Evolution of the (Blind) Eye
By Roddy Bullock
This post summarizes a recent dialog with an evolutionist that illustrates the blindness of evolutionists to simple truths. The full email transcript will be appended to this post shortly. (If appended now, it makes the post too long for email.)
[This is Creation Reformation’s Substack. Will you subscribe? (It will make our day!) Enjoy!]
Ironically, the “coulda-happened-this-way” scientific method behind the story of the eye produced an equally widespread side effect: the evolution of the blind eye!
“Here's how some scientists think some eyes may have evolved: . . .” So starts the “Evolution of the Eye” post from PBS’s online Evolution Library. It’s a quick read, and the vacuous ponderings of “some scientists” should evoke sketicism, if not a chuckle, from any serious person. The PBS article’s “coulda-happened-this-way” explanation could probably get a chuckle out of Darwin himself, who’s already on record admitting skepticism about evolution’s ability to create an eye.
It seems that convincing people of evolution’s prowess by spooning out “coulda-happened” stories like PBS’s evolution of the eye conjecture passes for science today. Nothing in such stories hints at how evolutionary theory’s unguided processes could possibly account for the massively complex, intricate and interdependent programming necessary for the constant new coding for evolving eyes.
Darwin can be admired for his skeptism of his own theory to create the eye. And Darwin can be excused for hoping his theory might someday explain the eye. Because Darwin’s 19th-century mind could not conceive what 21st-century minds would see: an intricate tangle of software codes for the intricate tangle of hardware of the eye.
By relying on “coulda-happened-this-way” narratives for everything from giraffe’s necks to opposing thumbs, evolutionists hide 21st-century evidence behind Darwin’s 19th-century ideas. And in doing so they perpetuate one of the greatest Bunko hustles in human history. Catering to generations of people longing for alternatives to God as their creator, modern evolutionists jettisoned Darwin’s honest sketicism and gave those with eyes the uncanny ability to be uncurious, unskeptical, and blind to the obvious evidence around them (and in them).
Ironically, the “coulda-happened-this-way” scientific method behind the story of the eye produced an equally widespread side effect: the evolution of the blind eye!
To illustrate the blind eyes of those who adopt evolutionary theory as their chosen creation narrative, consider my recent conversation with an evolutionist. I summarize key points below; a complete transcript is (or will be) appended to the end of this post.
First, some context.
As my readers know, I assert and defend what I call The Natural Selection Paradox: Despite natural selection’s role in nature, every current life form was produced from a first life form SOLELY by cumulative random evolutionary change.
Creation Reformation developed The Natural Selection Paradox as a statement that must be a true IF evolutionary theory is the correct explanation for all current species. A rational person carefully considering the scientific tenability of The Natural Selection Paradox will come to the logical conclusion that it cannot be scientifically defended, and thus cannot possibly be true.
Thus the paradox: The Natural Selection Paradox must be true if evolutionary theory is true, but it is scientifically indefensible, thereby completely destroying evolutionary theory as a scientific explanation for all current living things.
For years I have invited evolutionists to show how The Natural Selection Paradox is not a true statement (thus saving evolutionary theory) or is a true statement and can be scientifically defended. What I often get are evolutionists who agree it is a true statement and believe it is scientifically defensible. And this is exactly what “Bill” maintained in our recent email exchange.
The Blind Eye of Evolutionists Demonstrated
In Bill’s introductory email he stated:
Regarding your 'paradox' statement: "Every current species evolved from a first life form SOLELY by cumulative random evolutionary change." I'd say that natural selection was a crucial element in that evolution, i.e. that randomness was not SOLELY the driver of evolution. Although natural selection did not create any new genotypes, it selected the survivors in a very specific & directed way.
I responded, calling out Bill’s mischaracterization of The Paradox (in bold below). This is very common in dialogs with evolutionists. They tend to be a bit sloppy with the precise language needed for clarity:
We do not disagree that natural selection is crucial to explaining which species exist today. But The Natural Selection Paradox is still true. The Paradox makes a subtle, surgical, precise point about the evolutionary mechanism of change that produced the unbroken chain of organisms in the direct line of descent for all current species. The Paradox is not stating, as you suggest, "that randomness is SOLELY the driver of evolution." I could explain the distinction here, but the distinction is in the literal words of the Paradox, and further, that is what the video explained. Again, it's a subtle distinction, but it renders the Paradox true and devestates evolution by natural selection as the explanation for current living things. If after some pondering you do not see the subtle, powerful distinction, let me know. We can discuss further.
Bill replied:
I don't find your 'paradox' statement to be a paradox, or scientifically indefensible. I wish you would elaborate on why you believe it's a paradox, given all the mechanisms that we've agree on. Do you think of it as a paradox because you can't believe that complex organisms could have resulted from random events? It's just like the 'a watch requires a watchmaker' argument. Calling it a paradox is still an argument from incredulity- "Ah, that never coulda happened!"
Statements like Bill’s are frustrating. I explained in the first five minutes of The Silver Bullet video why I “find” my statement to be a paradox. And I explained fully why it is scientifically indefensible. And for Bill to jump right to accusations of an “argument from incredulity” is disappointing and does not bode well for a meeting of the minds.
We had some back-and-forth exchanges about a dice analogy that he loves and kept insisting I respond to, which I did. Then I got back to the business at hand. I realized I was going to have to spoon feed Bill about why The Natural Selection Paradox is a paradox.
My response:
Before I explain the paradox, let me make sure we are on the same page with what must be true if evolutionary theory explains all current species.
Since you see the statement I proposed about your dice example as true, do you also agree that The Natural Selection Paradox is a TRUE statement?
Here is The Natural Selection Paradox for reference: Despite natural selection's role in nature, every current species evolved from a first life form solely by cumulative random evolutionary change.
Bill helpfully responded:
Yes- I agree that your statement ("Despite natural selection's role in nature, every current species evolved from a first life form solely by cumulative random evolutionary change.") is true. I don't accept it as a paradox.
To ensure I am not wasting any more time than necessary, I probed Bill’s understanding once more by stating a version of The Natural Selection Paradox that any rational person would reject on its face as being scientifically untenable:
One more step.
The Natural Selection Paradox is equally true without the introductory phrase, as such: "Every current species evolved from a first life form solely by cumulative random evolutionary change."
Do you agree?
Bill responded, unable to bring back into play his example of the dice analogy. His “analagous” statement is not analogous, but I let it go because at this point it is a distraction:
Yes, I agree with that statement.
It is analogous to the statement: "This morning I took a 6-sided die and rolled 10 sixes, solely by random rolls of the die"
I replied, spelling out the paradox in great detail to Bill. Keep in mind that when I say The Paradox is “true” I mean it must necessarily be true if evolution by natural selection is the true explanation for current life forms. Here we go:
Thank you. We both agree that if the theory of evolution is true, then The Natural Selection Paradox is a true statement.
Here is The Natural Selection Paradox: "Every current species evolved from a first life form solely by cumulative random evolutionary change."
Here is the definition of the term "paradox": “a seemingly absurd or self-contradictory statement or proposition that when investigated or explained may prove to be well-founded or true.”
