Did Evolution Predict Specialized Complexity?

Jerry Coyne, a dedicated defender of naturalism, and a skeptic of creationism and intelligent design declares in his book; “Why Evolution Is True”…

“The deepest (and oldest) layers of rock would contain the fossils of more primitive species, and some fossils should become more complex as the layers of rock become younger.”

The strongest evidence Jerry Coyne puts out there are fossils which in turn is supposed evidence that evolution indeed did predict specialized complexity that emerged from more primitive forms of life. Darwin himself argued that evolution of life came from a gradual sequence of simpler designs. It’s quite possible that Jerry also believes in evolution remaining the same as it wouldn’t skip a beat if we found an animal unchanged (which has been found) for supposedly millions of years.

Update: November 17, 2009

Researchers try to study various speed levels in the story…

“A major conclusion of the work is that for some organisms, possibly including humans, continued evolution will not translate into ever-increasing fitness, Moreover, a population may accrue mutations at a constant rate — a pattern long considered the hallmark of ‘neutral’ or non-Darwinian evolution — even when the mutations experience Darwinian selection.”  Remarkably, “In some of these [fitness] landscapes, the fitness eventually levels out and the organism ceases to adapt, even though mutations may continue to accrue.”

It just another component which adds on to the growing complexity concerning explanations of evolution because of failed predictions and observations not successful ones.

Keep in mind, evolution makes no prediction at all on specialized complexity emerging. When one digs deeper into the details (beyond the fossils) here is what evolutionists are finding as they search to prove their hypothesis…

“There is no doubt that the common ancestor possessed DNA, RNA and proteins, a universal genetic code, ribosomes (the protein-building factories), ATP and a proton-powered enzyme for making ATP. The detailed mechanisms for reading off DNA and converting genes into proteins were also in place. In short, then, the last common ancestor of all life looks pretty much like a modern cell.”

Evidence of more complexity than simplicity is showing up in the research which verifies the Bible rather than verifying the simple to complex story from evolutionary scientists.

Here is another admission, this coming from last year…

“It is commonly believed that complex organisms arose from simple ones. Yet analyses of genomes and of their transcribed genes in various organisms reveal that, as far as protein-coding genes are concerned, the repertoire of a sea anemone—a rather simple, evolutionarily basal animal—is almost as complex as that of a human.”

Where is the evidence for simplicity from primitive life forms? It’s certainly not found in the genomes, is it? It’s a failed major expectation for those who believe in the story of evolution.  One can also question the fossil record as the way evolutionists see it because the data collected has to fit into a particular framework rather than allowing the evidence to speak for itself. If evolution was in fact a true hypothesis, the evidence would be showing up elsewhere as well.

Advertisements

5 thoughts on “Did Evolution Predict Specialized Complexity?

  1. Drone Michael: “Did Evolution Predict Specialized Complexity?”

    Simple answer? No. Reason: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SPECIALIZED COMPLEXITY. Could you please give a definition of it? Or a source for one? No one else seems to have heard of it.

    There is such a thing as “complexity.” In fact, right now I’m auditing a course in Mathematical Complexity Theory. The theory defines a complex system in terms of the number of its components, their variety and their degree of interconnection. When certain conditions of these parameters occur, the system becomes complex, and can behave in defined ways that non-complex systems cannot. For example, it can have emergent behaviors, that none of the individual parts can can share. It may organize itself into patterns. It evolves—whether the system comprises human components such as the global financial system, or inanimate parts such as the global weather system. These disparate systems all follow the same laws of development. The professor uses biological evolution as his continuing example, because biological evolution exhibits all the properties and behaviors of other complex systems in ways that are familiar.

    One significant thought to carry away here is Kolmogov’s Theorem. This states that, when a system is in its maximum state of complexity, that system is completely random. This is not an observation about complex system, this is a mathematical property of any system that meets the definition of complexity. It is an elementary—and even intuitive—result when you stop to think about it. Of course, the problem with creationists is that they wish to believe, not think.

    So, if you would deign to offer a definition of this “specialized complexity” that no one else has heard of, and state how to measure it, I’ll have a go at it.

  2. Michael: “Where is the evidence for simplicity from primitive life forms? It’s certainly not found in the genomes, is it? ”

    Of course it is: just read one of Sean Carroll’s excellent books, especially ‘The making of the fittest’.

  3. Michael: “If evolution was in fact a true hypothesis, the evidence would be showing up elsewhere as well.”

    Ad nauseum: evolution is a fact AND a theory. Read some books with ‘evolution’ in the title.

  4. Drone Michael: “It’s quite possible that Jerry also believes in evolution remaining the same as it wouldn’t skip a beat if we found an animal unchanged (which has been found) for supposedly millions of years.:

    Why do you think that every animal species will change under evolution? Only someone who knows less than zip about evolution would think that. Unchanging species even has a name: “evolutionary stasis.”

    It occurs when a species has evolved to a good fit with its environment, the environment remains relatively static, and populations remain somewhat connected with each other. (Sharks are a good example.) Variations from the norm–mutations—get damped out by natiral selection, because they are less fit than the norm.

    What is so hard to understand about that?

    Oh, that’s right. Creationists always view evolution through their own warped glasses, and can’t even understand concepts that differ from what they believe.

  5. Drone Michael: “Here is another admission, this coming from last year…

    “It is commonly believed that complex organisms arose from simple ones. Yet analyses of genomes and of their transcribed genes in various organisms reveal that, as far as protein-coding genes are concerned, the repertoire of a sea anemone—a rather simple, evolutionarily basal animal—is almost as complex as that of a human.”

    Where is the evidence for simplicity from primitive life forms? It’s certainly not found in the genomes, is it?”

    (1) Scientific theories do not stand or fall according to who “admits” what. Get over it.

    (2) Try to get this through your head. Complex species could not arise until the genome had become complex enough to support them. So the progression is from simple genome to complex genome, and then from simple animal having complex genome to complex animal having complex genome.

    (3) Life went from simple to complex, but in two distinct stages. The first stage was the hardest, lasting from almost 4 billion years ago until 550 million years ago. So the complex genomes have had almost s e v e n times as long to evolve as the complex animals. Once you get the genome in place, the rest is fairly straightforward.

    Creationists seem to have a really hard time understanding some very basic concepts. I’d like to think it’s merely ignorance, but this seems an inadequate explanation by itself. Maybe it’s the earplugs and dark glasses.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s