The Creation Wiki is made available by the NW Creation Network
Watch monthly live webcast - Like us on Facebook - Subscribe on YouTube

Evolution can't explain photosynthesis (Talk.Origins)

From CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

Jump to: navigation, search
Talkorigins.jpg
Response Article
This article (Evolution can't explain photosynthesis (Talk.Origins)) is a response to a rebuttal of a creationist claim published by Talk.Origins Archive under the title Index to Creationist Claims.


Claim CB510:

Evolution cannot explain the origin of photosynthesis.

Source:

CreationWiki response:

1. This is yet another argument from incredulity. Not knowing how something evolves is a limit of ourselves, not of evolution.

This is Talk Origins’ response to any claim that Evolution is incapable of doing something, on the assumption that all they need to do is invent a just so story about how it could happen to show that it is possible. This ignores the fact that any good science fiction writer can make an impossible event sound plausible. Such an argument ignores the fact that the burden of proof is on them to show that such structures can form by natural processes, but they can offer none.

In the case of photosynthesis, the process is an example of Organized complexity, which Statistical Thermodynamics shows cannot form by natural processes.

We would not expect the evolution of photosynthesis to be easy to unravel. Photosynthesis has been evolving for more than three billion years, originating even before eukaryotes. Its early history involved gene transfer among several phyla of bacteria, making the trail harder to trace genetically. Different components of photosynthesis have independent evolutionary pathways. However, much progress has been made in determining how photosynthesis evolved.

Translation: They don’t even have enough evidence on which to base even a just so story.

This raises an important question: Is there anything that Talk Origins or any Evolutionist would agree is impossible for evolution to produce, such that if it is actually discovered it would totally falsify the General Theory of Evolution? If not, General Evolution Theory is untestable and therefore unscientific.

Personal tools