- List All


  • Web   The Point

Blogroll

+ Theology/Religion + Culture + Marriage & Family + Politics + Academia + Human Rights
Christianity Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Religion Blogs - Blog Top Sites
Link With Us - Web Directory



« The Point Radio: You’re Contagious | Main | A Lament for a Sunburnt Country »

February 11, 2009

Debunking Darwinism #10: Gradualism vs. CSC

Plasmodium_falciparum_01 Every living organism depends on numerous functional systems—each irreducibly complex--for its survival. Because of “combined specified complexity” (CSC), a dog can live to a ripe old age without its tail, but it won’t survive a moment without a central nervous system, heart, lungs or brain.

According to Darwin, land creatures began their evolutionary journey in the sea. To survive in water, they needed gills, but to move to land they needed lungs. A fish with lungs would drown, but a mammal with gills would suffocate. And that’s only one of over 50,000 morphological changes needed for the transition. 

The glacial pace of evolution makes the verification of Darwin’s theory difficult-to-impossible. But one place where its extravagant claims should be demonstrable is in the microbiology lab. There researchers have access to billions of organisms whose rapid replication allows follow-up for many thousands of generations. One such organism is Plasmodium Falciparum, the single-celled parasite responsible for malaria.

For several decades, researchers have studied Plasmodium Falciparum, applying various environmental pressures to see how it responds. Yet after trillions upon trillions of replications—many more than occurred in the evolution of fish to mammals— Plasmodium Falciparum never evolved into a multi-celled organism, much less a novel life form. Although it developed a resistance to antibiotic drugs, it remained what it had always been: a single-celled parasite.

Similar results have been obtained with other microbes and drosophila. While none of these studies disprove Darwinism, they are strongly contraindicative of its macro-evolutionary claims.

Richard Dawkins once wrote, “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” Maybe that’s because, to the unbiased seeker of truth, they have been designed for a purpose.

Indeed, Francis Crick was on to something when he admitted, “An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be a miracle.”

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c635553ef0111684f2a5b970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Debunking Darwinism #10: Gradualism vs. CSC:

Comments

labrialumn

There's a rather good commentary in US Today on the proselytizing and anti-scientific, anti-free speech tactics of the Darwinists:


http://www.usnews.com/articles/opinion/2009/02/10/darwin-intelligent-design-and-freedom-of-discovery-on-evolutionists-holy-day_print.htm

Mike D'Virgilio

"The glacial pace of evolution makes the verification of Darwin’s theory difficult-to-impossible." Yet from evolutionists of every stripe we are constantly told that evolution is a FACT. When they are pushed to prove it, all they have is inferences from micro evolution. I believe that is called a leap of faith.

Rolley Haggard

Mike,

Re: "leap of faith" -- Great minds...., etc.

http://thepoint.breakpoint.org/2009/02/debunking-darwinism-9-gradualism-vs-ic.html#comment-148195085

Mike D'Virgilio

Rolley, so good, so true. But of course we know you are a naive, flat earther who just can face the truth.

LeeQuod

Regis wrote: "To survive in water, they needed gills, but to move to land they needed lungs."

And to move back to the water (as whales et. al. supposedly did), they needed to reverse many of those morphological changes - at an even more rapid pace.

While one may imagine how this could happen, via homology, it remains exactly that - imagination. So theories are built upon theories which are built upon the original theory, gradually achieving a combined specified complexity for Darwinism itself. ;-) But to suggest that the complexity of the modern theory of evolution is the result of unguided, unintelligent, random activity is to insult many brilliant (but misguided) scientists. So I won't suggest it, but I'll still wonder how complexity can arise both with and without a guiding intelligence.

And did Francis Crick call his fellow scientists liars??

The comments to this entry are closed.