I maintain that The Natural Selection Paradox is absurd as a scientific matter, and self-contradictory to the theory of evolution. But we both agree it is true.
If you want to show there is no paradox, provide the scientific law or scientific principle that makes the statement not absurd or self-contradictory. Specifically, state the scientific law or scientific principle that makes today's highly complex coded information a non-contingent result of random evolutionary mechanisms from a first living thing.
Remember, you cannot appeal to non-random evolutionary mechanisms in your explanation.
And now we get to witness the blind eyes of evolutionists. Bill is typical of evolutionists in his response and when we cross this point of the discussion I know there will be no discovery of truth by Bill.
Here’s Bill, desparately trying to make his dice analogy relevant to the conversation:
I'm not following you. Your statement ("Every current species evolved from a first life form solely by cumulative random evolutionary change") is neither absurd nor contradictory to the theory of evolution. You've said several times that this statement is true; but if you consider it true, why do you also consider it absurd or a paradox?
If we take my dice-experiment, I could make an analogous statement to yours by saying "This morning I took a 6-sided die and rolled 10 sixes, solely by random rolls of the die." We both agree that this statement is not absurd or paradoxical; and we both agree that it can be easily done the way I've outlined it.
I believe that your statement ("Every current species evolved from a first life form solely by cumulative random evolutionary change") is not paradoxical or even far-fetched, due to the hereditary mechanism of DNA and natural selection's mechanism of allowing the most-fit mutations to survive (i.e. recording each positive result, then proceeding with the process). Just calling the statement "absurd" doesn't make it so.
It’s hard to know how to respond to the blindness of replies like Bill’s. I know he truly believes his dice experiment is meaningful. But I already disposed of it and Bill does not even know it. You can judge for yourself by reading the entire transcript below.
Because this is what I do (and I often question if this is the best use of my time), I got out a small spoon to spoon feed Bill. This is a bit long, but I realize I need to be very granular in my explanation to Bill:
Let me clarify.
I have said several times that The Natural Selection Paradox is true if “the theory of evolution by natural selection is the true explanation for all current species."
I made that clear in the first few minutes of the "Silver Bullet" video, and I try to always make that qualifier clear in all my communications. I may have failed to do that somewhere in our exchange.
I also made very clear in the first few minutes of the video why I call The Natural Selection Paradox a paradox. I will recap briefly in three steps:
The Natural Selection Paradox is necessarily true IF the the theory of evolution is the true explanation for all current species.
(We both agree with this statement).
But The Natural Selection Paradox is scientifically indefensible.
You (apparently) disagree with this statement.
Thus, it is a paradox, because a scientifically indefensible statement must be true for the theory of evolution to be true.
It's a paradox because The Natural Selection Paradox is (or SHOULD BE) seemingly absurd or self-contradictory. But when investigated may turn out to be true. (This is the definition of a "paradox").
It is not any more complicated than that. In my last email I asked you to address Point 2 above.
I will try again with my latest question to you. To render The Natural Selection Paradox NOT a paradox, it must be shown that Point 2 above is false and The Natural Selection Paradox IS scientifically defensible.
That's why I asked you to provide me with any scientific law or principle that renders Point 2 false, and The Natural Selection Paradox scientifically defensible/believable.
There is no other area of science in which random change alone explains increased organized complexity of the kind required to produce the genetic codes for every current species from a first life form.
For example, we know that it is not random change that explains why apples fall downward. Apples fall downward in accordance with a scientific law that describes their expected change in position.
Similarly, we know that it is not random change that explains the motion of the planets. The planets change their positions in accordance to the laws of motion and the law of gravity that describe their expected change in position.
Similarly, we know that it is not random change that explains the change of position of atoms to produce crystals. The crystals change their position in accordance with the laws of thermodynamics, seeking their lowest energy state, to describe their expected change in position.
I'm asking you to provide a similar scientific law or principle that can account for the "truth" that cumulative random change alone can make the massive ordering necessary for evolution to be possible, much less expected.
If this is not clear, and/or, you cannot provide such a scientific law or principle, we are likely done. I await your reply.
Bill responded with a long email that I reproduce in full below (except for the details of his much-beloved dice analogy, which will not go away; the reader can find this in the full appended transcript at the end of this post). I will leave it to the reader to see if Bill produced one scientific law or principle that can make The Natural Selection Paradox scientifically tenable. In my view, all he did is illustrate many examples of normal physics and chemistry in action in obedience to laws of nature, like the Laws of Thermodynamics, gravity, etc. But you be the judge:
Ok, thanks for the clarification.
Yes, I definitely think your 'paradox' statement is scientifically defensible. The statement only seems far-fetched, because it's hard for us to envision the number of random events and the time spans that were required for random events to lead to today's organisms.
As for your examples of scientific laws, planetary motions are definitely guided by gravity, which can't be called random; i.e. we've got formulas that predict it. But if you look on a more macro scale- the motions of asteroids and all the tiny rocks orbiting the sun and buzzing through our system from outside the Sun's sphere of influence (and all their interactions with each other) start to describe a random system- it becomes unpredictable. Our models might be accurate enough for us to send spacecraft from Earth to Mars, but they can't predict whether some tiny asteroid will impact us 40,000 years from now- the motions & interactions & collisions of the solar system are too complex for us to predict.
Similarly, on the micro-scale, chemical mechanics are random, driven by Brownian motion. For instance, a zeolite that adsorbs oxygen (because it contains crystalline 'pockets' that are ideal fits for the O2 molecule) only works due to random events. We flow air over the zeolite for a while, then find that the surface of the zeolite has a bunch of O2 molecules stuck in it- and we can model & predict how much O2 the zeolite will glom onto, but we can't predict when or how the Brownian motion of one O2 molecule will somehow bring it into just the right position to fit into one of the zeolite's 'pockets'. We only know that we can count on it happening due to the random Brownian motion of trillions of O2 molecules.
It's statistical mechanics- we can come up with a good formula that calculates the speed of sound in a gas (the speed of sound being the average speed of the particles in that gas), but we know we'll never figure out how fast each particle is traveling- we only know that the particles are traveling at many different speeds (randomly), and our experiments tell us what the average speed must be.
It's a bit of a mind-bender to realize that what we call "random" events are really orderly events that we just can't predict because of our limitations. The events are still following the physical laws of the universe, but they are so numerous and so busy that we really shouldn't bother ourselves trying to figure them out. We just dismiss them as "random" and try to make accurate models of the outcomes.
Similarly, random chemical events (mutations) have made trillions of new versions of living things, only some of whom survived as they competed with each other (natural selection), and the survivors carried on their specific advantages to future living things (heredity).
I'll invite you back to my dice analogy, because it clearly illustrates why I don't believe your 'paradox' is a paradox. Only the scales are different:
Knowing now that understanding is hopeless, I nevertheless respond, seeking an exit ramp, knowing that a scientific explanation for The Paradox is impossible but Bill will never agree:
I quickly scanned your email looking for a scientific principle or law that would logically make the idea of cumulative random mutations expected to produce massive order in current genetic codes. I did not see one. Please let me know if I missed it with a simple, one-line description of it (similar to how Newton's laws of motion are articulated or a mathematical representation, like for gravity.)
