Only DNA, through amino acid sequences, produces proteins. Yet proteins are necessary to make DNA.
First, science needs to answer how sequence information is related to structures and functions, i,e., how both of these structures originate and operate through amino acid sequencing.

But as it is, to say that organisms share the same genes because they share ancestry, is in the realm of supposition, philosophy. It’s almost farcical.

Because this assumption / belief, that the more genes two organisms share indicates a closer ancestral relationship, would make the Rock Hyrax a cousin to the elephant.

They share the same Creator, not the same ancestry.

Wow.

All that just to shoot yourself in the foot.

 

[sayak83]

Hi,
I am told by people much smarter than I that in order to truly understand ICS function, one must understand in detail every relevant step in the process. The relevant steps in biological processes occur ultimately at the molecular level, so a satisfactory explanation of a bilological IRS phenomenon - such as sight, digestion, blood clotting or immunity- must include its molecular explanation.

Darwin could only consider the anatomical structures to explain IRS since the biological and biochemistry involved to truly understand these system were only understood 150 years later.
Interestingly any explanation that attempts to support evolution will always restrict itself to anatomical structures as I have seen in response to this OP.

The problem is that anatomy is, quite simply irrelevant to the question of whether evolution could take place on the biolocular level.
Shortly after 1950 science advance to the point where it could determine the shapes and properties of a few of the molecules that make up living organisms. The cumulative results show clearly that life is based on organic "machines" made of molecules Most of these molecules are IRS's in themselves.
That means that attempting to explain for instance the eye or a wing on a anatomical level is far from explaining how evolution got to that point on a biological, molecular and chemical level.

How does evolution explain how a molecule suddenly appeared? the answer is they cannot, because it is an complex IRS (a machine) of many hundreds of part, each dependent of each other.

It's like if you found a rock in a field. It would be possible to claim the rock has been there since the beginning of time. However if we replace the rock with a watch, that claim is no longer valid. Someone had to engineer it and put it in the field.

You have to show why you believe a certain function or molecule is irreducibly complex. You cannot just make the claim that it is irreducibly complex. Provide evidence supporting your claim first.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I thought what made someone a christian was that they became saved. Does someone's belief that life evolved from simpler forms change that or invalidate their status as being saved?

No, it does not.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No, it isn’t. It’s an assumption.
That organisms have similar genes, is a fact.
To say species got those genes from sharing DNA through ancestry, is assumption.

Fact: Only DNA, through amino acid sequences, produces proteins. Yet proteins are necessary to make DNA.
First, science needs to answer how sequence information is related to structures and functions, i,e., how both of these structures originate and operate through amino acid sequencing.

But as it is, to say that organisms share the same genes because they share ancestry, is in the realm of supposition, philosophy. It’s almost farcical.

Because this assumption / belief, that the more genes two organisms share indicates a closer ancestral relationship, would make the Rock Hyrax a cousin to the elephant.

They share the same Creator, not the same ancestry.

It is a theory based on the evidence.

DNA codes for proteins that are made up of amino acids.

If you are saying that the origin of DNA or protein needs to be known to establish common descent, you would be incorrect.

Common ancestry is a theory that explains what we see.

I am not sure what you mean by cousin in this instance. Cousin has a meaning in human lineage, but has no scientific meaning regarding phylogeny.

 

[Tiberius]

Darwin feared that his theory of gradual evolution had a potentially serious flaw.
Namely irreducible complexity and the nature of mutation.
He knew that if it could be demonstrated that any organ existed that could not have possibly been formed by repeated successive iterations using slight modifications his theory would experience a complete breakdown.

Could it be safe to say that much of the scientific skepticism surrounding the theory of evolution has centered around this requirement ?

From Mivart's critisism to Margulis dismissal of gradual mutation, I think that critics of evolution have demonstrated that this criterion of failure has been established. eg. https://michaelbehe.com;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity

How do we know that biological systems could not be formed by succesive and repeated modification?
To begin with a system that is irreducibly complex cannot be produced by successive modification of a precursor system, because any such precursor is by definition nonfunctional.
We have to keep in mind that natural selection can only select a pattern that is already working.

