www.windowview.org
Science

www.WindowView.org

(101509)

Questions:

Short Answer:

If one were to assume that chemicals somehow assemble into the necessary compounds to make simple life possible, then a basic logic might ferry us over to a somewhat reasonable assumption about how primitive cells and simple organisms evolved long ago. And while we've noted problems even at this level (see articles on chemical origins and thermodynamics) this starting point alone does not reveal how living forms acquire information nor how complexity of an astounding nature is arrived at in the form of higher organisms.

We briefly visit a few examples below to indicate that complex features in life forms push back on evolutionist thinking. Complexity becomes one of the topics that proponents for 'design' in nature would like to focus on ... simply because complexity in a number of examples takes the legs out from under evolutionist thinking. This is not simply to be critical of evolutionists ... the point is to take a look at the evidence we have and to look at this without preconceived notions. And if complex features cannot be explained by the Darwinian mechanism, then let's open up the view.

For example, just having evidence for feathers in dinosaurs does not fully explain the origin of flight or of birds. In fact, science has yet to discover the early 'trial stages' that evolutionists assume for the development of feathers. What if we never see such evidence? For now, we have evidence that shows (only) sophisticated forms of feathers appear in both dinosaurs and birds. Why should these forms be so similar? No one knows! Perhaps this is all by design and not evolution. Yet, a conservative approach is to only explain features as far as the evidence takes us.

But hold on, there is another wonderful aspect to all this. Other examples in life forms from cellular features (like cilia and flagella or the immune system or biochemical pathways discussed in another feature article on complexity) to complex organs demand further critical thinking. Even Darwin pondered the awe and wonder to the complexity of the eye ... even his instincts told him that if evolution could not account for the evolutionary development of observed biological complexity, then evolution theory would be compromised.

While space limits a detailed discussion, this feature article highlights examples of complex structures that go beyond simply stretching the evolution theory. But to see how this works we need to absorb something about the degree of complexity involved. This begins to filter out trial and error or chance as the origin of such complex structures. We are dealing with such sophistication, many orders of magnitude above the simpler assumptions for how evolution might work, that it staggers the imagination! But that's the point, and this allows us to question why evolutionists want to fit this into assumptions without examining complexity?

Only sophisticated feathers (thus far) appear without signs of evolutionary development. Insect wings, the eye, and structure and function of the brain are several other good starting examples here. So too, in other examples, complexity arises as an issue begging wonder and a marvel of life's architecture from the highly specified three-dimensional shapes of functional proteins, to the integrated structure and function of numerous cellular features, to the inter-workings of organ and hormone systems and the entire interaction of life function throughout each organism. A science article or TV show might gloss over this issue, here we sit a while to ponder the implications that these features of life bring to our attention.

Consider This:

WindowView in part begs a bit of critical thinking. Suppose you interpret biological information from the viewpoint of biological evolution as defined by Darwinism in general. Your expectation is then that all new evidence that science reveals thus fits within a paradigm defined by evolution's standard story. But what if we step outside the sphere of evolution to ask what the new evidence really brings us. If the new information in fact conforms Darwinian evolution, then so be it. But what if we stop short of interpretation in light of some expectation and just see where the evidence brings us at this point in time. Let's take an example. The following brief report appeared in the March 11, 2002, issue of the Washington Post:

Find Links Birds, Dinosaurs Paleontologists have found what appears to be the first fossilized remains of a dinosaur that had feathers identical to those of modern birds, providing new evidence for the theory that birds evolved from dinosaurs. Mark Norell of the American Museum of Natural History in New York and colleagues from China found the 128 million-year-old fossilized skeleton of the creature, known as a dromaeosaur, at the Beipiao Paleontological Museum in China. The three-foot-long, two-legged carnivore could run fast, but apparently could not fly. But impressions in the fossilized rock indicate the animal was covered in feathers that had shafts and opposing branches like feathers on modern birds, the researcher reported in the March 7 Nature. The findings indicate that feathers may have evolved first for some reason other than aiding flight, such as warmth.

We also note that at the 2002 annual meeting for the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Dr. Sereno, of the University of Chicago, recently found a dinosaur fossil—in this case from Africa—that indicates this organism also had feathers. So, the evidence reveals that some dinosaurs had feathers.

Stepping back a moment we might also note a comment by Dr. Paul Sereno that indicates how little evolutionary adaptation value seems to be expressed from the dinosaurs as a whole (also see sidebar note on his discoveries). For example, the dinosaurs living in and around water seem to make no evolutionary changes to show adaptations to water. But why wouldn't evolutionary modifications just arise? The water is there, why not adaptations? This view may change, but one might ask beyond having feathers, what basis is there to assume birds come from dinosaurs. At the very least, two different sets of organisms have similar or identical information to make feathers. How did the information get there?

