The case of the middle ear of mammals is an interesting one. It was observed, before Darwin, in embryos that the same beginning structure which developed into jaw bones, in mammals developed into middle ear bones - this is seen in embryonic development. When Darwin’s exposition of evolution came around, it presented a puzzle. There was the question about how the change from a jaw bone to a middle ear bone could come about - would there be an intermediate stage which involved a doubly articulated jaw - the standard mammal jaw and the older jaw articulated with the bones separated, but not yet in the middle ear. A situation which looks irreducible Then, much later, I the mid 20th century, an abundance of fossils were found which showed the irreducibility was indeed evolved. The pattern seen in these pictures.
I fully accept the irreducibility of the mammalian middle ear. If you remove one of the bones it ceases to function.
It’s not based on observation??? What???
So you have never observed an irreducible biological system?
You don’t get to decide when I stop explaining things. I will continue to explain many things.
Darwin also spoke about the irreducibly complex camera eye with its lens, iris, pupil, retina, etc. Although he left out the details, it was obvious that even at the beginning of the theory these irreducible systems didn’t pose a problem.
That is not the full meaning of irreducible. The ear is a simple structure. It works as an ear drum. It does not need three bones. It is not irreducible. There are simpler versions of an ear,
IT IS NOT A SCIENTIFIC THEORY!
IT DOES NOT COME FROM OBSERVATION IN NATURE
IT COMES FROM OUTSIDE SCIENCE
IT IS NOT SCIENE SO IT DOES NOT CONFORM TO SCIENTIFI RIGOUR
IT IS NOT SCIENCE!
HOW MANY TIMES MUST I SHOUT IT!
YOU CAN NOT OBSERVE SOMETHING THAT CANNOT HAPPEN!
Ricgard
The sound that vibrates your ear drum has to be transmitted to your inner ear for you to hear it.
The three middle ear bones are the malleus, incus, and stapes. Your ear drum responds to sound vibrations, passes those vibrations through those three bones, vibrates the oval window of the inner ear which then vibrates the hairs in your inner ear which you perceive as sound. If you take those three bones away you lose hearing. It is irreducible.
Therefore, you have never observed an irreducible biological system. So where is the problem for evolution?
Thank you. I am trying to learn. One of the things that I am dealing with is that “evolution”, in a biological sense, has a history applied to concepts different from the modern scientific sense. So we have a theory of evolution of Lamarck, Chambers, and even Spencer.
I like to keep separate modern scientific evolution, which is about changes in population, different from changes in individuals, like embryology.
But let me consider the question about individuals from a theological standpoint. I think that it is important to monotheism that the individual stands in a special relationship with one’s Creator, Sustainer and Redeeer. Does this pose a problem for the modern understanding of reproduction? One might say that the development from the one-cell zygote to the eventual complex of cells recognizable as human - that such an event must involve Divine intervention. I would not argue against that, saying that it does not contradict the sciences of reproduction.
So, what about evolution? Evolution is concerned with populations or groups, like species, etc. If there is Devine intervention, it seems to me that it is not more difficult to reconcile with the sciences of evolution, more difficult than reproduction - given that the individual’s relation with God is what seems important.
This is what makes a statement like “God is needed to make a single cell into a complex of cells” a red flag to me. It seems to confuse changes in individuals with changes in population - and that happens to be, IMHO, one of the misunderstandings of evolution leading to its denial.
I am sorry but you appear to be mixing theology and science in a way that is beyond me.
God said to be fruitful and multiply, which would seem to indicate a mandate to get on with it without further intervention The growth of an individual, physically would appear to be preprogrammed and natural. The individual identity is not part of science and therefor not within its view or domain.
Richard
Evolution doesn’t need to construct something that is not observed in any species. You said yourself that irreducibly complex systems are not observed.
Science itself has evolved, one might say. 
Joking aside, the institution of science has certainly seen some change. In the 18th and 19th centuries science was often practiced as a hobby by wealthy gentlemen, or perhaps supported by a patron. Science wasn’t a profession per se. Or at least, this is the impression I have taken away from my very limited studies of science history. There was also a lot of influence from the cultures and societies that those early scientists lived in. For example, Spencer’s attempts to apply evolution to society was very Victorian, and also wrong headed. As some of us have quipped, Social Darwinism is as scientific as throwing someone off of a tall building and calling it Social Newtonism.
I wouldn’t call Spencer’s Social Darwinism a scientific theory.
Lamarck proposed acquired characteristics . . . as did Darwin in a way. Darwin proposed that there were gemmules that transferred the experiences of somatic cells into the germline so that they could be inherited.
It’s slightly different than Lamarck’s ideas where use or disuse of biological features were passed on, but it wasn’t that far off.
I am not as familiar with Chambers. From skimming through google searches, he appears to have suggested common ancestry. Other than that, I am not sure what type of theory he proposed, or how it would differ from what we see in the theory of evolution today. What separates Darwin from Chambers is that Darwin was able to tie common ancestry to Linnaean classification, otherwise known as the tree of life. Darwin recognized that common ancestry should produce a tree like arrangement of shared characteristics and modifications, exactly what we see in macroscopic life. It is not too dissimilar to Newton explaining why planets move about in elliptical orbits.
Perfect circular reasoning, except that you cannot observe 95% or so of any of it. Evolution does not work by specific observation It just assumes.
It is a cop out.
Richard
You said we don’t observe any irreducibly complex systems. Why would a scientific theory need to explain something we don’t observe?
Also, the theory of evolution does work by specific observations. The entire purpose of the theory is to explain what we observe. That’s true of all scientific theories.
You just do not get it.
Richard
I get it just fine.
"IT IS NOT A SCIENTIFIC THEORY!
IT DOES NOT COME FROM OBSERVATION IN NATURE"
–RichardG
If it’s not observed in nature, then why would anyone need to explain it? Apparently, irreducibility only exists in your imagination.
The get into your time machine and go and observe it
Richard
The response was to the notion that a BIBLICAL writer could have been a flat earther!
You have gone to great lengths there to cite references that are long AFTER the time period in question…thats totally irrelevant!
Why are these irrelevant?
Because religious individuals must get their flat earthism from somewhere right…so often, even on these forums, passages from for example, the book of Job or ecclesiastes etc, these are cited.
That means that a Jewish or Christian individual claiming to be flat earth using biblical theology and who writes AFTER those bible books were written, is referencing them.
Again, Moses predates Job, eccesiastes, psalms …we are talking over 1000 years BC! that is a huge theological and historical problem there and you AD references are completely useless because they are way later.
Btw, dont insult my intelligence by trying to rustle up non Jewish ancient references…that would be a mistake. The claim here is that YEC christians are flat earthists…they do not get their theology from outside the bible for this so what secularism does/believes isnt revelant.
- Took you that long to rewrite a Chat GPT response? LOL!
OK!
The point that I was trying to make.
And Robert Chambers 1844 book, “Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation” made quite a stir, but isn’t highly regarded today.
I am saying that there are/were non-scientific theories of evolution, and discredited scientific theories of evolution. Even if you prefer to include of the present varieties as parts of The thery of evolution.