They are unpersuasive to those of us who engage with the evidence because they ignore most of the evidence.
Your side is denying the existence of most of the evidence.
Nope. I’m saying that we have a lot more evidence than you’re willing to examine, and several interesting hypotheses. It’s a lot harder to study than evolution, so we know a lot less about it.
Here’s my offer: show me some evolution or abiogenesis denial that you find convincing, and I’ll show what evidence is being ignored.
Let’s try the organization and design, as well as practical constraints, inherent in gene regulatory networks. How do stable morphological assembly instructions for complex organisms get compiled and implemented so reliably? And how did these all arise?
The problem with most mathematical arguments against evolution, is they are invalid to start with. We have a body of theory of statistical inference about the best ways of interpreting data, and carefully defined measure of what “best” means in this context. It’s not that that arguments are unpersuasive, they are invalid in the face of mathematical proofs for the best methods of statistical inference. William Dembski went so far as to reject these methods and strike out on him own to find a new methods of interpreting probability. He may have sold a lot of books, but he hasn’t advance knowledge of statistical theory at all.
2 Likes
Genes that affect multicellular organization and differentiation mutated, and the mutations were subject to natural selection and genetic drift. That’s the answer. I don’t see how this is even a question. If you want specifics you’re going to have to look at papers that parse out such events. The Thornton lab has done interesting work on transcription factors and regulation networks using ancestral sequence reconstruction, and even tested ancestral states in living organisms to see how they functioned in the deep past.
For example, one of the mutations that contributed to the evolution of organization found in many types of multicellular tissues has been elucidated here:
Anderson DP, Whitney DS, Hanson-Smith V, Woznica A, Campodonico-Burnett W, Volkman BF, King N, Thornton JW, Prehoda KE. Evolution of an ancient protein function involved in organized multicellularity in animals. Elife. 2016 Jan 7;5:e10147. doi: 10.7554/eLife.10147
Here they investigate how a transcription factor (one of the famous homeodomain regulatory elements) evolved to determine anterior-posterior morphological patterning in the development of flies:
Liu Q, Onal P, Datta RR, Rogers JM, Schmidt-Ott U, Bulyk ML, Small S, Thornton JW. Ancient mechanisms for the evolution of the bicoid homeodomain’s function in fly development. Elife. 2018 Oct 9;7. pii: e34594. doi: 10.7554/eLife.34594
Here they elucidate how a new, hormone-controlled gene regulatory element evolved:
McKeown AN, Bridgham JT, Anderson DW, Murphy MN, Ortlund EA, Thornton JW. Evolution of DNA specificity in a transcription factor family produced a new gene regulatory module. Cell. 2014 Sep 25;159(1):58-68. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2014.09.003
In these three papers, the the mutation-by-mutation evolution of these entities are worked out using phylogenetic methods, the inferred ancestral states are recreated in the laboratory (and it is found that they work, which implies phylogenetic inferences aren’t just fantasies), spliced into living cells (in the example of flies they actually test the resurrected ancient transcription factor in living flies) and their mechanisms of function are worked out in impressive detail.
1 Like
Are you addressing that to me? Because my offer is that you present me with the actual denial and I’ll show you which evidence is being ignored.
Guy, I think you know that science is not going to give you any philosophical answers. The best answer science has is that (in just three words) complex organisms evolved. I realize that make not be satisfying to you, but your real choices are 1) to accept that science will never satisfy your philosophy, or 2) get busy and come up with a better scientific theory , accepting the risk your new theory probably won’t satisfy your philosophy either.
You can’t explain how the three word mantra “complex organisms involved” answers the question of how those complex organisms originated in the first place. That’s not a philosophical critique, but purely a canon of logic. Question begging is no defense.
It was not my purpose to explain, only to point out that you have a choice. If it’s explanation you want then you can do better than asking a statistician to explain biology. 
However, I would try to answer specific questions related to math and statistics.
But maybe I should expand … “Complex organisms” defines a class of biological “things”. The best sciencific answer to “how did these things arise” is “evolution”. That’s a really short summary of the state of scientific knowledge about the origin of complexity. Science can give us sciencific answers, but not philosophical answers.
