Did you use the word “irreducible” on purpose?
As for single-cell organisms transitioning to multi-cellular organisms, there’s this mechanism:
IOW, there are bacteria that are capable of independently existing, which are also capable of existing as a rudimentary multi-cellular organism. This is a nice transitional step between an obligate single-cell organism and an obligate multi-cellular organism.
The same intelligent designer who convinced people that it’s a good idea to drink their own urine.
Well, I didn’t think they got there by magic.
In other words, we have monkeys, and we have humans, but we don’t have all the intermediate steps in between.
Well, not anymore. This is where lots of time comes into play.
There’s a lot of things that science believed was wrong, too. You can be religious and believe in science too.
(The scientist who came up with the Big Bang theory was a Catholic priest, for example). I went to a Catholic school and that’s where I learned about evolution. So they’re not incompatible.
I wonder how you think they did get there then?
For pretty much every biological structure, system or behaviour there is plausible, naturalistic path of evolution tracing back to the simplest creatures we know. At each stage those structures, systems or behaviours conferred a beneficial advantage and so were selected for.
There really isn’t any mystery at all as to how, say, the eye evolved (and you have to ask “which eye” seeing as it has evolved seperately multiple times.)
You say you aren’t arguing against evolution but I respectfully suggest that if you are still referring to the basic errors like a “partial eye” then some additional reading could be…errrrr…eye-opening for you.
There’s a great documentary series from David Attenborough called First Life that covers a lot about the earliest development of basic survival features, such as eyesight and mouths and limbs. They give a good idea of how evolution shows change from simple to advanced.
I believe in a lot of things (science things) where I don’t really know how they actually work. I can’t be an expert in everything. But I would be interested in learning more about some of those less intuitive evolutionary advances.
Some things in science even defy a description of “work”. Quantum mechanics for instance can be described mathematically but how it actually “works” is perhaps even beyond human intellect at the present moment.
Thankfully evolution is not like that. When I first grasped the concept it was jaw dropping. That tiny, beneficial, accumulated changes can bring about the variety of life is just so staggeringly elegant that it almost defies belief.
Even some of your suggested “less intuitive” adaptations that on the face of it seem irreducibly complex are amenable to plausible explanations.
Take for example the bombadier beetle. A creature that mixes two compounds in its abdomen and by doing so releases a “explosion” that deters predators. I mean…how the hell?
But sure enough, put under scrutiny we find a very reasonable explanation for how it arose. As always, incremental steps (each one conferring evolutionary benefit), with a selection pressure, together with almost unimaginable lengths of time is all that is needed.
There are so, so many of these explanations out there and they make for fascinating reading. Enjoy!
Part of the proof of evolution is that it predicted there were intermediate steps, and then we keep finding fossil evidence of them. Intelligent design can’t provide a reason for the vast number of different species that have existed over time. The lack of fossils for modern species found among the intermediate steps also can’t be explained by intelligent design.
Because most of us don’t consider Genesis to be a “book of irrefutable facts,” but rather an inspired (not dictated) work to convey the truth that we, and the world, are purposefully created.
There’s no need in this thread to denigrate Christians.
I went to college with a guy who is now an astronomer at the Vatican, so that’s true. And I’d accept just about anything he said about astronomy.
However, things get tricky when science undercuts some things religion says about the world. I know Catholics no longer believe in a literal Adam and Eve, but I’ve never figured out where original sin comes from without a garden. That’s a lot more important than the literal truth of the creation story.
BTW you shouldn’t “believe” in science. We should accept it because it works. I don’t “believe” in evolution - I accept the truth of evolution because of the massive amounts of evidence supporting it. Belief isn’t required.
I know I’m being picky, but I’ve seen plenty of fundamentalists call science a religion, and saying we believe in science just gives them a reason to say this.
Yeah, I think that’s a good point. Science is an evidence-based approach. It’s not something you “believe” in. I don’t “believe” in the sun being the center of the solar system. I suppose I “believe” the science text books accurately describe the observations of the scientists who determined that the planets revolve around the sun. I didn’t see them conduct the experiments or publish the books. So I have to take that part on faith.
It’s important to recognize that when new facts come in, science changes. We didn’t “believe” in Newtonian mechanics and then suddenly “disbelieve” and start believing in Einsteinian relativity. And one of the new facts (an anomaly in the orbit of Mercury) was known earlier; many a day was spent trying to account for it. The slight extra glow in the sky means there is something about the cosmos we do not understand yet.
Ask your cousin if there is any fact that would cause him to change his belief. Probably not. Ask him about the instances of stupid design. The wiring of eye, the urethra that goes through the intestinal wall and results in a tendency for hernias, the idiocy of the birth canal going through the largest bone in the body making birth difficult and dangerous.
I think my favorite example is octopuses. Their esophagus goes through the center of their brain. They had better make sure their beak breaks food up into small enough pieces or they risk brain injury.
That’s fair. Now, the reason scientific papers are structured the way they are is to allow others to reproduce the work in case there is doubt. The cold fusion case is an example of the way this is supposed to work. But it is impractical for a layman to do this, or for most scientists for not very significant results. So our belief is provisional, unlike religious belief is supposed to be.
There are probably plenty of errors floating around out there. A friend of mine’s physics PhD was delayed for a year because he discovered that something everyone thought was true wasn’t. Showing this wasn’t important enough to get a PhD for, which made it even worse.
Ah, but that’s not the way they were at the beginning of creation. That was added as a result of The Fall - along with carnivory, or so I’ve heard.
My cousin dont beleive in evolution
But does he believe in grammar?