I get all the "statistical" business. But there is no statistical chance that cumulative random mutations and variations in a first genetic code would result in every current ordered, working, genetic building code in each species today. If you believe there is, we are done--you are believing a faith belief that defies science. That idea is against logic, science, and plain common sense. If The Natural Selection Paradox is true, evolution requires miracles.
Thank you for being a good sport. I appreciate your willingness to discuss The Natural Selection Paradox. But unless you propose a scientific reason to believe it can be true, or even a logical reason, I will likely not reply again.
Bill responded, once again peddling his dice analogy:
I think your rejection of evolution is an argument based on incredulity- evidenced by the blanket statement: "there is no statistical chance that... random mutations... would result in every... species today". That statement is groundless. I've read this same statement in many forms, but it always distills down to "Naaah... that never coulda happened."
My dice analogy, while describing something on a much smaller scale, shows why your 'paradox' statement is not a paradox at all.
But I agree- we are done with that discussion- we won't be changing each others' minds!
I'll leave you with one question- something I always like to ask when discussing evolution with creationists (at least those creationists who are claiming scientific reasons to reject evolution)- What evidence would you need to see to begin thinking that random mutations are the root cause of all species? It's a question worth some reflection (for those devoted to scientific reasoning).
Hope to hear from you; if not, good luck!
I should have let it go here. But Bill once again went back to a baseless accusation of “argument based on incredulity.” And his reasoning for leveling that accusation is equally baseless. So, our saga continues.
I replied:
Mine is not a rejection based on incredulity, and the fact that that's where you go after all I've said is a bit insulting, and entirely disappointing. I have repeatedly asked for a scientific reason to believe that The Natural Selection Paradox is a true statement (if evolutionary theory is true). Asking for a scientific reason to believe and not being shown one is not rejecting based on incredulity any more than rejecting a sky fairy is based on incredulity. It is not simply unbelievable; it's the reason it's unbelievable.
As for your other arguments, they strike me as wishful thinking. It is the "enough time" with enough "random events" anything can happen idea. That is not a scientific idea. And I reject it on the grounds of scientific laws: The Laws of Thermodynamics, especially the Second Law. (And I know all about closed systems and the sun, etc. etc.) If you want to see my scientific thoughts, you can see my most recent post at my Substack: https://creationreformation.substack.com/p/the-second-law-of-thermodynamics
As for "What evidence would you need to see to begin thinking that random mutations are the root cause of all species?" First, I'm not looking for evidence that random mutations are the "root cause" of all species. This characterization of my position is also insulting and disappointing and I suspect underlies your inability to see the devastating truth of The Natural Selection Paradox. But as for what evidence would I need to see to begin thinking that cumulative random evolutionary changes ALONE are the SOLE cause of all species, that's easy. Show me a scientific reason why The Natural Selection Paradox can be true. (Again, the fact that that's the question you would leave me with is a bit insulting and entirely disappointing. What do you think I've been asking you for?)
It's ironic you end with: "It's a question worth some reflection (for those devoted to scientific reasoning)." What do you think I've been doing with you? I'm not only "reflecting," I'm actively questioning you for scienfitic reasons to believe. You have shown no scientific reasoning in your attempted explanation for how The Natural Selection Paradox can be true. And yet you believe I'm the one who needs to "reflect?"
It's all very interesting, and predictable. I've been doing this a long time and I have yet for an evolutionist to agree The Natural Selection Paradox is true and based on the resulting obvious logical and scientific grounds reject evolutionary theory as true. What this means is that for evolutionists the question is not one of science, but ideology. That is fine, but it needs to be admitted.
You won't admit you are beholden to an ideology (because no one believes they are). But I will use our exchange (verbatim) to make a video to show how evolutionists are beholden to their chosen creation narrative. I will not use your name, and I'll let you know when it is out. In view of that, I will let you have the last word if you like. Feel free to end our dialogue with any last thoughts you would like those who video to see.
Bill made a reply that you can read in the apended transcript below. His reply drew what I know is a response falling on blind eyes, but I made it not for Bill, but for others who will read this exchange:
I'm glad to continue the dialog as well. But you are not understanding my position. One example: You said, "I'll assume that you judge it as a paradox because it seems statistically impossible to you."
I'm making a very different argument, which I will reluctantly make one more time. I judge The Natural Selection Paradox a paradox because it must be true if evolution is true, but since it is scientifically indefensible it ironically renders the theory of evolution by natural selection unscientific.
That's a lot of words, but that's it. And the reason The Natural Selection Paradox is scientifically indefensible is not because it "seems impossible to me." Lot's of things "seem impossible" but are nevertheless supported by scientific laws. Force through a distance, like gravity, seems impossible. But the law of gravity explains why it is true.
The Natural Selection Paradox does not "seem" impossible to me. It IS impossible by current scientific laws (Laws of Thermodynamics) and there is no scientific law or principle or action of physics or chemistry that can make the Paradox scientifically tenable.
In any other context, the same statement would be laughed at by scientists; it is simply an absurd idea. That is not incredulity. That is scientific rejection of the absurd.
Do you understand? It does not matter, really. But that's the best I can do.
Again, I promised you the last word, so feel free. But you are not paying close attention to my position, so I'm about to throw in the towel.
We had several more fruitless exchanges. But I told Bill I would give him the last word, and here it is, from Bill:
Well, I guess I'm done also. You've made a statement you claim to be a 'paradox': "Despite natural selection's role in nature, every current species evolved from a first life form solely by cumulative random evolutionary change," and you claim that "this statement must be true if evolution is true." You've gone on to say the "The Natural Selection Paradox is absurd as a scientific matter, and self-contradictory to the theory of evolution." You've said (about your 'paradox' statement) "it is scientifically indefensible."
You haven't sufficiently explained why you believe your 'paradox' statement is scientifically indefensible; you've hinted that it's so obvious that it sufficiently supports itself ("the same statement would be laughed at by scientists; it is simply an absurd idea"; "It is not simply unbelievable; it's the reason it's unbelievable"). You've claimed that it violates the principles of thermodynamics "It IS impossible by current scientific laws (Laws of Thermodynamics)."
Yet your 'paradox' statement is completely viable & scientifically defensible; it it statistically viable (illustrated by my dice analogy), and it doesn't violate the 2nd law of thermo (because Earth & its biome are not a closed system). It is also not contradictory to the theory of evolution, although you maintain this is obvious.
You've claimed that I'm somehow trapped in the paradigm of the theory of evolution ("You won't admit you are beholden to an ideology"), yet I've offered several hypothetical examples of specific evidences that could change my mind. Meanwhile, you have not given me any such examples of evidences that could change your mind. I've got to conclude that you are not thinking scientifically, because you can't imagine any evidence that (if it showed up one day) would change your mind. If there's no hypothetical thing that you can think of that could change your mind, you are the one trapped in an ideology.
