Questions about evolution and origins

…and if that is how evolution worked, it would be a problem.

Using the mousetrap as a poor example, you start with a rectangle of wood…perhaps used to wedge a door open. Then you add some metal bits to it and turn it into a desktop paperholder. Then you add a spring mechanism and now it catches mice.

Each previous part did something. Perhaps not perfectly but quite well enough. The fact that it eventually became a mousetrap doesnt mean it was non functional before all the parts were put together becoming a mousetrap. It served a purpose each step of the way. Evolution works like that, building upon what’s already there and functioning even though those functions weren’t originally what it ended up.

If you still can’t wrap your head around it, please learn more. It’s a beautiful system.

I doubt it works that way. There are some here who are 100% against Intelligent Design. ID is the only way any of this works. The alternative has the odds massively stacked against it.

1 Like

Do you want me to link PhD Kenneth Miller showing how the flagella did exactly that again?

No it does not. Just fix all the metal parts to a wooden floor. It will still catch mice, but it can’t be moved because the separate wooden base is missing. The wooden base is an improvement, certainly, but the trap still can catch mice without it.

IC systems can evolve, and have been shown to evolve. Professor Behe was correct in that IC systems cannot evolve by the direct serial route, but they can evolve by indirect routes: scaffolding, parallel serial and repurposing.

Kenneth Miller wants things both ways. I don’t consider him to be a credible reference.

He’s merely explaining what many, many other scientists have learned. He didn’t propose the theory. You will reject anyone that discusses the flagella evolution so we’re done here.

But, the mice needed to be caught immediately, not after the paper holder somehow morphed into a mousetrap.

1 Like

Well, Techno, I guess you’ve disproved evolution right there. It isn’t a fast process and the mice were taking over. Sigh.

It is a definition. All definitions are circular, just look at any dictionary:

… Thank you for admitting it’s circular aka meaningless within discussion
Definitions of any term are manifold, arbitrary, even debatable.
And alone Definitions have no place within Debate.

By Definition, God the Creator Created Creation… :slightly_smiling_face:

“Tauber and Tauber (1977) Sympatric Speciation Based on Allelic Changes at Three Loci: Evidence from Natural Populations in Two Habitats 1”

… Recall - we’re discussing Common Ancestor/Macro-Evo …
Speciation is very poor evidence at best - of unlimited Evolution throughout the Taxa

I am not Darwinist, I am Buddhist

Being a Buddhist does not negate one’s also embracing Darwin’s opinions.

1 Like

IC is the purposeful arrangement of parts. Yours is haphazard and depends on luck.

1 Like

Yeah, go ahead. It is conjecture with no empirical evidence to back it.

Can? Possible but improbable.

I would answer that each step in the process WAS useful for what it did and that many mutations were unlucky…until one of them wasn’t. You demand that each step in the process had to be useful or have a purpose towards how it ended up…the What good is half an eye scenario. You need to look into what OTHER purpose(s) it had. The flagella evolution shows exactly that…and I know you won’t accept the evidence but it’s there and explains the process.

Here is the link to the portion about IC and the bacterial flagellum.

Continue to worship the god of BUC.

1 Like

Defining Irreducible Complexity.

1 Like

BUC? Sorry, not up on all the acronyms.:face_with_hand_over_mouth:

blind unguided chance.

2 Likes

Common design fits just as well.

And notice what Miller does here. He picks the one’s to remove.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.