The Creation Wiki is made available by the NW Creation Network
Watch monthly live webcast - Like us on Facebook - Subscribe on YouTube

Complex organs couldn't have evolved (Talk.Origins)

From CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
Jump to: navigation, search
Response Article
This article (Complex organs couldn't have evolved (Talk.Origins)) is a response to a rebuttal of a creationist claim published by Talk.Origins Archive under the title Index to Creationist Claims.

Claim CB300:

Complex organs and biological functions could not have evolved.


CreationWiki response:

(Talk.Origins quotes in blue)

1. This is an example of the argument from incredulity.

It is true that, as worded by Talk Origins, this claim qualifies as an argument from incredulity, but that is only because they eliminate the explanatory material contained in the article.

In most cases it is not a case of being unable to see a possible Evolutionary path — after all any good science fiction writer can make the impossible sound plausible — but rather that the actual level of organized complexity precludes a naturalistic explanation.

In fact, several complex organs, which have previously been claimed unevolvable, have plausible means of evolving, including the eye, the bombardier beetle defense mechanism, the woodpecker tongue, and more.

First of all, the fact that Evolutionists can invent a plausible sounding story of how an organ might have evolved does not automatically negate a claim that an organ or other feature is unevolvable, since any good science fiction writer can make the impossible sound plausible. These just so stories only negate such a claim if the claim is made without an explanation, or the explanation is successfully refuted.

Even if some claims about unevolvable organs are successfully refuted, that does not negate others. There are people who write on these issues (both Creationists and Evolutionists) who do not know what they are talking about and they sometimes write down erroneous ideas that get picked up by others. Furthermore, it is a common aspect of science that previous claims may be falsified by later discoveries.

Evolutionary mechanisms do account for the evolution of complex organs. The abstract of Lenski et al. (2003, 139) is worth quoting in full:

The cited “study” is an Evolutionary Simulation; called Avida; A computer simulation by its nature is a simplification of the real biological world. Claiming it as an demonstration of the evolution of complex organs is at best highly problematic. Avida's ability to combine mathematical calculations to produce more complex mathematical calculations is fairly impressive. But its small fry compared to what is necessary in nature.

While there are other problems as well, these are sufficient to show that this so-called study in no way demonstrates that complex organs can evolve.

Rather than just reading the abstract as provided by Talk Origins, it is better to read the full article. It is clear from the article that the results are nowhere near as impressive as implied by the abstract.