But, the discussion has been enjoyable for me. After watching your 'Silver Bullet' video, I was impressed by how much you understood the mechanisms of evolution (not very common amongst creationists). I disagreed with your assertion that your 'paradox' statement must be false, wanted to fully discuss it with you, and I appreciate the civil dialogue we've had. I'm sure you'll successfully spread your ideology in the USA, where we have a large anti-science movement in full swing.
All the best,
Bill
I’ll let the reader be the judge. Again, the full transcript is apended below. If you do not see it now, click out and click on the post in Substack and it should be there.
Am I blind? Or is Bill blind? That is the question.
I’m sure Bill is equally frustrated with my inability to see his point. We may both be blind and wrong, but we cannot both be right!
In my view, Bill did not provide any scientific basis for believing that The Natural Selection Paradox can be a true statement AND evolution by natural selection stands as the true explanation for all current living things.
Do you think he did? If so, let me know! Maybe you can convince me that Bill is not the blind one in this dialog.
You can now support Creation Reformation by funding promotion of YouTube Videos and Facebook posts. Be the FIRST to be a Patreon partner!
(C) 2025 Creation Reformation. Roddy Bullock is the founder of Creation Reformation and author of several books related to creation and evolution. For more information, visit www.creationreformation.com, or visit (and follow!) us at Facebook.
Please send editorial comments, including indications of typos and grammatical errors to info@creationreformation.com. If you want to know why there are typos, see my post On the Origin of Pieces by Means of Natural Correction. Enjoy!
FULL TRANSCRIPT OF EMAIL EXCHANGE
From Bill:
I'm writing because I just watched your 'Silver Bullet' video, enjoyed it, and you specifically said you'd like to hear from me (I'm a firm adherent to the theory of evolution by natural selection). Hopefully you won't end up regretting that invitation! You seem reasonable and you have a good grasp of the mechanics of evolution: random mutations leading to new phenotypes, natural selection of some of those phenotypes, resulting in gradual cumulative change.
One minor point of semantics: I tend to think of natural selection as the selection of more-fit individuals for survival & reproduction, while the less-fit individuals are not really selected- death & extinction just follow naturally for them. In the domestication of species, we think of a breeder as 'selecting' only the most advantageous individuals (i.e. the fastest race horses) to carry on the lineage.
Another minor point: the earlier common ancestor of all currently living species was not necessarily the first living thing (but I bet it was pretty close).
Regarding your 'paradox' statement: "Every current species evolved from a first life form SOLELY by cumulative random evolutionary change." I'd say that natural selection was a crucial element in that evolution, i.e. that randomness was not SOLELY the driver of evolution. Although natural selection did not create any new genotypes, it selected the survivors in a very specific & directed way.
The great majority of mutations are either neutral (no real effect) or negative (they make an organism less fit to survive & reproduce). For instance when an animal is conceived with some serious negative mutation, it will very likely die before being born or hatched. Natural selection does not modify genotypes but it filters almost all of them out- thus "guiding" the tree of life to proceed with more & more 'fit' organisms. Without natural selection (i.e. without death & extinction), there'd by trillions of unfit species running around with us today.
I took your 'tree of life' graphic and tried to represent the many, many neutral or negative mutations in just one little junction of that tree. I think that's what you're missing- that the tree of life (i.e. the unbroken genetic line of ancestors to today's organisms) was the result of many, many genetic "errors" in its history. While it's unscientific to think that the unbroken ancestral line of organisms proceeded without any errors, it's very scientific to think that the unbroken ancestral line was what was left after trillions and trillions of negative mutations went extinct.
An analogy to this might be: If I have a 6-sided die, and I roll it 10 times, there's only a 1-in-60,500,000 chance that every single roll in the series will be a six- i.e. it ain't gonna happen. But if I set up a system of selection & survivorship- let's say I mark out 10 boxes on a sheet of paper, and every time I roll a six, I place a check in one box. Now it's not so unlikely that I'll fill every box with a check- I'll probably have it before I roll the die 60 times. Genetic heredity and natural selection work the same way- they allow every positive step to be captured, recorded & preserved.
From Me:
Hi Gordon,
Thank you so much for the email! I truly enjoy dialoging with evolutionists (a term I suspect you purposely avoided, but I mean nothing derogotory by it; I'm open to suggestions for a better term :)). For ease of reply, I've copied your message below, with my reply for each paragraph.
I'm writing because I just watched your 'Silver Bullet' video, enjoyed it, and you specifically said you'd like to hear from me (I'm a firm adherent to the theory of evolution by natural selection). Hopefully you won't end up regretting that invitation! You seem reasonable and you have a good grasp of the mechanics of evolution: random mutations leading to new phenotypes, natural selection of some of those phenotypes, resulting in gradual cumulative change.
I have never regretted my invitation. I find that those who respond by email, like you, tend to be friendly, knowledgeable, and kind. (On Facebook? That's a different breed!).
One minor point of semantics: I tend to think of natural selection as the selection of more-fit individuals for survival & reproduction, while the less-fit individuals are not really selected- death & extinction just follow naturally for them. In the domestication of species, we think of a breeder as 'selecting' only the most advantageous individuals (i.e. the fastest race horses) to carry on the lineage.
I don't disagree with your view. I find the term "selected" to be problematic however it is used because in English the term "selected" in its every day meaning requires a choice, which is something only a sentient being can do. But, again, I see your point and won't argue it.
Another minor point: the earlier common ancestor of all currently living species was not necessarily the first living thing (but I bet it was pretty close).
I understand your point here. Whatever the first living thing was, with its replication mechanisms, would have been much different than what we see today. But, as a matter of logic, unless there were two or more independent abiogenesis events, the earliest common ancestor must have been the first living thing. At least, it seems so to me.
Regarding your 'paradox' statement: "Every current species evolved from a first life form SOLELY by cumulative random evolutionary change." I'd say that natural selection was a crucial element in that evolution, i.e. that randomness was not SOLELY the driver of evolution. Although natural selection did not create any new genotypes, it selected the survivors in a very specific & directed way.
We do not disagree that natural selection is crucial to explaining which species exist today. But The Natural Selection Paradox is still true. The Paradox makes a subtle, surgical, precise point about the evolutionary mechanism of change that produced the unbroken chain of organisms in the direct line of descent for all current species. The Paradox is not stating, as you suggest, "that randomness is SOLELY the driver of evolution." I could explain the distinction here, but the distinction is in the literal words of the Paradox, and further, that is what the video explained. Again, it's a subtle distinction, but it renders the Paradox true and devestates evolution by natural selection as the explanation for current living things. If after some pondering you do not see the subtle, powerful distinction, let me know. We can discuss further.
The great majority of mutations are either neutral (no real effect) or negative (they make an organism less fit to survive & reproduce). For instance when an animal is conceived with some serious negative mutation, it will very likely die before being born or hatched. Natural selection does not modify genotypes but it filters almost all of them out- thus "guiding" the tree of life to proceed with more & more 'fit' organisms. Without natural selection (i.e. without death & extinction), there'd by trillions of unfit species running around with us today.
I agree with this 100%.
