Three Puzzles Evolution Can’t Solve


Wow indeed.

  1. is abiogenesis, which we have several promising hypotheses for, each with varying amounts of supporting evidence.

  2. is the bog standard ID confusion over “information” with a hopelessly vague definition and the completely false claim only intelligence can produce “information”.

  3. is Irreducible Complexity which can be produced by natural processes producing with what is known as the Mullerian two-step: add a part, then make it necessary



I don’t dispute your overall point, but the initial state if that bridge is irreducibly complex. Seems to miss the target.

The initial state isn’t IC. You can remove any of the blocks and still cross the river, although you might have to make a leap instead of a short step. The blocks make the crossing easier.

Seems like there are better ways to make this point.

That IC structures can evolve through indirect means? Go for it! :slightly_smiling_face:

ok, start with a simple log bridge. 1 part. Not irreducibly complex.
Add supports on each bank to hold the log in place. 3 parts, 2 removable. Not irreducibly complex.
Then shorten the log so that it isn’t long enough to reach the banks if the supports aren’t there. 3 parts, all necessary. Irreducibly complex.

This is so trivial that it should not be necessary to explain. If some-one can’t figure it out for themselves, it’s because they don’t want to.


All you need to do here is make the bricks narrower and increase their number to the point that removing just one leaves a gap that can be crossed.

In the process of trying to explain WHY evolution allegedly “can’t solve” the three puzzles, there is this familiar trope:

The problem is that neither creation nor evolution is observable or repeatable.

Seriously? Evolution isn’t observable?? Evolution isn’t repeatable?? (Of course, this last one also implies the old trope which confuses repeatable observation with repeating some particular event. Does one have to repeat the origin of a solar system in a lab in order to understand the origins of the solar system?)

Meanwhile, why would evolution need to explain abiogenesis?? Does Dr. Kevin Anderson (the author of that portion of the AIG article) also criticize the Theory of Photosynthesis for failing to explain the “puzzle” of the origin of light or the “puzzle” of the origin of plants?