The core of the post is simple. There are no baseline rules that support the processes necessary for the development of complex, symmetrical, self-reproducing machines.
Ah. You're talking about abiogenesis, not evolution. When it comes to abiogenesis, the origin of life, the evidence is that the oldest fossil bearing rocks found already show life, 3.5 billion years ago. This means that the jury is out: it could be created, it could be a chemical process. Science will say “we don't know” in this case.
That doesn't affect the evolution of life after that point.
How is this strong evidence that evolution cannot occur?
In the same way (using the same logic) that if you get in your car and notice that the windshield is missing, based on what the everyday person know about physics, this would be strong evidence that the driver of the car would get wet while driving in the rain.
Which has nothing to do with life forms. I thought we were discussing life, not automechanics 101.
It's all about rules. The whole universe is built on rules.
We have observed genetics on different levels for some time and know that information is lost or degraded in efficiency—not gained—through mutations. Therefore, it is simple to understand that "design" does not improve, it degrades.
Actually that has
not been proven that I am aware of and I am disappointed that you would make such an assertion without having some evidence to substantiate it as being factual.
It has not been proven as far as I am aware, for the simple reason that it has not even been tested. To test it you need a metric that can measure the amount of “information” in the DNA of different organisms and quantify the changes, and I am not aware of any such metric. Of course you can prove me wrong by providing a metric that has been used and the scientific article (journal reference the whole bit) documenting actual measurement of “information” in DNA of different species.
But even with that
small technical problem aside there is the problem of Barry Hall's experiment with
e. coli where he disabled a mechanism to metabolize lactose and the bacteria re-evolved the same ability with a different chemical process. You can read about it on:
A true acid test by Ken Miller:
In 1982, Barry Hall of the University of Rochester began a series of experiments in which he deleted the bacterial gene for the enzyme beta-galactosidase. The loss of this gene makes it impossible for the bacteria to metabolize the sugar lactose. What happened next? Under appropriate selection conditions Hall found that the bacteria evolved not only the gene for a new beta-galactosidase enzyme (called the evolved beta-galactosidase gene, or ebg), but also a control sequence that switched the new gene on when glucose was present. Finally, a new chemical reaction evolved as well, producing allolactose, the chemical signal that normally switches on the lac permease gene, allowing lactose to flow into the cell.
In my book I quoted evolutionary biologist Douglas Futuyma's description of these experiments:
"Thus an entire system of lactose utilization had evolved, consisting of changes in enzyme structure enabling hydrolysis of the substrate; alteration of a regulatory gene so that the enzyme can be synthesized in response to the substrate; and the evolution of an enzyme reaction that induces the permease needed for the entry of the substrate. One could not wish for a batter demonstration of the neoDarwinian principle that mutation and natural selection in concert are the source of complex adaptations." ( DJ Futuyma , Evolution, ©1986, Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA. pp. 477-478.)
Now, I would think that the destruction of an existing gene would qualify as a “loss” of “information” seeing as mutations can cause a loss, right? Logically then the evolution of a replacement system must increase information to replace what was lost, or the loss of information is irrelevant to the evolution of this process.
Then there is the issue of wings in walkingsticks.
This picture from an article in Nature about the evolutionary history of walkingsticks shows wings evolving, wings being lost and wings evolving. Look at
Lopaphus parakensis for example: winged, wingless, winged, wingless. Now please explain to me how this can happen if “information” is only lost by mutations: logically either information was added in at least one of those changes, or the loss of information is irrelevant to the evolution or loss of wings.
Conclusion: either information has been added by evolution - the change in hereditary traits in a population from one generation to another - or the concept of information is useless in discussing what can and cannot evolve. In either case the concept of “information loss only” is falsified as a barrier to evolution.
An good example of this is racehorse breeding which spends enormous resources to make a better racehorse, yet there is still a decline in performance in the long-term.
Small changes over time... Yes.
Improvements in efficiency, increases in complexity, or new parts ... No.
Or you are not looking at the full picture. Small changes over small time, yes. Longer time not evaluated.
When we look at the ancestor of the horse, back to what is commonly called “eohippus,” we see a small dog-sized animal with paws and toes in front and back similar to those of a dog. In the 55 million years since then it evolved the unique hoof of the modern horse, a hoof that also incorporates a
supplementary pump to assist in blood flow in the legs while running:
When the foot is placed on the ground, blood is forced from the foot to the leg by the increase in pressure and by the change in shape of the digital cushion and the frog. The pressure and the change in shape compress the veins in the foot. When the foot is lifted, the compression is relieved and blood flows into the veins again. In this way, the movement of these structures in the hoof acts as a pump.
The
fossil record of the evolution of the horse is pretty complete and shows the gradual change in hereditary traits in populations from one period to the next over those 55 million years - evolution. By any
rational person's measure that is an increase in complexity and the evolution of a new part, or the definition you use does not apply to or limit what can happen with evolution.
OK, let me put it this way.
You are strolling along the beach. You watch the waves rolling up on the shore. All is well.
The next day, you visit the same beach and see an eloquent sandcastle in the sand. You know that it was not there yesterday.
Logic concludes that some intelligence outside the realm of the sand itself created this formation.
Logical seeing as sand is not alive or capable of evolving. Also irrelevant to life evolving. Do you ever use an example of a living system?
Evolutionists may argue that give enough time—perhaps millions of years—this formation could form by itself, (but really, that is quite silly) but we'd probably agree that it surely could not form overnight.
Evolutionists would not argue that because it doesn't involve life, reproduction and an evolving system. You argued this and put it in “evolutionists” mouths so you could then attack this straw man argument instead of real evolution. This is a logical fallacy, another disappointment.
Yes, even evolutionists understand this because they keep adding millions of years on the age of the Earth to facilitate the processes they claim occur.
No, evolutionary biologists just use the information, the evidence that is there. The evidence says the earth is 4.55 billion years old, and it comes from geology, chemistry, physics and astronomy, but not from evolutionary biology.
Meanwhile, we have the already discussed evidence of
e. coli, the wings on walkingstick insects, and the hooves of horses, evidence that does show the addition of features not present in ancestors. This evidence of the real world proves your argument to be false.
Enjoy.