Dr. Denton in his writings goes to great lengths to illustrate points concerning the emergence and use of feathers. In fact, even the recent evidence gets us no further than critical points made by Denton. We only have observation of advance feather architecture on primitive animals, and nothing more. The real linkage would be in finding stages of feather development that would then fill in the Darwinian progression of gradual decent over time. And thus far, all dinosaur and modern day bird feathers share features instead of revealing some developmental sequence over time.

We are not going to make a hard-nosed conclusion here. The simple point is that some dinosaurs appear to have feathers. That is as far as the evidence brings us. This is far short of drawing a line between dinosaurs and birds. While unacceptable to some evolutionists, the point remains ... feathers may be just as much a part of a design feature that appears in more than one place within the animal kingdom. As such, feathers appear as a unique trait ascribed to certain organisms, but we are not able to extrapolate a story line beyond that. Filling in the story requires more evidence. And yet, like the evidence noted in the Washington Post, as exciting as this new find is, it only tells us something about dinosaurs. And as you can read in Dr. Denton's book (see his Chapter 9; in reference ETC), there is a whole other story that needs to be completed to even show how feathers developed or how flight might have evolved ... if it evolved or just appeared as an ability endowed in certain animals.

And flight is an assumed evolutionary development for insects. Here again scientists have assumed modified parts of insects made for a progressive story toward acquiring flight. But do all scientist say this is so:

For de Duve empirical evidence seems to shed more darkness than light. Consider his discussion of the development of winged insects: "Nobody knows how dragonflies, butterflies, bees, mosquitoes, and other flying insects won their wings. It is not even known whether they inherited their wings from a common ancestor or achieved flying separately by convergent evolution. Unlike the wings of other flying animals those of insects are not modified limbs. They formed by flattened outfoldings of the chitinous covering of the animal's back, which are moved by muscles of extraordinary performance efficiency. How such an amazing arrangement ever came into being is anybody's guess." Kaita (MC) Page 39

The term integration was used in the Short Answer above. Using this term is a hint. It's not simply an integration of physiology with form, but also evolution's assumed integration of changes throughout an entire species that brings on an organized and functional product in the next viable and functional species. Numerous changes really need to occur all within a short phase of evolution in order for that product to be functional. What if a new species was almost complete but missing a few parts of the entire integrated scheme ... that wouldn't work. And that is part of Dr. Spetner's expression as indicated next:

The odds against the population taking exactly the same path twice is 103000 to one. But convergences are almost never perfect. The bat wing is not built exactly like the bird wing. So let's say that, in a convergent transition to a new species, not all the 500 choices had to be the same. If only 100 of them had to be the same, the odds against it would be 10600 to one. Those odds are still enormously greater than the odds against the event we called impossible. And don't forget, I'm dealing here only with the transition from one species to the next. No evolutionist would try to say a complicated organ, like a wing or a kidney—to say nothing of the eye—developed in a single species transition. For the evolution of a complex organ we would have to allow many thousands of steps. Spetner (NBC) page 110

There are several other discussions (i.e., outside sources) to use here in discussing evolution of complex structures such as the eye. Denton's writings are instructive on this particular point (see his Chapters 2 and 14; in reference ETC) , but for now, we'll continue with a couple of comments made by Dr. Spetner:

In three animal phyla there are image-forming eyes. One of these is the vertebrates, of which the human eye is a typical example. If this eye developed according to the NDT[neo-Darwinian Theory], then it must have appeared in the first vertebrates, which are estimated to have arisen some half a billion years ago. The second is the mollusc phylum, some of whose members have eyes much like those of the vertebrates. In this phylum, the octopus, the squid, and the cuddlefish have such eyes. In the arthropod phylum, the insects, spiders, and crabs have image-forming eyes. Until two years ago, biologists unanimously held that eyes evolved independently as many as three or four dozen times [Zuker 1994]. Spetner (NBC) page 111

How then does one account for such slim odds repeatedly being surpassed in so many independent cases to yield biological instruments of sight? What inherent nature in material beings repeatedly provides this vision solution? How would a process 'know' to provide organs of sight as some set end product of evolution? A process can't know anything.

And structural observations are not alone in revealing mysteries concerning the eye. Genetic development of vastly different types of eyes appear to have some common genetic controls.