What sort of answer are you seeking?
You already know evolution is an inadequate answer to the question of abiotic origins. That’s not a philosophical statement, it’s a logical one.
Abiogenesis is still an open question (you know that), but there is progress towards addressing the sciencific questions. You can move the goalposts all you like, but you still face the same choice.
1 Like
Of course it is—because the Theory of Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. You also know that the Special Theory of Relativity is an inadequate answer to the question of photosynthesis origins. And you know that the Universal Law of Gravitation is an inadequate answer to the question of mitosis origins.
Logic is important. Is confusing evolutionary processes which explain changes in allele frequencies in populations over time with “abiotic origins” (the beginnings of living things from non-living materials) a logical stance?
2 Likes
if so we dont have any evidence that the flagellum can evolve stepwise. in science we go by the evidence we have and not by the evidence we dont have. so all evidence shows that there is no stepwise way to evolve the flagellum.
I am not moving the goalpost. I have made this goalpost my criterion the whole time, and called it a dodge to pretend otherwise. Life did not first arrive via “evolutionary processes” alone. Because they are inadequate to explain the forensic evidence of what must have taken place. Even Lynn Margulis, originator of endosymbiotic theory, agrees with this.
Let’s say I am an archaeologist and find an interesting looking grain of sand. I take it home and put it under a scanning electron microscope, only to find an integrated circuit board sits upon its surface. What am I to conclude? The analogy to biology over the last several decades discovering increasing levels of complexity within cells, with intricate means of survival, metabolism and adaptability, serves. Elucidating the ways that the printed circuit board has changed over time does not explain away its origin or random, undirected unlikelihood.
For me, the analogy serves. If it doesn’t for you, then I’d submit that you’re the one who’s confused, not me. Or, there’s an artificial mental block, in order to avoid this kind of logic.
Now you are saying that your claim is my claim. No.
I too see the wonder in nature, but that doesn’t mean we cannot understand how it came to be. Accepting arguments from incredulity and bad math as logical is also a choice, but not a logical choice. 
2 Likes
Have you examined that evidence?
She can’t possibly agree with anything in the present tense, as she’s been dead for 7 years.
Accepting inadequate explanations credulously is the illogic that I see going on here. Tomato, tomahto?
Agreed. Evolutionary processes apply to already living organisms.
The Bible clearly describes living organisms coming from non-living soil:
Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. —Genesis 1:11
Raw land, aka the continents, [the Hebrew word ERETZ refers to land and dirt in contrast with “the waters”, the oceans and seas] is not alive. Yet, it produced vegetation, living things. That’s biological life from non-living materials.
Biological life being made from non-living materials is abiogenesis. [Literally: not-biologically-alive + origin/source.] Considering that the Bible describes abiogenesis and that scientists are investigating the details of abiogenesis, I have no reason as a Christ-follower to deny abiogenesis. There is no conflict in this. Abiogenesis is fact which all can agree upon. To deny abiogenesis requires that one maintain that all biological life has always been produced by previously existing biological life, ad infinitum into “eternity past”. I don’t know of anyone who believes that biological life has always existed!
1 Like
To deny that abiogenesis occurred absent God’s purposeful and intentional activity IS THE Judaeo-Christian assertion. That’s the one vital “ingredient” you can’t leave out. I do not deny evolution’s action, only its sufficiency. The evidence clearly shows that, as well as the text of the Bible.
Some Christians use the phrase “God-guided evolution” to account for that aspect; others, like me, speak of the combined activity of God “creating” AND evolution merely operating afterwards, since while I see some adative changes within the ken of evolutionary processes, I do not see true innovation arising from them.
In any case, I see being forced to choose between the two as a false dichotomy. No amount of name-calling, confusion-attributing, or other marginalizing even matters to me.
Call 'em like I see 'em, and credulity is what I too often see.
Hope that helps!
I thought the ressurection of Christ was THE Christian assertion? There is not nearly so much fuss about abiogenesis on the Judaeo side.
2 Likes