Argh! Talking to you is like talking to a brick wall!!!Sometimes I feel the same way about talking to you!! I guess we’re even in that respect—doesn’t upset me at all, though—I like your persistence. :o) Besides, if we agreed on everything, our conversations wouldn’t be nearly as interesting or challenging...
While we both agree that adaptation occurs, we diverge concerning the idea that one kind of animal can evolve into another more complex one. The article about the Tibetans gives a good example of adaptation, but doesn’t really address Darwinian evolution.
The NPR article shows a great deal of creativity and imagination in coming up with a hypothesis for how humans are supposedly related to fish and yeasts. And it takes guts to point to an exhibit as proof of how humans evolved from earlier organisms, based on an explanation that is mere conjecture. So what if humans, fish, and yeasts have some similar DNA! DNA is merely a tool, much like the words in an instruction book. If you look at any number of books, you’ll find that some words, and some patterns of grammar, appear in all the books; the presence of the same words and grammar doesn’t necessarily imply that one book is somehow related to another. In much the same way, architectural drawings of different buildings use the same symbols for various parts of the structure, no matter how simple or complicated the structures might be. And if God chooses to use the same mechanism for something, say glucose metabolism, in many different kinds of creatures, it would make sense that He might also choose to guide that mechanism through the same or similar sets of DNA. Literature and architectural drawings don’t appear by themselves—intelligent beings create them and give them meaning. It makes sense to me that DNA didn’t create itself, but was created by an intelligent being—I would say God Himself. Again, we are looking at the same data (similar DNA in different kinds of organisms) and coming to different conclusions.
I’m trying to go at this in a logical, rational manner, using available scientific data, and it would help me a lot if you’d try to answer my questions in the same manner. For example, if evolution is so well-backed by research, it should be fairly easy to provide data (not just hypotheses) supporting the evolutionist’s answer to why there isn’t more salt in the world’s oceans, how organic molecules came to have a specific handedness, or to any of the other questions I’ve asked. And it would have been much more productive if you had used scientific data to try to refute the ideas of the author of Genetic Entropy, rather than simply belittling him. Although I could easily have dismissed Dawkins as a militant atheist who has no intention of seeking truth, and the authors of all the articles you’ve sent me as having unthinkingly accepted evolutionary hogwash, it wouldn’t have been productive. We would get nowhere if all we did was attack each other’s sources.
I’m still enjoying our conversation, so let’s keep going...
Below is an excerpt from an article on specified complexity authored by a creationist, which is no different than you asking me to read something by Dawkins or any other evolutionist. See if you can respond scientifically and logically to the content of the article—I already know what you’d think about the author. :o)
Specification combined with complexity demonstrates purpose. For instance, the exact configuration of individual sand grains washed up on a beach is extraordinarily unlikely and therefore could be deemed "complex." However, a sand sculpture shaped like a dolphin is both complex (unlikely) and specified (set to the pattern of a dolphin's form). Arguing that waves (i.e., nature alone) can create sand sculptures because both a sculpture and the sand next to it are complex (uniquely arranged) ignores the key distinction: specification to a predetermined pattern.http://www.icr.org/article/more-than-just-complex/
Using different terms, evolutionary biochemist Jeffrey Wicken explains:
Whereas ordered systems are generated according to simple algorithms and therefore lack complexity, organized systems must be assembled element by element according to an external "wiring diagram" with a high information content.4
Machines with multiple functioning parts are complex in that their parts are uniquely arranged (i.e., lined up in an improbable array). However, any arrangement would be just as unique, just as improbable or complex, as any other. In order to function, the machine needs to have components that are specified to required parameters.
A molecular example is found in chaperonins. In cells, these barrel-shaped protein complexes shelter certain other proteins from watery environments, giving them extra time to fold into their necessary shapes. Chaperonins have a precisely-placed enzymatic active site, detachable caps, flexible gated entryways, a timed sequence of chemical events, and precise expansion and flexion capacities. Each of the parameters--size, shape, strength, hydrophobicity distribution, timing, and sequence--represents a specification. With each additional specification, the likelihood of a chance-based assembly of these parts diminishes…to miracle status.
Nonetheless, hard-core Darwinist Richard Dawkins stated,
The creationist completely misses the point, because he…insists on treating the genesis of statistical improbability [complexity] as a single, one-off event. He doesn't understand the power of accumulation.5
Statistical improbability happens all the time, and by itself is irrelevant to the question of how life originated. Improbability with specification, however, only happens by intention, and it is this combination of qualities for which Darwinian scientists have yet to provide a naturalistic explanation.
Here is a link to an article about probability and evolution: http://www.icr.org/article/probability-order-versus-evolution/ Again, see if you can respond to the content rather than the source. If it would help, consider going into teacher mode, as if you were patiently and logically working through a proof with a student. I know you can do this. :)
Susan
No comments:
Post a Comment