I took your 'tree of life' graphic and tried to represent the many, many neutral or negative mutations in just one little junction of that tree. I think that's what you're missing- that the tree of life (i.e. the unbroken genetic line of ancestors to today's organisms) was the result of many, many genetic "errors" in its history. While it's unscientific to think that the unbroken ancestral line of organisms proceeded without any errors, it's very scientific to think that the unbroken ancestral line was what was left after trillions and trillions of negative mutations went extinct.
I made this point in the video (maybe not well). I mentioned that phylogenetic trees represent only the survivors. I mention about all the non-survivors "off the line" of survivors. In another video I specifically mention Darwin's diagram to make this point.
An analogy to this might be: If I have a 6-sided die, and I roll it 10 times, there's only a 1-in-60,500,000 chance that every single roll in the series will be a six- i.e. it ain't gonna happen. But if I set up a system of selection & survivorship- let's say I mark out 10 boxes on a sheet of paper, and every time I roll a six, I place a check in one box. Now it's not so unlikely that I'll fill every box with a check- I'll probably have it before I roll the die 60 times. Genetic heredity and natural selection work the same way- they allow every positive step to be captured, recorded & preserved.
I get the analogy. I like analogies. But I don't think this one works.
Thank you again! On the issue of the Paradox and natural selection, you might like to see my recent "dialog" with ChatGPT. ChatGPT took your line of argument, but I was able to convince it that although it is correct about natural selection, The Natural Selection Paradox is still a true statement. To do so, I had to lead ChatGPT through some diagnostic questions. I relate this at my Substack here: https://open.substack.com/pub/creationreformation/p/chatgpt-a-very-good-evolutionist?r=1fjese&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false Let me know if the link does not work.
From Bill:
I checked out your ChatGPT conversation, which was extensive! Pretty good- you got it to agree with your 'paradox' statement after all:
"Every current species evolved from a first life form SOLELY by cumulative random evolutionary change."
I saw how you constructed your argument- you had to keep hammering on ChatGPT that natural selection never creates the changes (they come about randomly), thus your 'paradox' statement must be true. Despite the filter of natural selection, all the changes come about by random events. We seem to have agreement on this. I'd say that natural evolution controls how those random evolutionary changes are cumulative however.
I don't find your 'paradox' statement to be a paradox, or scientifically indefensible. I wish you would elaborate on why you believe it's a paradox, given all the mechanisms that we've agree on. Do you think of it as a paradox because you can't believe that complex organisms could have resulted from random events? It's just like the 'a watch requires a watchmaker' argument. Calling it a paradox is still an argument from incredulity- "Ah, that never coulda happened!"
But let's return to my dice analogy, because it cleanly illustrates why I don't accept your 'paradox' statement as a paradox:
If I roll a 6-sided die 10 times, there's a 1-in-60,500,000 chance that every single roll in the series will be a six- i.e. it's not statistically feasible. But then I mark out 10 boxes on a sheet of paper, and every time I roll a six, I place a check in one box. Now it's likely that I'll fill every box with a check before I've rolled the die about 60 times. Genetic heredity and natural selection work the same way- they allow every positive step to be captured, recorded & preserved.
So I'd invite you to address my dice analogy with something more in-depth than "I don't think this one works."
Hope to hear from you,
From Me:
In your dice analogy, "every positive step" that is "captured, recorded & preserved" is produced randomly. Right?
From Bill:
Yes; every roll of the die is random.
From Me:
So of your dice analogy, we can make the following true statement: "Despite Gordon's role in capturing and recording dice rolls of "6," the change that produced the "6" preserved by a check in each box was SOLELY random change."
Right?
From Bill:
Yes indeed. And that statement is analogous to your 'paradox' statement- yet it is not a paradox, because I could easily demonstrate it. So what makes your 'paradox' statement (RE evolution & natural selection) a paradox?
From Me:
Before I explain the paradox, let me make sure we are on the same page with what must be true if evolutionary theory explains all current species.
Since you see the statement I proposed about your dice example as true, do you also agree that The Natural Selection Paradox is a TRUE statement?
Here is The Natural Selection Paradox for reference: Despite natural selection's role in nature, every current species evolved from a first life form solely by cumulative random evolutionary change.
From Bill:
Yes- I agree that your statement ("Despite natural selection's role in nature, every current species evolved from a first life form solely by cumulative random evolutionary change") is true. I don't accept it as a paradox.
From Me:
One more step.
The Natural Selection Paradox is equally teue without the introductory phrase, as such: "Every current species evolved from a first life form solely by cumulative random evolutionary change."
Do you agree?
From Bill:
Yes, I agree with that statement.
It is analogous to the statement: "This morning I took a 6-sided die and rolled 10 sixes, solely by random rolls of the die"
From Me:
Thank you. We both agree that if the theory of evolution is true, then The Natural Selection Paradox is a true statement.
Here is The Natural Selection Paradox: "Every current species evolved from a first life form solely by cumulative random evolutionary change."
Here is the definition of the term "paradox": [image snippet of Oxford Dictionary definition]
I maintain that The Natural Selection Paradox is absurd as a scientific matter, and self-contradictory to the theory of evolution. But we both agree it is true.
If you want to show there is no paradox, provide the scientific law or scientific principle that makes the statement not absurd or self-contradictory. Specifically, state the scientific law or scientific principle that makes today's highly complex coded information a non-contingent result of random evolutionary mechanisms from a first living thing.
Remember, you cannot appeal to non-random evolutionary mechanisms in your explanation.
From Bill:
I'm not following you. Your statement ("Every current species evolved from a first life form solely by cumulative random evolutionary change") is neither absurd nor contradictory to the theory of evolution. You've said several times that this statement is true; but if you consider it true, why do you also consider it absurd or a paradox?
If we take my dice-experiment, I could make an analogous statement to yours by saying "This morning I took a 6-sided die and rolled 10 sixes, solely by random rolls of the die." We both agree that this statement is not absurd or paradoxical; and we both agree that it can be easily done the way I've outlined it.
An absurd statement would be: "It's very easy to take a 6-sided die and roll 10 sixes IN A ROW, solely by random rolls of the die." We both agree that this is crazy, because there's only one chance in 60,500,000 that anybody could do that.
I believe that your statement ("Every current species evolved from a first life form solely by cumulative random evolutionary change") is not paradoxical or even far-fetched, due to the hereditary mechanism of DNA and natural selection's mechanism of allowing the most-fit mutations to survive (i.e. recording each positive result, then proceeding with the process). Just calling the statement "absurd" doesn't make it so.
From Me:
Let me clarify.
I have said several times that The Natural Selection Paradox is true if the theory of evolution by natural selection is the true explanation for all current species."
I made that clear in the first few minutes of the "Silver Bullet" video, and I try to always make that qualifier clear in all my communications. I may have failed to do that somewhere in our exchange.
I also made very clear in the first few minutes of the video why I call The Natural Selection Paradox a paradox. I will recap briefly in three steps:
The Natural Selection Paradox is necessarily true IF the the theory of evolution is the true explanation for all current species.
(We both agree with this statement).
But The Natural Selection Paradox is scientifically indefensible.
You (apparently) disagree with this statement.
Thus, it is a paradox, because a scientifically indefensible statement must be true for the theory of evolution to be true.
