Undirected evolution has a goal?

The Elegance of C. elegans: Classic Design in Miniature is the title of an interesting article. It mentions that the DNA expression of each cell division from the first fertilized cell to the complete worm (~1,000 cells) has been mapped. This means that in each cell division each daughter cell while having the same DNA as every other cell has specialized a little more. The complete map from start to finish is known.



The question that arises and dealt with in the article is that the finished goal is always the same, but how could this have been known with standard evolutionary hypothesis of nondirected evolution?

The video embedded there explains everything best. Definitely worth your 10 minutes to read and watch.

Psalms 19:1 WEBA "For the Chief Musician. A Psalm by David. The heavens declare the glory of God. The expanse shows his handiwork."

Some problems for evolution

Evolution teaches that everything that exists comes from blind, unguided chance.



 

The worm, C. elegans, has had its DNA totally mapped. Its development from a single egg to each functioning cell has also be documented. This article, To Build a Worm: Where Undirected Evolution Runs into Severe Difficulties, shows us one such problem that cannot be solved by pure, unguided chance.

Thus, if we want to explain the origin of the adult form of C. elegans, we need first to explain the origin of the developmental pathway that constructs the worm. And this is where undirected evolution runs into severe difficulties.

The origin of the earliest stages of the pathway (shown in Figure 1 in previous post), where the major cell lineages start (which will eventually divide and give rise to the various structures and tissues of the adult worm), cannot be explained by natural selection -- because there is no selective advantage to those stages existing until the adult worm has been constructed.

But those later stages, especially reproductive capability (a necessary condition of natural selection), cannot themselves exist…

Faith and Science

An article on evolution news refers to an interview of Dr. Francis Collins. After this article appeared, Jerry Coyne, an evangelistic atheist responded.



I have much respect for Dr. Collins and his scientific achievements, but I don't respect his view of Christianity. This article, however, points out some of the faulty thinking of the atheist, or at least Coyne.

National Institutes of Health director Francis Collins, who is a devout Christian, did an interview recently with National Geographic about his faith and his science. Predictably, Jerry Coyne, an atheist biologist from the University of Chicago, took exception to some of Collins's answers about the compatibility of faith in God and science.

Collins:

[Question asked of Collins] Are science and religion compatible?

I am privileged to be somebody who tries to understand nature using the tools of science. But it is also clear that there are some really important questions that science cannot really answer, such as: Why is there something instead of nothing? Why are we here? In those domains I have found that faith provides a better path to answers. I find it oddly anachronistic that in today's culture there seems to be a widespread presumption that scientific and spiritual views are incompatible.

Coyne:

Here he's espousing the NOMA (non-overlapping magisteria) reconciliation rather than the "god-of-the-gaps" reconciliation (but see below), but note that what he's saying is that science and religion are not compatible but complementary. I hate having to address this issue yet again, but I have no choice.

First, science can answer, at least in principle, those hard questions; it's just that Collins and his fellow believers don't like the answers. Why are we here? Because of the Big Bang, the laws of physics, and evolution.

Coyne misunderstands the…

Truly an interesting article to read not only for the points brought out in the article but also some insight in the overzealous, misinformed thinking of an atheist.

Having It Both Ways

"Evolution is a fact," says J. William Schopf, UCLA professor of earth, planetary and space sciences.

For proof from this one study is if there is change, there is evolution, and if there is no change, there is evolution. Both ways. No matter what is observed in science, it is true. Hum…

Something I think is wrong with this.

Here is the link to the article: Sulfur Bacteria, Uncharged for Billions of Years, Confirm Darwinian Evolution. Come Again?

Now Christians who take the Bible in its plain, normal sense know that real science does not support evolution. See here and here
for example.

Well worth the couple of minutes to read.

In six days I, the LORD, made the earth, the sky, the seas, and everything in them, but on the seventh day I rested. That is why I, the LORD, blessed the Sabbath and made it holy. (Exodus 20:11, GNB92)

What are the odds?

Evolution happens by just plain luck or happenstance. There is no reason, no intelligence, or guidance. So what are the odds that a functioning protein would just happen to be formed?

This article, Comparing the Odds: The Seahawks Game Versus...Evolution? explains.

"Even the most die-hard Seattle fans would agree that the odds of last week's Seahawks win were quite small. They had to come back from a 12-point deficit in the last three minutes of the game. At that point the odds for a win were only 0.1 percent.

CBS Sports said:

According to the win probability graph from ProFootballReference.com, the Seahawks only had a .70 percent chance of winning the game after Wilson's pick [interception at 5:04 to go] -- that's less than one percent.

Believe it or not though, things actually got worse after that. Seattle's chances of winning fell to .10 percent at the 3:07 mark after Wilson threw an incomplete pass to Jermaine Kearse.

So what won the game? For the Seahawks to take the championship a combination of intelligence, skill, and luck had to come together. But I'm betting it was mainly intelligence and skill that gave the breathtaking win to the Seahawks. It would be highly unlikely to have happened by chance alone.

Why? A chance of 0.1 percent…"

This is essentially improbable. To win the game took intelligence, not random happenings. Even though the Sea Hawks won against seemingly impossible odds, it was not just a random happening.

The same can be said for evolution.