This means that if a biological system cannot be produced gradually it would have to suddenly come into existence as a fully funtioning and integral unit for natural selection to continue its course. Simply stated its either gradual or sudden.

Goldscmidt's theory "called hopeful monster theory" which attempst to integrate "sudden appearance" with gradual mutation is replete with speculations and empty of convincing arguments. We might as well propose that the whole earth "with all of it's current features" as we know it today suddenly sprang into existence . Using luck to explaine a process is not science but metaphysical speculation.

Additionally, there is another difficulty for Darwin's theory. It's called "minimal function capability",
Not only do "all" of the parts for a irreducible system require to be present for a component to work but the part have to be made of the 1/right material and 2cd work in prescribed manner.
Unlike irreducible complexity, minimal function is hard to describe, but is an important part in a working system.
For instance:
A mousetrap requiring 5 solid parts could not work if all the parts were made of paper.
A plane could not work if the propellers turnes at 1 rpm, regardless of otherwise proper construction.

For the theory of evolution to be even fleetingly considered scientific these two issues (and others) would have to be satisfactorily resolved, they never have.

Until these and similar issues are answered, do you think that evolution should be considered a scientific fact or be relegated to the section: Fiction and fantasy? or religion and faith?

Should a person want to, what could we replace evolution with?
Belief in a divine architect and creator ?
Put it in the "Cannot be answered" folder ?

Note:
I am aware that many scientists are supportive of evolution. I am also aware that no scientist has proved it a fact.
Please do not expect me to read reams of information supporting this pseudo-science, I have already done my share of searching and reading (ad nausea) to find legitimate support for evolution.
However if you want to share information in your own words about evolution, I would appreciate that.

All the above is my opinion and is not presented with the purpose to annoy.

There have been no credible examples of irreducible complexity ever presented.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

If you are saying that the origin of DNA or protein needs to be known to establish common descent, you would be incorrect.

Yes, of course, you’re right. I wrote that last night, I was real tired. But it presents a conundrum that questions / challenges the materialistic view.

Common ancestry is a theory that explains what we see.

I disagree. It does not explain the abrupt appearance of novel life forms w/ their unique features, as the fossil record reveals.

But it’s all science has, married as it is to materialism. It has no other path to take.

Remember, I think that many differing species share common ancestry, but within their Family (or Order) taxa. But the very first species representing these categories, were created. And they evolved from there. “According to their kinds.”

I am not sure what you mean by cousin in this instance. Cousin has a meaning in human lineage, but has no scientific meaning regarding phylogeny.

Yeah... as I mentioned, I was tired. I should have said that ‘according to common descent, their gene similarity suggests a close kinship in the tree of life’. However, they are very different, from a phenotypic view.

 

[Martin]

I think one reason people struggle with evolution is the difficulty in imagining the geological time scales involved.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Darwin feared that his theory of gradual evolution had a potentially serious flaw.
Namely irreducible complexity and the nature of mutation.
He knew that if it could be demonstrated that any organ existed that could not have possibly been formed by repeated successive iterations using slight modifications his theory would experience a complete breakdown.

Could it be safe to say that much of the scientific skepticism surrounding the theory of evolution has centered around this requirement ?

From Mivart's critisism to Margulis dismissal of gradual mutation, I think that critics of evolution have demonstrated that this criterion of failure has been established. eg. https://michaelbehe.com;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity

How do we know that biological systems could not be formed by succesive and repeated modification?
To begin with a system that is irreducibly complex cannot be produced by successive modification of a precursor system, because any such precursor is by definition nonfunctional.
We have to keep in mind that natural selection can only select a pattern that is already working.

This means that if a biological system cannot be produced gradually it would have to suddenly come into existence as a fully funtioning and integral unit for natural selection to continue its course. Simply stated its either gradual or sudden.

