Two sides of the irreducible complexity argument: dhw Pt1 (Introduction)

by David Turell , Monday, September 21, 2009, 05:40 (5541 days ago) @ xeno6696

No... it doesn't throw darwin out of the window because you *must* show that macroevolution happens *without* a corresponding environmental change. That is the *only* way to defeat the argument..n. but it would still stay nothing about a creator. (see above.)
> 
> [EDIT] I might not be making myself clear: The only way to say that darwinian evolution is incorrect is to show that macroevolution happens without an outside influence. Building our own animals would prove nothing any better than building our own conscious AI. -I like your inside outside approach. And I am not making myself clear enough. I think the time will come that we will fully understand the workings of epigenetics and microRNA manipulations of genes. At that point we will be able to show that 'inside mechanisms' can create either a new species or a marked modification of an existing species, beyond simple adaptation.. My point still does not answer you, but it does demonstrate the potency of the coding system, and raises the argument that such a system is so complex it could not have arisen by chance.-The chief tenet of Darwinism is that an organism's environment changes and demands a change by the organism in order for it to survive. That change can be anything, Climate, predators, loss of food, etc. The known fossil record shows stasis and then sudden development. It is possible that sudden development is driven from the coding mechanism within, and only sometimes from adverse forces without. Actually both inside and outside forces can be operative; from the recent epigenetic studies, the findings that methylation of DNA has profound effects, we know the inside mechanisms can be very effective. Now lets go back to the prime known example of sudden changes, the Cambrian Explosion. What were the adverse problems that might have demanded sudden complex development? None are discussed. Instead, the current reason for the explosion is a marked increase in atmospheric oxygen concentration, which allowed the complex development of 57 new species, of which 36 exist today. That seems to say to me, the internal forces were allowed to work. And interestingly, that is what most Darwinists say, 'the oxygen allowed the advance'. They mean mutations could work their amazing magic easily. But only if those mutations appeared in tremendous numbers in a short time geologically and by chance. It is still a passive mechanism.-Modification of species by Environmental change is obvious: the examples I use are the Grand Canyon squirrels. The North Rim group at 2,000 feet higher are somewhat different than the South Rim guys. The process of the lifting of the plateau and the cutting of the rivers took about 10 million years. Enough time to modify.-Your point about intermediate fossils, I think has been dismissed by most paleontologists. Gould has the famous quote about the dark secret of the tree of life only being known at the tips and nodes of branches. Over 150 years ago Darwin knew this and thought intermediates would be found. Surely with all the fossil hunting that has been done, some tiny steps should have appeared. Just a very few are needed to confirm Darwin. There are none. A species appears in the record de novo, and then follow-up modifications are seen spread out over time, and those modifications are always large, i.e., the whales.-Therefore, inside, outside there are two theoretical forces. Either one is capable of being the main drive. I choose inside, you choose outside. Can I prove God is the designer? No. But you can't prove Darwin's Theory by the current record. I still stick to the contention that if the code is as powerful as I propose, a designer with intelligence did it.