I’ll take this piecemeal @harrisrat
I’ll avoid the genesis of man question for now. But your premise is incorrect. Evolutionary theory does NOT state that randomness took existing pieces and created new organisms. This is fundamentally incorrect. It states that random changes to existing structures will be weeded out by selective forces, resulting in a gross change to those existing structures. It does not allow for spontaneous generation of novel structures.
DNA will have copying errors but the errors don’t add up to make new functions and the sun will create complex atoms but it does not create functional systems. In the case of human society… it is not a natural system. Intelligence is involved in creating human society and when intelligence is put into the system you can create more and more complex functioning systems.
Again, I’ll disagree with these statements. DNA copying errors are precisely what we have seen to add up to gross changes. For example, in Francis S. Collins’ “The Language of God”, he describes how introns are not ACTUALLY the “nonsense” genetic code they are often described to be. They are nonsense from the ribosome’s point of view, as the errors create amino acid sequences that do not code for nucleotides to create proteins.
BUT, a human intelligence looking at the genetic code (or a computer) can see in many cases what the intron sequences once did. In some cases, they are similar to existing genetic sequences, meaning they were incomplete or incorrect copies of existing genes. In some cases they are broken versions of genes we see in other species, and which we know what they do. We can trace these differences and see precisely what the addition or loss of a genetic coding sequence did that added new functionality to the species in question. This is particularly clear (and something we can intentionally induce or manipulate) in bacteria using plasmids. The introduction of new genetic material can create significant structural or biochemical changes.
As for the introduction of intelligence:
If God created everything, every biological system, every physical system, every chemical system, then there s NOTHING in existence which is not inherently laced with intelligence, so excluding systems which involve man’s hand because of his “intelligence” is an artificial division not maintained by either a theological world view, or even a naturalistic one (since everything is “science” to that worldview).
Extra body segments – extra wings – created in fruit flies is a dead-end street. Subsequent generations of fruit flies did not continue to produce functional extra wings. This is no different than people born with extra fingers and toes. Their offspring do not continue to have these extra digits. In addition, they are a detriment to their normal function not a gain.
Maybe an extra structure was a dead end for fruit flies… but what about Odonata, or Hemiptera, or Hippodamia or orthoptera? They all have either double wings from gene replication errors or such wings that adapted into carapace covers for their wings. (My M.S. thesis was on paper wasps, so I know some things about insects, but not a lot).
Losing structures may be hard since their genes are still in the genome but eventually over millions of years there will be a loss of function not new functions. The human mutation rate is very small, estimated to be about 0.5x10-9 (that is 10 to the power -9) per base pair per year so it will take millions of years to lose organs.
You’re going to have to explain the Cambrian explosion then. That was a period of time in which functional bloomed across clades. The commensurate explosion in genetic diversity would have disproved your ideas. Not to mention what we see today in terms of the weakness a lack of genetic diversity imposes on biological systems.
But structure LOSS rates are exponentially slower than structure gain rates. When structures are gained, they do so from the bottom up, and can do so in a myriad of ways (there is more than one way to build a wing). But you cannot take down a structure in any but one way: the way it’s built. When structures are built too many other systems become intertwined with them. Wings, for example, on an insect are VERY often involved in body cooling. If the wings were to be taken off ab initio, the animal would not survive to reproduce because it would overheat. In such a case, the selective pressure for retaining the wings is stronger than the lack of need for them.
We have to be careful not to anthropomorphize evolutionary theory. It doesn’t DO anything. It describes processes. Structures that aren’t needed aren’t discarded unless they can be selected against strong enough to overcome the cost of losing them. Because there are no truly silo’d systems in living organisms, that is very rare. If we were to anthropomorphize evolution, we’d say it would rather have extra structures than spend a bunch of time and energy re-configuring an organism to lose it. SO, so long as appendicitis isn’t making a statistical impact on the reproductive rates of humans, there’s no selective pressure to lose it.
Yes, selective pressure can develop speciation but where is the evidence that selective pressure has developed functioning organs? I don’t understand why you are saying that I should not look at organs to define evolution. Forming new organs, structures and systems is the crux of macroevolution without it there is no molecules to man evolution. Yes, I know that soft tissue does not generally fossilize but where are the fossilized bones that gave rise to the neck of the giraffe, the tail of diplodocus or any of the other structures that we find in living things?
What do you think the difference is between speciation and organ development?
That said, allow me to ask this question in response: what kind of evidence are you looking for? WHat would be sufficient?
Gerd Muller, Australian Evolutionist says, “current evolutionary theory…largely avoids the question of how the complex organizations of organismal structure, physiology, development or behavior…actually arise in evolution.”
Specific to behavior (part of my specialty), Gerd needs to read some E.O. Wilson.
Fantastic conversation by the way!
To bring this all around to relevant conclusion, the natural world is full of evidence of God’s work. I liked Ravi’s statement in a recent podcast in which he differentiated “intelligence TO create” and “intelligence FROM creation.” There is nothing that says the universe we live in must be rational. NOT everything has to follow a rule. Why would it? But EVERYTHING Everything we see is rational, down to the quark. Shoot, even the Heisenberg uncertainty principle tells us that the things we don’t know, and EVEN OUR IGNORANCE is rational and ordered.