Just two years ago, a striking identity was reported between an insect gene and a vertebrate gene [Quiring et al. 1994]. This gene has been found to control eye development both in insects and in vertebrates, including humans. The genes in these two different phyla are 94% identical. This new finding makes convergence look so improbable that, even without making any probability calculations, the authors suggest that "the traditional view that the vertebrate eye and the compound eye of insects evolved independently has to be reconsidered" But maybe the eyes neither converged nor developed independently. There's a third option, which I shall take up in a Chapter 7. Spetner (NBC) page 112

You will have to read Spetner's book to find his Chapter 7. But the mystery here is in how such different eyes are associated with a similar genetic component. And this gene isn't responsible to determining the end result for a specific eye, let alone many different eye shapes. So, perhaps its not the controlling gene but the information and the source of this information that directs the assembly process that is the key to eye morphologies. Again, the gene is not the same as this information. Finding the gene doesn't solve the mystery.

Again, to take a conservative tact for the present course, the evidence indicates that no simple storyline explains the origin nor a unified evolution of the eye from phylum to phylum. A television special might show a graphic with a smooth graphical transition from a primitive to more sophisticated shape as if that reveals the course of evolution. We need to ask if the illustration fits the data or if it's a conceptualization of what might have happened. If it's a concept illustration, then what kind of story does the evidence leave us with at the present time. Undoubtedly, the television special would have to drop the graphic to explain a more complex situation. Wrinkles in the story would have to interrupt the smooth transition with developmental side tracks in certain species and even gaps in explanations for eye development in other species.

Exceeding the eye in complexity is the human brain. It's probably the most complex object in the universe [Fischbach 1992]. Spetner (NBC) page 112

Our final example here is more of one to get you to think 'outside the box' so to speak. So often we read something and just take it at face value. The brain is a complex structure ... sure, we agree. But how complex? What is our reaction if we are given some dimensionality to this! Perhaps we go from nodding our head in agreement to a wide eyed reflection that ... Hey, this is really too incredible... it's not something we should lightly conclude is the product of chance ... and Overman helps us to widen our eyes a bit:

For the proponents of accident another daunting obstacle is the explanation of the incredible increase in complexity that one finds in the human brain. The vast complexity of a single cell pales in comparison to the complexity of the human brain which consists of more than ten thousand million nerve cells with each cell containing ten thousand to one hundred thousand fibers connecting the brain cells so that the total connections among brain cells total a thousand million million or 1015. This is an incredibly large number, especially when one considers that each brain fiber provides a special function in the brain's communication system. To put the number in perspective these connections represent over 100 times the number of connections in the total network of communications on the planet earth! The probability of the assembly of such a system even by intelligent human beings is exceedingly small. The argument that such an assembly was performed by accident stretches credulity. Overman (CAA) Page 66

After all the reading to this point you may be a little cross-eyed. But pause for a moment and think about how awesome biological systems really are! The brain is first awesome in architecture as is clear from what Overman is saying above. And yet the structure must also function and so often it does flawlessly. Yes, there are aberrations but even individuals who suffer lesions or deformities exhibit incredible brain function. And to all this, consider that the thoughts and memories we associate with our mind seem to reside outside the physical brain. The brain is a physical entity of complexity but only the interface to our mind, personality, and ability to communicate, think, process emotions, and remember.

... Undoubtedly, the complexity of biological systems in terms of the sheer number of unique components is very impressive; and it rises the obvious question: could any sort of purely random process ever have assembled such systems in the time available. Overman (CAA) Page 67

The point here is not that biological systems endowed with the information and the cellular mechanisms are unable to build the brain ... the point is more in how the information came into existence. Overman is simply indicating none of this would exist if randomness were the driving force leading to the brain.

Finally, this is not the only place we stop to think about some eye-opening wonder concerning complexity to life systems. We also visit a similar view in our feature article on cell structure. Perhaps you might like to pop over there to do some additional reading alone this same line of thought.

Added Perspective:

Too often evolution is assumed to explain everything. Yet, all too often the classroom exercise fails to focus on the complexity of marvelous examples that serve to challenge the process that is credited with producing the material components of our being. If the process is assumed, then the explanation is incomplete. Here we are pushing back to think of how far the evidence takes us and then not fill in data needs with assumptions. Science will at times fill in bare spots with new discoveries. The feature articles in the Science area not only shed light on a need for more information, but too, shed light on the character of where voids appear. It's the character of those voids based on what science can tell us that makes for unique problems. And the uniqueness seems to tell us something special about being here. And perhaps in some cases science will never be able to provide explanations because of that special nature to being here. The perspective here is to leave ourselves free to think without getting into a rut. And again, build the view on numerous perspectives from many different angles. That too is key to characterizing the value of the examples like those we've considered above.

Quotations from "Mere Creation" (MC) edited by William A. Dembski are used by permission of InterVarsity Press, P.O. Box 1400, Downers Grove, IL 60515. www.ivpress.com All rights reserved. No portion of this material may be used without permission from InterVarsity Press.

Quotations from "Not By Chance" (NBC) written by L. Spetner, are used by permission granted by Dr. Lee Spetner.