Why can't evolutionary theory explain the amazing complexity of life at its basic level?

Question

Biologists always assumed that life at the molecular and cellular level must be quite simple in its structure and function, therefore supporting evolutionary theory. That was until capable scientific instruments proved otherwise in recent decades. These "simple" cells were found to be incredibly complex, baffling scientists alike as to how such complexity could arise as the result of random mutations. This has led many to believe that there must have been some design element to all living organisms, divine or not.

Also, this is not my only basis for my belief in intelligent design. This is just one body of evidence in an ever mounting pile that is being quietly swept under the rug by those who don't want this information known to the masses. Even one of the world's most famous athiests, Sir Anthony Flew, had to renounce his atheism after more than 50 years of research led him to the conclusion that life was created.

What do you think?

I agree with you OhKatie, it really is pointless to argue. No matter how much one preaches his beliefs to the other side, he might as well talk to a brick wall. The facts are the same for each argument, it's how one interprets the facts that shapes his beliefs. It's like looking at a glass that contains half its capacity of water. I say it's half full but you say it's half empty.

And I posted this in the R&S section because I know it is a favorite hang-out spot for atheists and evolutionists.

Answer 1

I think you are absolutely right.
I think you have posited a logical and convincing argument in an extremely lucid and erudite manner.
I think the people who proselityse the ludicrous theory of evolution are threatened by your intelligence and that's why they lash out at you on here.

Answer 2

1. no, biologists have always known that cells are complex, but they also knew that they are made up of smaller sub units that are not incompatible with evolutionary theory. indeed the fact that many of an organisms functions seem to be carried out by processes that originally did something else, (behe's flagellum irreducible rotary motor turned out to be a modification of an ion pump). now why would a designer who could get new components out of the vacuum by magic reuse old parts. the fact that novel components in cells and organisms are invariably made from the modification of old ones almost inevitably leads to the conclusion that they are the product of an evolutionary process.
2. although anthony flew remained a deist, who rejected revealed religions, he recanted on the fact that the evolution DNA was not a naturalistic process. and no matter how intelligent he was, he was a philosopher not a biologist. the fact that very nearly 100% of the most prominent biologists are either atheists or agnostics tells a story.

Answer 3

Posting a science question in the religion and spirituality section often means the asker does not really want an answer. His goal is to ask a question that he believes proves some scientific knowledge to be wrong, or that science does not yet answer, and make the implicit claim that the only other explanation is a god, and specifically, the same god he happens to believe in.

It's the "god of the gaps" - intellectually bankrupt, since it favors ignorance instead of knowledge, and because of the contained logical fallacy.

However, on the off chance that you really want to know the answer:

If you make SPECIFIC claims, we'll refute them for you. It's very easy to make such vague claims.


Anthony Flew was temporarily convinced of the improbability of abiogenesis by an ID advocate, which caused him to accept a weak form of deism (that a god set the world in motion and has done nothing else). He later learned more about abiogenesis and admitted the invalidity of the abiogenesis argument, but apparently he remains a deist. He has never been an ID advocate. For the full story, see Antony Flew considers God--Sort of.

http://www.secweb.org/index.aspx?action=viewAsset&id=369

Answer 4

In the beginning life was simple. There was just one kind of an organism. It was made of just one cell which was capable of doing just the most basic of the chemical reactions necessary for a living cell. It was the ancestor of all life. The most important feature of a living thing is that it has a molecule (DNA or RNA) which contains all the information about how to build and maintain a cell. This information is copied and passed on to the other cells of a kind. But sometimes errors occur in the process of copying this information. As a result, a cell that has inherited this changed information grows to be different, and passes on this different information ti its descendants.After some time more and more groups of various cells arise. This process is called evolution. So, evolution and the biological complexity of life arises from these changes (mutations) in the information molecule of life (DNA). It takes a lot of time, tens of thousands of years for DNA to change enough that it produces an inertly new species. (But Earth's got enough time to wait. :)The principle is the same for the multicellular organisms, cuz we all start out in our mother wombs as a single cell with a unique information of life.

Answer 5

The alternative is that something infinitely more complex still - a super-intelligent entity capable of designing and creating an entire universe - just exists from nothing, and from nowhere, with no origin of any kind, and decided one day to create life. You can choose to believe that if you wish, but we all know that such a notion is utterly absurd. As Sherlock Holmes says, when you eliminate the impossible (an intelligent creator) then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth (abiogenesis and evolution).

Answer 6

Because evolution deals with just that. Biology deals with life on the cellular level. You could also ask why the theory of relativity does not answer the question of life complexity. Ever hear the term apples and oranges?

Answer 7

I think that you can move your toys around the cosmic sand box any way you want but until you can up with a reasonable explanation about how your intelligent designer DIDN'T evolve from a simpler form you're still stuck with evolution as the only plausible explanation for life on Earth.

Answer 8

"Biologists always assumed..."??? They might have assumed that when Darwin came up with his theory, but in the last 100 or so years they have have advanced not only in being able to determine the make up of cell but to analyze that genes and show that we share genetic markers with apes, among other things.

The link below is a collection of debunked claims made by creationists. I suggest that you review it.

Edit:
Oh sorry, yes evolution can and does explain complex life.

Answer 9

This is a very old argument. Biologists now understand that life began much simpler than imagined.

Anthony Flew was convinced by cosmic fine-tuning, not irreducible complexity.

Answer 10

Not a single scientist with any kind of reputation supports ID. It is a joke to most and highly offensive to more than a few.

Answer 11

I think you're a deluded fool. And if you wanted a scientific response, why didn't you post this in the biology section? Because the people there know a shed-load more than you?