Goldscmidt's theory "called hopeful monster theory" which attempst to integrate "sudden appearance" with gradual mutation is replete with speculations and empty of convincing arguments. We might as well propose that the whole earth "with all of it's current features" as we know it today suddenly sprang into existence . Using luck to explaine a process is not science but metaphysical speculation.

Additionally, there is another difficulty for Darwin's theory. It's called "minimal function capability",
Not only do "all" of the parts for a irreducible system require to be present for a component to work but the part have to be made of the 1/right material and 2cd work in prescribed manner.
Unlike irreducible complexity, minimal function is hard to describe, but is an important part in a working system.
For instance:
A mousetrap requiring 5 solid parts could not work if all the parts were made of paper.
A plane could not work if the propellers turnes at 1 rpm, regardless of otherwise proper construction.

For the theory of evolution to be even fleetingly considered scientific these two issues (and others) would have to be satisfactorily resolved, they never have.

Until these and similar issues are answered, do you think that evolution should be considered a scientific fact or be relegated to the section: Fiction and fantasy? or religion and faith?

Should a person want to, what could we replace evolution with?
Belief in a divine architect and creator ?
Put it in the "Cannot be answered" folder ?

Note:
I am aware that many scientists are supportive of evolution. I am also aware that no scientist has proved it a fact.
Please do not expect me to read reams of information supporting this pseudo-science, I have already done my share of searching and reading (ad nausea) to find legitimate support for evolution.
However if you want to share information in your own words about evolution, I would appreciate that.

All the above is my opinion and is not presented with the purpose to annoy.

When Darwin devised his theory, no one was aware of just how complex & functioning the cell was, with its numerous nano machinery! Nor did anyone know about DNA, let alone grasp the intricacies of heredity...
But before science discovered these complex details, the little that was understood of heredity seemed to support Darwin’s explanation, and materialists / atheists embraced it wholeheartedly (With that limited knowledge, they didn’t need God)!! And science got hijacked.

Now, even with more complex systems in biology being discovered, mainstream adherents just say, “Isn’t evolution wonderful?” They don’t try to figure out how these systems originated....or explain the evolutionary pathways needed for the development of these complex & unique features. They only say, ‘It probably happened this way...’ or ‘The environmental pressures were likely the cause....’.

That is philosophy.

If Isaac Newton or Robert Boyle knew what was going on, they’d probably turn in their graves. (Oops! I said “probably”! Lol.)

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Also remember that they did actually lose the Dover trial which judged in favour of evolution and that Intelligent design was simply creationism with a new and fancier name.

Judge Jones had an obligation to support the separation of church and state. You understand that, right? All the Kitzmiller side had to do, was keep stressing that ID was a religious view... which they did in superb fashion.

Judge Jones took note, and he was really left with no alternative.

Fortunately, he did write this in his voluminous opinion:
“After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science.”


So, what may actually be truth, was not the important issue to the court.

Id say science neither.

 

[exchemist]

Hi,

Thank you for your response.
You have eloquently explained the ideology behind the theory of evolution.

We should unreservedly believe a higher class of men called scientist since we are incapable of understanding their opinions.

We should unquestionably abandon any hope or belief in a loving creator since this class of higher intelligence makes a perfect replacement of the requirement that the clergy class made on us.

The creed is believe without question.

The question, for me, remains. Why is it that I can easily understand (in laymen term) clarification concerning objections to evolution (by scientists), but are told that I never will understand evolution itself because of lack of education?

Dunning Kruger effect.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Evolution of the eye - Wikipedia

Yeah, found it (a year ago) and read it. Did you?....

Notice the “may have been”, “suggests”, “they must originally have”, “infer evolutionary conclusions“, “estimated”, and on and on and on.

Philosophy .

Darwin stated (from that Wikipedia article):
“... if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.[4]”

“Independently theorized” does not mean “shown”, sorry.

