It's actually extremely improbable, bordering on impossible, for such complicated systems to arise from random chance. These systems are irreducibly complex, meaning that a number of different components all work together to accomplish the task of the system, and if one component were removed, the system would no longer function. Gradual evolution can not create them because they need to be complete to actually function and would be useless until completed. Let me give an example:
Blood clotting is a highly choreographed system in our bodies. The system is made up of multiple steps and different molecular components. Without the whole system in place, it doesn't work. How can clotting develop over time, step by step, when in the meantime the body has no effective way to stop itself from bleeding to death whenever it's cut?
The system is also highly regulated. If a clot is made in the wrong place, you'll die. If the clot isn't made in the correct timeframe, you'll die. If the clot isn't confined to the injury site, your entire blood system could solidify. This system is so complex that it must be inserted all at once into an organism. Random selection simply cannot explain systems like this.
Also, the fossil record doesn't support gradual macro-evolution at all. There are none of the numerous transitional species that Darwin predicted would be found. The Cambrian explosion invalidates the idea entirely.
Micro-evolution has certainly been proven valid, but no evidence supports the idea of Darwinian evolution. The evidence that's been found in the last 50 or so years points strongly towards intelligent design. Secular scientists refuse to admit this because they demand that everything needs to have a naturalistic explanation and refuse to let God into their clubhouse.
We are not two cards leaning against one another where one card can not exist without the other. Gradual addition is possible for everything we have seen, and your clotting example is such an example; As long as every step is a net positive, it doesn't matter if there are downsides to be ironed out.
Clotting at all is a HUGE advantage over getting punctured and dying. Sure, there are downsides if you're missing the complex regulatory and safety features modern clotting has, but circulatory systems have existed almost as long as true multicellular organisms have - bleeding out has been a selective pressure that whole time.
So first you clot, and that's a game changer. Sure if it clots in the wrong place or if you can't clear it you'll meat the double edge of that sword but hey - being punctured is no longer a guaranteed death sentence. That's a NET POSITIVE.
Then you evolve all the other features we come to have.
'Darwinian' evolution absolutely has the evidence to support it. All the way from the biochemical at the level of nucleic acid formation into self replication, to cooperative association to form proto-cells, to gradual organ development as with eyes, systems development like the circulatory system to include clotting, to the organism level where we gain and lose traits adapting to an environment and it's pressures in species altering fashions. It's all there.
It's all from god, and you have missed it because you somehow think god's grand plan is incompatible with god... all because you hated the messenger.
I can't argue against a position you haven't articulated.
You say the Cambrian explosion completely invalidates Darwin, but... what?? how?? I can't even imagine why you would think such a thing in the first place.
The Cambrian explosion is an event that occurred roughly 550 million years ago. Up until that point, for billions of years, life had not progressesd beyond very basic forms such as rudimentary jellyfish, worms, and sponges. Suddenly, there was an explosion of complex life in a very short time period. All the major phyla and some that are now extinct just appear in the fossil record. No gradual change, no transitional fossils, nothing that would support the idea that this event came about from the Darwinian theory of gradual evolution.
This sudden burst of complex life defies Darwin's theory and renders it nothing more than a footnote in history. He theorized that future discoveries in the fossil record would produce transitional species and prove his idea of gradual evolution.The Cambrian discovery decades later did the exact opposite. Now, this leads to the logical conclusion that his theory is as of right now, wrong, because the evidence discovered directly contradicts it.
So, tell me, how does Darwinian evolution explain a documented event that directly contradicts the very core of the theory?
It's actually extremely improbable, bordering on impossible, for such complicated systems to arise from random chance. These systems are irreducibly complex, meaning that a number of different components all work together to accomplish the task of the system, and if one component were removed, the system would no longer function. Gradual evolution can not create them because they need to be complete to actually function and would be useless until completed. Let me give an example:
Blood clotting is a highly choreographed system in our bodies. The system is made up of multiple steps and different molecular components. Without the whole system in place, it doesn't work. How can clotting develop over time, step by step, when in the meantime the body has no effective way to stop itself from bleeding to death whenever it's cut?
The system is also highly regulated. If a clot is made in the wrong place, you'll die. If the clot isn't made in the correct timeframe, you'll die. If the clot isn't confined to the injury site, your entire blood system could solidify. This system is so complex that it must be inserted all at once into an organism. Random selection simply cannot explain systems like this.
Also, the fossil record doesn't support gradual macro-evolution at all. There are none of the numerous transitional species that Darwin predicted would be found. The Cambrian explosion invalidates the idea entirely.
Micro-evolution has certainly been proven valid, but no evidence supports the idea of Darwinian evolution. The evidence that's been found in the last 50 or so years points strongly towards intelligent design. Secular scientists refuse to admit this because they demand that everything needs to have a naturalistic explanation and refuse to let God into their clubhouse.
Can you imagine throwing in mRNA into that perfect system. Abomination!!
Ugh, yea, its absolutely disgusting.
We are not irreducibly complex
We are not two cards leaning against one another where one card can not exist without the other. Gradual addition is possible for everything we have seen, and your clotting example is such an example; As long as every step is a net positive, it doesn't matter if there are downsides to be ironed out.
Clotting at all is a HUGE advantage over getting punctured and dying. Sure, there are downsides if you're missing the complex regulatory and safety features modern clotting has, but circulatory systems have existed almost as long as true multicellular organisms have - bleeding out has been a selective pressure that whole time.
So first you clot, and that's a game changer. Sure if it clots in the wrong place or if you can't clear it you'll meat the double edge of that sword but hey - being punctured is no longer a guaranteed death sentence. That's a NET POSITIVE.
Then you evolve all the other features we come to have.
'Darwinian' evolution absolutely has the evidence to support it. All the way from the biochemical at the level of nucleic acid formation into self replication, to cooperative association to form proto-cells, to gradual organ development as with eyes, systems development like the circulatory system to include clotting, to the organism level where we gain and lose traits adapting to an environment and it's pressures in species altering fashions. It's all there.
It's all from god, and you have missed it because you somehow think god's grand plan is incompatible with god... all because you hated the messenger.
Explain the Cambrian explosion using the Darwinian theory of evolution. I know we aren't going to agree, but I want to hear your take on it.
I can't argue against a position you haven't articulated.
You say the Cambrian explosion completely invalidates Darwin, but... what?? how?? I can't even imagine why you would think such a thing in the first place.
The Cambrian explosion is an event that occurred roughly 550 million years ago. Up until that point, for billions of years, life had not progressesd beyond very basic forms such as rudimentary jellyfish, worms, and sponges. Suddenly, there was an explosion of complex life in a very short time period. All the major phyla and some that are now extinct just appear in the fossil record. No gradual change, no transitional fossils, nothing that would support the idea that this event came about from the Darwinian theory of gradual evolution.
This sudden burst of complex life defies Darwin's theory and renders it nothing more than a footnote in history. He theorized that future discoveries in the fossil record would produce transitional species and prove his idea of gradual evolution.The Cambrian discovery decades later did the exact opposite. Now, this leads to the logical conclusion that his theory is as of right now, wrong, because the evidence discovered directly contradicts it.
So, tell me, how does Darwinian evolution explain a documented event that directly contradicts the very core of the theory?