It's a paradox because The Natural Selection Paradox is (or SHOULD BE) seemingly absurd or self-contradictory. But when investigated may turn out to be true. (This is the definition of a "paradox").
It is not any more complicated than that. In my last email I asked you to address Point 2 above.
I will try again with my latest question to you. To render The Natural Selection Paradox NOT a paradox, it must be shown that Point 2 above is false and The Natural Selection Paradox IS scientifically defensible.
That's why I asked you to provide me with any scientific law or principle that renders Point 2 false, and The Natural Selection Paradox scientifically defensible/believable.
There is no other area of science in which random change alone explains increased organized complexity of the kind required to produce the genetic codes for every current species from a first life form.
For example, we know that it is not random change that explains why apples fall downward. Apples fall downward in accordance with a scientific law that describes their expected change in position.
Similarly, we know that it is not random change that explains the motion of the planets. The planets change their positions in accordance to the laws of motion and the law of gravity that describe their expected change in position.
SImilarly, we know that it is not random change that explains the change of position of atoms to produce crystals. The crystals change their position in accordance with the laws of thermodynamics, seeking their lowest energy state, to describe their expected change in position.
I'm asking you to provide a similar scientific law or principle that can account for the "truth" that cumulative random change alone can make the massive ordering necessary for evolution to be possible, much less expected.
If this is not clear, and/or, you cannot provide such a scientific law or principle, we are likely done. I await your reply.
From Bill:
Ok, thanks for the clarification.
Yes, I definitely think your 'paradox' statement is scientifically defensible. The statement only seems far-fetched, because it's hard for us to envision the number of random events and the time spans that were required for random events to lead to today's organisms.
As for your examples of scientific laws, planetary motions are definitely guided by gravity, which can't be called random; i.e. we've got formulas that predict it. But if you look on a more macro scale- the motions of asteroids and all the tiny rocks orbiting the sun and buzzing through our system from outside the Sun's sphere of influence (and all their interactions with each other) start to describe a random system- it becomes unpredictable. Our models might be accurate enough for us to send spacecraft from Earth to Mars, but they can't predict whether some tiny asteroid will impact us 40,000 years from now- the motions & interactions & collisions of the solar system are too complex for us to predict.
Similarly, on the micro-scale, chemical mechanics are random, driven by Brownian motion. For instance, a zeolite that adsorbs oxygen (because it contains crystalline 'pockets' that are ideal fits for the O2 molecule) only works due to random events. We flow air over the zeolite for a while, then find that the surface of the zeolite has a bunch of O2 molecules stuck in it- and we can model & predict how much O2 the zeolite will glom onto, but we can't predict when or how the Brownian motion of one O2 molecule will somehow bring it into just the right position to fit into one of the zeolite's 'pockets'. We only know that we can count on it happening due to the random Brownian motion of trillions of O2 molecules.
It's statistical mechanics- we can come up with a good formula that calculates the speed of sound in a gas (the speed of sound being the average speed of the particles in that gas), but we know we'll never figure out how fast each particle is traveling- we only know that the particles are traveling at many different speeds (randomly), and our experiments tell us what the average speed must be.
It's a bit of a mind-bender to realize that what we call "random" events are really orderly events that we just can't predict because of our limitations. The events are still following the physical laws of the universe, but they are so numerous and so busy that we really shouldn't bother ourselves trying to figure them out. We just dismiss them as "random" and try to make accurate models of the outcomes.
Similarly, random chemical events (mutations) have made trillions of new versions of living things, only some of whom survived as they competed with each other (natural selection), and the survivors carried on their specific advantages to future living things (heredity).
I'll invite you back to my dice analogy, because it clearly illustrates why I don't believe your 'paradox' is a paradox. Only the scales are different:
ELEMENTIN BIOLOGY IN DICE ANALOGY
Orderly outcome the Earth's biome 10 sixes rolled in one morning
Where it happens whole planet Earth my kitchen table
How long it takes 4.5B years about 20 minutes
Basic random events mutations dice rolls
# of events needed enormous probably around 60; very probably <100
Recording medium DNA my note paper with 10 boxes on it
Feasibility good demonstrable
From Me:
I quickly scanned your email looking for a scientific principle or law that would logically make the idea of cumulative random mutations expected to produce massive order in current genetic codes. I did not see one. Please let me know if I missed it with a simple, one-line description of it (similar to how Newton's laws of motion are articulated or a mathematical representation, like for gravity.)
I get all the "statistical" business. But there is no statistical chance that cumulative random mutations and variations in a first genetic code would result in every current ordered, working, genetic building code in each species today. If you believe there is, we are done--you are believing a faith belief that defies science. That idea is against logic, science, and plain common sense. If The Natural Selection Paradox is true, evolution requires miracles.
Thank you for being a good sport. I appreciate your willingness to discuss The Natural Selection Paradox. But unless you propose a scientific reason to believe it can be true, or even a logical reason, I will likely not reply again.
From Bill:
I think your rejection of evolution is an argument based on incredulity- evidenced by the blanket statement: "there is no statistical chance that... random mutations... would result in every... species today". That statement is groundless. I've read this same statement in many forms, but it always distills down to "Naaah... that never coulda happened."
My dice analogy, while describing something on a much smaller scale, shows why your 'paradox' statement is not a paradox at all.
But I agree- we are done with that discussion- we won't be changing each others' minds!
I'll leave you with one question- something I always like to ask when discussing evolution with creationists (at least those creationists who are claiming scientific reasons to reject evolution)- What evidence would you need to see to begin thinking that random mutations are the root cause of all species? It's a question worth some reflection (for those devoted to scientific reasoning).
Hope to hear from you; if not, good luck!
From Me:
Mine is not a rejection based on incredulity, and the fact that that's where you go after all I've said is a bit insulting, and entirely disappointing. I have repeatedly asked for a scientific reason to believe that The Natural Selection Paradox is a true statement (if evolutionary theory is true). Asking for a scientific reason to believe and not being shown one is not rejecting based on incredulity any more than rejecting a sky fairy is based on incredulity. It is not simply unbelievable; it's the reason it's unbelievable.
As for your other arguments, they strike me as wishful thinking. It is the "enough time" with enough "random events" anything can happen idea. That is not a scientific idea. And I reject it on the grounds of scientific laws: The Laws of Thermodynamics, especially the Second Law. (And I know all about closed systems and the sun, etc. etc.) If you want to see my scientific thoughts, you can see my most recent post at my Substack: https://creationreformation.substack.com/p/the-second-law-of-thermodynamics
As for "What evidence would you need to see to begin thinking that random mutations are the root cause of all species?" First, I'm not looking for evidence that random mutations are the "root cause" of all species. This characterization of my position is also insulting and disappointing and I suspect underlies your inability to see the devastating truth of The Natural Selection Paradox. But as for what evidence would I need to see to begin thinking that cumulative random evolutionary changes ALONE are the SOLE cause of all species, that's easy. Show me a scientific reason why The Natural Selection Paradox can be true. (Again, the fact that that's the question you would leave me with is a bit insulting and entirely disappointing. What do you think I've been asking you for?)