 

[Aupmanyav]

So why is that relevant to the post I made?

Problems are created by humans themselves and then they bang their heads to find solutions. What I meant is that solutions are already available in book (in my religion as well), which solve problems in a jiffy.

"The Gods are later than this world's production. Who knows then whence it first came into being?"
Rig Veda: Rig-Veda, Book 10: HYMN CXXIX. Creation.

They don’t try to figure out how these systems originated.. They only say, ‘It probably happened this way..’ or ‘The environmental pressures were likely the cause..’.

Yeah, they are trying to figure out the system, RNA, and from RNA to DNA, and they seem getting nowhere. But you already have the solution in your book.

 

[firedragon]

Problems are created by humans themselves and then they bang their heads to find solutions. What I meant is that solutions are already available in book (in my religion as well), which solve problems in a jiffy.

"The Gods are later than this world's production. Who knows then whence it first came into being?"
Rig Veda: Rig-Veda, Book 10: HYMN CXXIX. Creation.

So I have asked twice, how is that relevant to my post?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No, it isn’t. It’s an assumption.

No, it's a genetic fact.
DNA allows us to determine kinship and common ancestry.

That organisms have similar genes, is a fact.

And that these genes are organized in nested hierarchies, which make determination of kinship and common ancestry possible, is also a fact.

It's how we can determine that your dad is your biological dad or that your sister is your biological sister.
Or that humans and chimps share ancestors.

To say species got those genes from sharing DNA through ancestry, is assumption.

No. It's fact derived from how reproduction works and how DNA is inherited by off spring.

Fact: Only DNA, through amino acid sequences, produces proteins. Yet proteins are necessary to make DNA.
First, science needs to answer how sequence information is related to structures and functions, i,e., how both of these structures originate and operate through amino acid sequencing.

But as it is, to say that organisms share the same genes because they share ancestry, is in the realm of supposition, philosophy. It’s almost farcical.

Use that as a defense next time you are in court in a paternity case where you deny to be the father of some kid while DNA shows otherwise.

See what happens.

They share the same Creator, not the same ancestry.

That is your a priori dogmatic religious belief.
The facts are what they are. Regardless of your beliefs.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I disagree. It does not explain the abrupt appearance of novel life forms w/ their unique features, as the fossil record reveals.

It does.
Being ignorant, is not a valid argument or defense.

But it’s all science has, married as it is to materialism. It has no other path to take.

Because it follows evidence and facts. Not bronze age mythology.

Remember, I think that many differing species share common ancestry, but within their Family (or Order) taxa. But the very first species representing these categories, were created. And they evolved from there. “According to their kinds.”

There is no such thing as a "kind" in biology. That only exists in creationist propaganda who whenever they mention biology, insist on being wrong about it and doubling down on those mistakes.

I should have said that ‘according to common descent, their gene similarity suggests a close kinship in the tree of life’. However, they are very different, from a phenotypic view.

That doesn't matter, as it is the genotype that deals with genetic structure and from which we derive kinship and ancestral ties.

Just like we do with any DNA test to determine bloodties between individuals.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

When Darwin devised his theory, no one was aware of just how complex & functioning the cell was, with its numerous nano machinery! Nor did anyone know about DNA, let alone grasp the intricacies of heredity...

DNA was pretty much predicted by Darwin.
Indeed, in Darwin's time it was unknown how traits were inherited by the next generation. Darwin predicted that there had to be some kind of hereditary system, which was subject to modification.

The discovery of DNA provided exactly such a system.

Your comment of "just how complex it is", is nothing but a fallacious argument from awe.
Genetics being complex, doesn't mean anything other then it being complex.

But before science discovered these complex details, the little that was understood of heredity seemed to support Darwin’s explanation, and materialists / atheists embraced it wholeheartedly (With that limited knowledge, they didn’t need God)!! And science got hijacked.

