SJ:
> It is safe to say that most of the scientific skepticism about
> Darwinism in the past century has centered on this requirement.
What evolutionists agree with Darwin's absolutist position on this
point? Are you talking about Darwin specifically and not evolutionary
theory in general?
As an example of a complex structure, how about the forearm?
Which came first, the radius or the ulna? How could one of these
bones evolve to complement the other? Which end would evolve
first? How could the second bone appear as a useful part,
attached at both ends, with all the associated muscles etc?
For that matter, how could any new articulated bone evolve?
Articulations are intrinsically discontinuities; the evolution
of new articulations through insensible gradations is impossible.
The evolutionary history of the skeleton of the forearm is easily
traceable from the lungfish limb, when it consisted of many
similar parts, to its present state, where the familiar process
of reduction and specialization among parts has left the radius
and ulna. There is a problem only if we insist on simple-to-complex
gradual evolution. This is the basic error in all the arguments
from 'irreducible complexity'. Evolution is not necessarily
gradual, and it certainly does not inevitably proceed from the
simple to the complex (in any sense of the word).
Cliff Lundberg
cliff@noevalley.com