It's ironic you end with: "It's a question worth some reflection (for those devoted to scientific reasoning)." What do you think I've been doing with you? I'm not only "reflecting," I'm actively questioning you for scienfitic reasons to believe. You have shown no scientific reasoning in your attempted explanation for how The Natural Selection Paradox can be true. And yet you believe I'm the one who needs to "reflect?"
It's all very interesting, and predictable. I've been doing this a long time and I have yet for an evolutionist to agree The Natural Selection Paradox is true and based on the resulting obvious logical and scientific grounds reject evolutionary theory as true. What this means is that for evolutionists the question is not one of science, but ideology. That is fine, but it needs to be admitted.
You won't admit you are beholden to an ideology (because no one believes they are). But I will use our exchange (verbatim) to make a video to show how evolutionists are beholden to their chosen creation narrative. I will not use your name, and I'll let you know when it is out. In view of that, I will let you have the last word if you like. Feel free to end our dialogue with any last thoughts you would like those who video to see.
From Bill:
Thanks for the in-depth response; I'm glad we're still dialoguing. Sorry for any insult you might have felt- certainly none was intended!
You've asked for scientific reasoning to think your 'paradox' statement is true- I'd say there are many different examples of how random, chaotic events lead to orderly systems. These would include: how the chaotic brownian motions of atoms (unpredictable) result in them finding their lowest energy state in an orderly crystal (predictable); how the chaotic collection of primordial dust & gas (unpredictable) resulted in the planets of our current solar system (predictable); how a vibratory feeder can take thousands of chaotic socket-head-cap-screws (unpredictable) and by its jiggling motion (and the right chute) feed out a nice line of screws, all oriented the same way (predictable).
But the best & simplest scientific reasoning I can come up with to claim your 'paradox' is true is my dice analogy. I'll repeat it here for completeness, along with a chart showing the parallels (this got unrecognizably reformatted by my email app last time):
I sit at my kitchen table and repetitively roll a single 6-sided die (it's a slow morning). After a while, I claim I've rolled a six 10 times. I've recorded my results each time I've rolled a 'six'- and sure enough, I've got 10 boxes drawn out on a piece of paper, with a check mark in each box.
[Image of Table illustrating dice analogy.]
Your judgement of your 'paradox' statement (you think it's false) does seem to be one of basic incredulity- "It's the reason that it's unbelievable." I'll assume that you judge it as a paradox because it seems statistically impossible to you. I don't believe that anybody has enough data or knowledge to figure out the statistical probability of life springing up on the young Earth and then proliferating into all the species we've seen- but I accept that it must have happened that way based on the mechanisms that we've scientifically observed (mutation; DNA; natural selection; genetic drift, order-falling-out-of-chaos; time scale; geologic scale). We haven't scientifically observed an intelligent designer pulling the strings or any other miraculous goings-on, and the things we HAVE observed could have led to our known species, so I'll accept it as viable.
But please take a bit to try answering my question with some specific things: What evidence would you need to see to begin thinking that random mutations are the root cause of all species? I know you're not looking for that evidence, but if you're thinking scientifically, you're staying open to any evidence that comes your way. I don't accept your answer of "Show me a scientific reason why The Natural Selection Paradox can be true"- because it's vague and a bit circular, like saying "I'll believe any evidence that's credible." This is an 'answer' I've heard before from creationists- it's a cop-out.
I'll try answering a similar question (What evidence would I need to see to begin thinking that random mutations are NOT the root cause of all species?) with specific examples:
Fossil evidence that was chronologically out-of-synch (e.g. a homo Sapiens fossil dated to 300M years ago)
Genetic evidence that was isolated (e.g. a genome that had no commonality with any other known genome)
A species being discovered that was not DNA-based (or RNA-based)
The majority conclusion by biologists that vestigial organs have never really been observed
Hope to hear from you-
From Me:
I'm glad to continue the dialog as well. But you are not understanding my position. One example: You said, "I'll assume that you judge it as a paradox because it seems statistically impossible to you."
I'm making a very different argument, which I will reluctantly make one more time. I judge The Natural Selection Paradox a paradox because it must be true if evolution is true, but since it is scientifically indefensible it ironically renders the theory of evolution by natural selection unscientific.
That's a lot of words, but that's it. And the reason The Natural Selection Paradox is scientifically indefensible is not because it "seems impossible to me." Lot's of things "seem impossible" but are nevertheless supported by scientific laws. Force through a distance, like gravity, seems impossible. But the law of gravity explains why it is true.
The Natural Selection Paradox does not "seem" impossible to me. It IS impossible by current scientific laws (Laws of Thermodynamics) and there is no scientific law or principle or action of physics or chemistry that can make the Paradox scientifically tenable.
In any other context, the same statement would be laughed at by scientists; it is simply an absurd idea. That is not incredulity. That is scientific rejection of the absurd.
Do you understand? It does not matter, really. But that's the best I can do.
Again, I promised you the last word, so feel free. But you are not paying close attention to my position, so I'm about to throw in the towel.
By the way, I don't want you to think I'm ignoring your arguments. But they do not provide any scientific basis for making The Natural Selection Paradox true.
Example: You referenced "how random, chaotic events lead to orderly systems." But that is not what is at issue. Genetic variation does not happen "chaotically" and it does not result in mere "order." Genetic variation, according to evolutionary theory happens "randomly" and the result is not mere "order," it is increasingly complex genetic CODES that perform new functions and provide for new physical characteristics. The idea is how a single genetic CODE of information could change by random changes ALONE to become all the current working genetic CODES on earth today. The idea that this issue is about mere "order" is one of the reasons evolutionists remain evolutionists.
Your dice analogy has one obvious flaw, which is the reason I ignore. Correct me if I'm wrong but your dice analogy requires an intelligent selector for it to work. This is not analogous to evolution.
In any event, nature producing "order" and analogies about dice do not rise to a scientific basis for rendering The Natural Selection Paradox scientifically tenable.
From Bill:
Several times now you've stated that your 'paradox' statement is "scientifically indefensible", but evidently it's NOT because you think of it as statistically impossible or far-fetched. I'm reading (below) that you judge it to disobey the laws of thermodynamics (it doesn't; it just kinda seems to). A simplified version of the 2nd law would be "Closed systems trend towards uniformity and increased entropy." But (as you know) the Earth & its biome are not a closed system- it's a system with massive ongoing energy inputs from the sun & radioactive materials within the Earth.
Reflecting back on the things that (I think) we can agree on as "scientifically defensible":
Natural processes can create orderly structures from chaotic, random particles (i.e. crystal growth)
Organisms naturally generate mutations within their DNA (most importantly, when they reproduce)
These mutations result in biological diversity
The environment & competition naturally select some of these variations to survive & reproduce better than others
Species thus evolve to become better 'fit' to survive & reproduce within their environments
Many genes & genetic markers are shared by different species
My conclusion from this (along with all of mainstream biology) is: Random genetic mutations have ended up producing organisms that are increasingly more complex, as natural selection has brought them along to become more 'fit' within their environments. Sometimes enough random mutations have strung together to form new species, and genetic analysis shows common descent among species.
