Evolution's Problems

You may freely copy this file and print it out provided you keep my Email and web address on it.

http://evolution.htmlplanet.com/ webmaster@evolution.htmlplanet.com.

Evolution's Problems


The "Design" Problem, Beetles, Caves, Crystals.

In the past the tree of life has been organized according to morphological appearance, under the assumption, that since evolution has happened, that physical characteristics will tend to show lines of descent. Following this line of reasoning means that often similar organs, such as eyes, have to evolve, without guidance or any planning, in many different species. This situation of apparently multiple separate unrelated evolution is what is found in real life, and it fits the creation tenets so well, that it is hard to believe that the creator didn't just modify designs to suit whatever he was making at the time. Hence the problem for evolutionists in trying to find intermediates, or fathom out how very similar characteristics appear in totally unrelated species.

My plea is for scientists and those financing and those publishing the results to stop trying to force-fit the results of research into their own belief, but to openly discuss both
possibilities, and direct research as if both are true, and both equally important. After all if God did create, then there will not be any intermediates, nor will there be any need to explain why similar organs appear in unrelated species, and research aimed at resolving these "problems" will be time-consuming and wasted. It is much more important to find out how things are organized or "designed", so we can get a better understanding of life, medicine, nutrition, disease, crops etc.

"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory - is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation - both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof."
L. Harrison Matthews, FRS,Introduction to Darwin's The Origin of Species, J. M. Dent & Sons Ltd., London, 1971, p.xi.



An Example of Irreducible Complexity.
Remove any component and it won't work!

If the images don't load Email me for an Email copy of evolution jpgs.

Bacterial Flagellum from Darwin's Black Box, By Michael J. Behe Some bacteria have an acid-driven motor, comparable to an electric induction motor. How can evolution form this by accidental genetic mutations, even over thousands of generations, producing a motor that doesn't work because parts are missing, or are locked together, depriving the bacteria of the ability to get access to fresh food sources because its swimming system is inoperable? How long before the design completes itself, by accident, since guidance is not acceptable in evolutionary theory? Evolution does not select for something that fails, but eradicates it. The ability to make and supply the acid to the motor is, in itself, a complex design, also the knowledge of its existence and use has to be instinctive, or it must be coupled into a complex reflex control system. See page three.

Bombardier Beetles

Recently I visited "The Talk, Origins Archive" and found the article "Bombardier Beetles and the Argument of Design" by Mark Isaak.

The objective seems to be to attempt to show how bombardier beetles could have evolved through a series of simple steps, (a series of 15 possible steps are imagined as an example), and to belittle any perceived opposition, wherever possible, no matter how great the scientific merit of the basic concept they are expounding.
One perceived opposition is from Michael Behe an evolutionist, who describes "irreducibly complex systems" which are stumbling blocks to the evolution theory.

Quote from BEHE:- "Furthermore, because we can't yet evaluate the question of eye evolution or beetle evolution does not mean we can't evaluate Darwinism's claims for any biological structure. When we descend from the level of a whole animal (such as a beetle) or a whole organ (such as an eye) to the molecular level, then in many cases we can make a judgement on evolution because all of the parts of many discrete molecular systems are known." p41

Yes, I can imagine the 15 steps they list, particularly when half asleep, like self-hallucination, but when I wake up and think of it scientifically, and of all the specifications that must arise for each step, for it to happen without any guidance or planning the hallucination disappears, and the cold hard facts form a solid wall of impossibility. Some of these steps may be found in some related beetles, but this does not show evolution in action, but rather design on a general theme, a continuous expansion on an original design, much like cars follow a general theme. Most are on 4 wheels, engine in front or back, sometimes under the driver, and various controls. Is there any car on the road that didn't get designed? Also it is possible that there was originally only one, (or a few) beetle(s) in this group and that it devolved into several variations which lost various traits because of errors in their DNA. This is more in keeping with evolution, as it is well known that the DNA accumulates errors and degrades the species, but it has never been shown that accidents or mutations can add complex information leading to an improvement, though this is the religious belief of some. Also at least one of the beetles has only vestigial flight wings left. This is vastly more likely to be due to loss of information, than to be the belated start towards evolving wings, supporting my suggestion that finding similar traits in closely related beetles is possibly due to devolution rather than evolution.

Clouds and Caves.