Nothing was understood about heredity in Darwin's time, because the mechanism was completely unknown. That mechanism was only discovered much later, with the discovery of DNA.

I also find it incredibly funny when creationists insist on implying that evolution theory is somehow an "atheist" thing. Completely ignoring the billions of theists (both lay-people as well as actual scientists/biologists/geneticists/etc) who have no problem with mainstream biology at all.

Now, even with more complex systems in biology being discovered, mainstream adherents just say, “Isn’t evolution wonderful?” They don’t try to figure out how these systems originated....or explain the evolutionary pathways needed for the development of these complex & unique features. They only say, ‘It probably happened this way...’ or ‘The environmental pressures were likely the cause....’.

That is philosophy.

It's also a strawman.

If Isaac Newton or Robert Boyle knew what was going on, they’d probably turn in their graves. (Oops! I said “probably”! Lol.)

I assure you Newton would have no problem with accepting solid science.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Judge Jones had an obligation to support the separation of church and state. You understand that, right?

Yes. Do you understand the implication?
It sounds like you don't.


The implication being that evolution is science and ID is religion.

All the Kitzmiller side had to do, was keep stressing that ID was a religious view... which they did in superb fashion.

They didn't just claim it. They demonstrated it.
Behe himself as good as admitted it. Because to be able to call ID a "scientific theory", he had to redefine what a "scientific theory" is, for ID to qualify.

And under his revised definition, you know what else also qualifies as a "scientific theory"? Astrology. As per his own admission.

Take a hint.

Then there's also the term cdesign proponentsists. Ever heard of that? You should google it.
It will show you the true colors of these dishonest ID folks.

Then, to top it off, there's also the infamous leaked wedge document. Where the strategy of how to smuggle biblical creationism into biology science classes under the guise of "ID", is laid out black on white.

So, what may actually be truth, was not the important issue to the court.

Indeed it wasn't. Because the case was about if ID was science or not.
And it isn't. It's religion. Evolution isn't religion. It's proper science.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yeah, found it (a year ago) and read it. Did you?....

No need to read it. I learned all that stuff in high school.

Notice the “may have been”, “suggests”, “they must originally have”, “infer evolutionary conclusions“, “estimated”, and on and on and on.

Yeah, it's called "intellectual honesty".
Every science article uses such language.

If you are going to use that as an argument against this particular topic, then you should do the same to argue against ALL OF SCIENCE. If you care about being consistent and not engage in double standards, that is.

But likely you don't care about that at all. You only care about upholding your religious dogma's, so you will only consider using such jargon a problem whenever it concerns a topic that contradicts your religious dogma's.

When it agrees with it, you won't be complaining about such jargon.

Philosophy .

Darwin stated (from that Wikipedia article):
“... if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.[4]”

“Independently theorized” does not mean “shown”, sorry.

I always think it's funny when creationists quote Darwin as if he is Jawhe speaking in the bible...
There are no authorities in science and Darwin was wrong about a lot of things.

Try updating your knowledge a little bit. A lot has happened since then.
This is like arguing against gravity by quoting Newton and ignoring Einstein.

 

[ChristineM]

It's difficult to ignore evidence when none is given.

I've read carefully the Origin of Species by R Dawkins, I could not find a single shred of factual evidence for evolution in it.

However I did find much mockery aimed at those questioning evolution.

Dawkins and evolutionist seem to be of the opinion that saying "it's a fact, everyone know it, if you don't believe in it you're stupid" constitute a type of substantiation. It's not.

Confirmation bias makes life so easy doesn't it

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/lines_01

Also consider DNA... Dna cannot lie, ask any inmate convicted on DNA evidence.

Also consider my avatar, a cro-magnon skull around 22,000 years old. Completely, 100% as human as you or me and yet it is evolutionarily different, larger and thicker than modern human skull with a 13% bigger brain case.

Of course you can deny any of the evidence s presented by Berkeley but to deny the evolution between cro magnon and humans of today dimply shows that confirmation bias in spades.