Then to cap it all off he says, about the 15 hypothetical steps imagined as an example of possible beetle evolution:-.
"Any of these points makes it possible for complexity, even irreducible complexity, to evolve gradually. Many people will still have trouble imagining how complexity could arise gradually. However, complexity in other forms arises in nature all the time; clouds, cave formations, and frost crystals are just a few examples. Most important, nature is not constrained by any person's lack of imagination." ( Emphasis added).
To which I would add:- "Nor empowered by over-enthusiastic unrestrained imagination". By definition, irreducible complexity is one that cannot be built up gradually from some simpler system, but requires a sudden jump in complexity from anything that may have preceded it. But none of these examples contain complexity, or increased order, or information in anything like the irreducible complexity that they are trying to explain away, nor do they require information to be able to assemble, or in the case of caves, disassemble. Clouds require conditions, not information or guidance, the so-called "complexity" of clouds depends on conditions that may have been thousands of miles away weeks ago. It is well known that water can be an invisible vapour, or visible as steam, or form water droplets and raging torrents, or ice. No information is required for the change in state, just conditions. What they seem to be referring to as complexity in clouds, as far as I can imagine, is that sometimes they are very large, and wind and eddy currents make it hard to understand the movement and swirling, and where the cloud is travelling to. The weather reports refer to complex weather conditions because they can't understand it completely or predict the exact outcome of such things as storms, but no part of the cloud is in itself complex, just water vapor, liquid or solid and prevailing conditions, all very simple.
Caves, of course, may be formed by water washing out material, or dissolving material such as limestone. No part of the cave is complex, simply a space which contains no information or design, unless animals or people have made or extended it for their use, but the whole cave system may be referred to as "a complex", sometimes stretching for miles, with many branches, but containing no information or design. Some caves are formed by volcanic activity such as lava flows. Information may be deduced by research as to the formation of the cave, but the cave was formed by natural, non-complex actions, and is simply an empty space.

Crystals.

Commenting on the last paragraph of "Beetles". Quoted under heading of Clouds and Caves.

Ice and other crystals are a more important subject, as evolutionists often bring this up in an attempt to make it look as if creationists cannot explain where the information comes from, to form the claimed complexity of crystals, in the hope of discrediting them. Sometimes the creationist is a bit nonplussed, as there is no information used in forming crystals, and no design complexity, so they don't understand the question, and they miss the opportunity to show the stupidity of the question.

Because of the shape of the molecules that form the crystal, under perfect conditions the parts of each molecule that are attracted to other parts of similar molecules will often fit the molecule neatly into the crystal. This does not require information, and is not a complex process, nor does it increase the order, as some evolutionists claim.For it to qualify as an increase in order, it must be shown there was a purpose, or intention, or some design parameters involved. Random assembly, no matter how pretty is not order. It is actually the result of entropy in that heat was lost to enable the formation of ice.
The angles formed by the crystal and other observations can be used to help deduce its composition, but this requires intelligence, knowledge and observational ability, all of which are outside the crystal. The crystal itself is not complex, and contains no information. Fault lines in the crystal may help you to estimate the conditions at the time of formation, but this is a random formation and has no meaning. There is no code to give a meaning. ( read:- "In the Beginning was Information", by Professor Dr. Werner Gitt, Director of the Federal Institute of Physics at Braunschweig, Germany, to get an understanding of information theory, available in English). The crystal may be formed by complex chemicals giving rise to varying facets of the molecule, but from there on, it is simply the way they join together under the prevailing conditions. Water molecules can join together in many ways, and make seemingly complex shapes, such as ice on the window or in snowflakes, but this is just the random way the molecules have come together, as each molecule comes into contact with the others. People studying them through a microscope, read this as complexity, but the complexity and beauty is an interpretation in the mind of the observer of the complete snowflake, but is not in the snowflake which is a simple random connection of molecules, assembled without instructions or meaning as simple water molecules join into the snowflake.

A way to illustrate this is if you consider "Dominoes" and the way they join together with the adjacent numbers being the same and make random patterns based on 90 degree angles. They are, of course, moved and positioned by outside manipulation and intelligence. There is also a similar game called "Triominos". Being triangular, they make prettier patterns and designs. With these, two numbers must match the numbers on the adjacent tile, the numbers being an agreed code understood and adhered to by the manipulator. For this discussion, we will suppose that each corner is a magnet, north for odd-numbered corners and south for even-numbered corners. This means that an odd-numbered corner will adhere to an even number. Now imagine that the tiles are drifting in slow eddy currents in a tray of shallow water. If two corners are attracted and touch, but don't mate at two other corners as well, i.e. the full length of one side, the eddy currents will drift them apart, but if two sides come together and mate at both ends, they will hold together firmly enough so that the eddy currents won't separate them. Under these conditions, the tiles could settle into a solid area just like a crystal with 60 degree angles. Some tiles may get caught in between other tiles and break the pattern, just as in a crystal formation there are sometimes faults where the crystal patterns didn't form properly. When the games are finished and the tiles are to be put away, they are pushed back into the box quickly. Under these conditions the tiles don't form a nice pattern. It's the same with crystal formation: if it takes place too fast, the eddy currents, and the attractive and/or repulsive sites of the molecules won't have any effect, and the crystals don't form a nice pattern. The molecules don't have an agreed code, and assemble haphazardly, so there is no information or complexity involved. It's just the attraction and or repulsion parts of the molecule that lock them together neatly if the conditions are right. Without an agreed code that is understood, intelligence and the ability to discern the code are needed for this, there cannot be any information encoded in crystals, clouds, or caves, and none could have been used in creating them, and no complexity built into them, just randomness.

I have laboured somewhat on the lack of complexity and information in the clouds, caves and crystals because often evolutionists try very hard to give a false understanding of complexity, as if it is simplicity repeated, as in the formation of a crystal. In the things just discussed, there is no part that must be a particular length or shape for them to function for a purpose, as there is no purpose. They do not fail totally for lack of a specific part of the right dimension. A rain cloud does not suddenly fail because a raindrop is missing or out of place, as it is not a complex design. Compare your hand to a thunder cloud. A hand has parts made to measure, blood vessels, nerves and protective covering. Where in a cloud is there any complexity like this? Are there nerves connecting one part of a cloud to another? If not in a cloud, then in the empty informationless space that forms a cave, or in an ice crystal? There is no complexity in these.

Michael Behe went to a lot of trouble to explain irreducible complexity, but evolutionists try to write it off as repeated simplicity, as in the formation of clouds. They seem to have a very good reason for doing this, they cannot explain the accidental occurrence of the many irreducibly complex systems, and the rise of the highly specific and detailed instructions to control the formation and use of such features.
One is the blood clotting chemistry in your blood. The damaged tissue sets off the clotting reaction in the blood, which would clot your entire blood system, fatally,(p79DBB) but there is also an anti-clotting chemistry which limits the clotting to the appropriate area. Both sets of chemistry are extremely complex, and could not have been developed by progressively upgrading some simpler formula. Having only one system without the other to counterbalance it would also be very hazardous. Many evolutionists will refuse to understand the differences between simple, complex,and irreducibly complex, because the latter shows that many systems cannot be built up by gradually modifying a simpler system. This is particularly obvious at the molecular level, which is Behe's field of expertise, with its fantastic chemistry manipulations to build up the needed components. Darwinian theory gives no explanation for this irreducible complexity. "The fact is, no one on earth has the vaguest idea how the coagulation cascade came to be.(p97DBB) Read:- "Darwin's Black Box" by Michael J. Behe for a full explanation.

"The result of these cumulative efforts to investigate the cell - to investigate life at the molecular level - is a loud, clear, piecing cry of "design!" The result is so unambiguous and so significant. that it must be ranked as one of the greatest achievements in the history of science." Page 232 "Darwin's Black Box" by Michael J. Behe. The Free Press 1996.

Behe explains it very well with a mouse trap. In spite of hundreds of patents, the trap hasn't got any more simple than the basic mouse trap, and if any part fails in its duty, the entire trap is useless, except as a mouse feeding station. But alas, the excellent work and explanations written by Behe and Denton ("Evolution: a Theory in Crisis". by Michael Denton) seems to have fallen on unwilling minds, and yet it is a fertile area for evolutionary research. If research was directed at how things work, and the complexities of design instead of trying to prove evolution and lineages to support an unproved theory, better progress would be made, and eventually it would all fall into place. Much time and effort is wasted in trying to prove evolution, when the basics are not properly understood, such as, how could information for the first living cell be built into the DNA and enclosed into a functional cell by random chances, and how can complex instructions be added to this. Often evolutionists hold up progress by trying to make everything fit the evolution theory. This is particularly noticeable in publications and videos. I have seen many videos on the TV where a statement is made that "this shows evolution" but what they have just shown is some creature as it is, but nothing scientific about how it came to be, except sometimes some conjecture about what it might have evolved from, but the fossil record is replete with cases that show that creatures and plants stay the same throughout their history, though there were often larger and better versions that have died out. One TV series often said that "this color, or marking, is a warning" as if some special code was agreed upon by all of nature, and it seemed that every color or marking was a warning, even the markings of a skunk, but it is not necessarily true. The markings are for recognition, so that skunks can recognize skunks at a distance, and so do other creatures, and after a strong and moving experience know to keep clear. This attitude deflects attention and research from strict science, since funding or promotion might be stopped if you don't couch your research report in an evolutionary acceptable way. Getting to know how cells actually work may enable scientists to more productively modify DNA for better production, but if this is tied to the religious belief that everything must be explained in evolutionary terms, the understanding and importance of some of the details will remain hidden, and research will be delayed.

"Biologists are simply naive when they talk about experiments designed to test the theory of evolution. It is not testable. They may happen to stumble across facts which would seem to conflict with its predictions. These facts will invariably be ignored and their discoverers will undoubtedly be deprived of continuing research grants". Professor Whitten (Professor of Genetics, University of Melbourne, Australia), 1980 Assembly Week address.

Obviously this attitude has been with us for many years, a form of discrimination against those who are more deeply involved in science than the religious politics of evolution.

Go to My Third Page (moths and bacteria etc.).

Go to Home Page.





Quick click reply form.
Your comments would be appreciated.
Please reply even if you click only one box.

Email:Optional.
I believe in: evolution God (Biblical) undecided
creation, recent or great ages Other belief
Choose approximate
reason/ comment or
include in box below:
Additional
Comments:
       
1030 -