Your conclusion (along with many other creationists) seems to be: Random mutations couldn't have done it because organisms are more complex than non-living materials.
As I've explained above, the 2nd law of Thermo is not in conflict with the complexity of organisms, although you've stated you believe it to be. I doubt we'll ever come to agreement on that issue; I won't try further to persuade you.
But let's go back to my question for you- "What evidence would you need to see to begin thinking that random mutations are the root cause of all species?" This is a pretty critical part of this discussion for me; that's why I gave you four example answers to the opposite form of the question from my side (i.e. evidences that would make me begin to think that random mutations were NOT the root cause of all species). If we're thinking scientifically, we are keeping our minds open to new data & discoveries- so what would you need to see? It's a cop-out to answer that question with "any data that was scientifically defensible," because that is not a specific answer. Creationists have seen loads of data in support of evolution, and they've rejected every one. But- if we're thinking scientifically, let's name some specific examples that would change your mind. These by nature are going to be hypothetical (the examples I gave all were).
I'd invite you to come up with some examples for me, in answer to my question. I've only had two creationists give me answers to this question- one lady stated that her beliefs in creationism would get challenged if scientists ever produced life in the lab from scratch. Another guy claimed that he'd start believing evolution was viable if he witnessed "a fish giving birth to a bird." Every other creationist has non-answered it along the same lines you did: "any evidence that was viable."
By the way, I'm enjoying our discussion, and I think it's important we continue to express our views with a civil dialogue. We can certainly maintain mutual respect while we disagree on things!
All the best,
From Me:
Keep in mind that I'm not primarily trying to convince you of anything. I'm trying to be convinced that The Natural Selection Paradox is not a true statement (if evolution is true, etc.) That's why I invite evolutionists to show how I'm wrong.
You have not convinced me. Moreover, you keep missing what I'm saying and fail to respond to my questions.
Example: In your last response of things we agree on, you included: "The environment & competition naturally select some of these variations to survive & reproduce better than others." BUT ... you agreed that The Natural Selection Paradox is true without natural selection. Why do you bring that into a counterargument?
Example: You said, "Your conclusion (along with many other creationists) seems to be: Random mutations couldn't have done it because organisms are more complex than non-living materials." This completely misses everything I've said. Apparently my words are not being read or understood.
Example: You said, "But let's go back to my question for you- "What evidence would you need to see to begin thinking that random mutations are the root cause of all species?" I already gave you a very detailed and precise answer to this question. Did you see it?
For these reasons I don't think continuing our dialog would be very productive. It seems you have locked into an imagined position of mine which is not mine. You keep circling back to thoughts that I have dispelled, but you missed it. I can't continue that dialog.
But I do appreciate your civil discourse.
From Bill:
I sprinkled a few comments throughout your last email-
-Bill
On 7/3/2025 5:56 PM, CreationReformation wrote:
Thank you!
Keep in mind that I'm not primarily trying to convince you of anything. I'm trying to be convinced that The Natural Selection Paradox is not a true statement (if evolution is true, etc.) That's why I invite evolutionists to show how I'm wrong. I've maintained that your 'paradox' statement is not a paradox. It is altogether viable and very likely true.
You have not convinced me. Moreover, you keep missing what I'm saying and fail to respond to my questions.
Example: In your last response of things we agree on, you included: "The environment & competition naturally select some of these variations to survive & reproduce better than others." BUT ... you agreed that The Natural Selection Paradox is true without natural selection. Why do you bring that into a counterargument? Yes, your 'paradox' statement is true even without natural selection; natural selection just makes it more statistically viable (as shown in the dice analogy). But since you're evidently not rejecting the 'paradox' statement on the basis of statistical improbability, so I guess it's irrelevant to your viewpoint. It's relevant to our discussion, since our discussion is wider than just an evaluation of your 'paradox' statement.
Example: You said, "Your conclusion (along with many other creationists) seems to be: Random mutations couldn't have done it because organisms are more complex than non-living materials." This completely misses everything I've said. Apparently my words are not being read or understood. I've read everything you've written and done my best to understand it. I have read several explanations for your rejection of your 'paradox' statement: "...is absurd as a scientific matter, and self-contradictory to the theory of evolution;" you've said that the statement is "scientifically indefensible" several times; you've said that "It IS impossible by current scientific laws (Laws of Thermodynamics)". Thus I've concluded that you reject it because of the 2nd law of Thermo, and summarized it as you've quoted me in this paragraph. If you've got a clearer explanation for your rejection of your 'paradox' statement, please lay it on me.Example: You said, "But let's go back to my question for you- "What evidence would you need to see to begin thinking that random mutations are the root cause of all species?" I already gave you a very detailed and precise answer to this question. Did you see it? You've written: "Show me a scientific reason why The Natural Selection Paradox can be true." This is not a specific answer; it's like saying "I'll change my mind when you show me a good reason to." But you haven't mentioned any specific (hypothetical) data or reason that could induce you to change your mind. If you're thinking scientifically, you can come up with one.
For these reasons I don't think continuing our dialog would be very productive. It seems you have locked into an imagined position of mine which is not mine. You keep circling back to thoughts that I have dispelled, but you missed it. I can't continue that dialog.
But I do appreciate your civil discourse.
Bye!
From Me:
A few comments as well.
Keep in mind that I'm not primarily trying to convince you of anything. I'm trying to be convinced that The Natural Selection Paradox is not a true statement (if evolution is true, etc.) That's why I invite evolutionists to show how I'm wrong. I've maintained that your 'paradox' statement is not a paradox. It is altogether viable and very likely true.
What you fail to comprehend is that if The Natural Selection Paradox is true, it completely destroys the theory of evolution as a scientific explanation for current species. To say you believe it's a true statement and yet continue to believe evolution explains current species defies logic and reason. You cannot see that, which seems unbelievable to me, but I cannot make you comprehend this.
You have not convinced me. Moreover, you keep missing what I'm saying and fail to respond to my questions.
Example: In your last response of things we agree on, you included: "The environment & competition naturally select some of these variations to survive & reproduce better than others." BUT ... you agreed that The Natural Selection Paradox is true without natural selection. Why do you bring that into a counterargument? Yes, your 'paradox' statement is true even without natural selection; natural selection just makes it more statistically viable (as shown in the dice analogy). But since you're evidently not rejecting the 'paradox' statement on the basis of statistical improbability, so I guess it's irrelevant to your viewpoint. It's relevant to our discussion, since our discussion is wider than just an evaluation of your 'paradox' statement.
We are talking past each other. This is very common; I've been doing this a long time. Regardless how "wide" the discussion is, it hinges on one simple argument: a scientific reason to believe The Natural Selection Paradox can be true. I know you believe you have provided such reasons. But you haven't, and nothing I can say will get you to see that.
Example: You said, "Your conclusion (along with many other creationists) seems to be: Random mutations couldn't have done it because organisms are more complex than non-living materials." This completely misses everything I've said. Apparently my words are not being read or understood. I've read everything you've written and done my best to understand it. I have read several explanations for your rejection of your 'paradox' statement: "...is absurd as a scientific matter, and self-contradictory to the theory of evolution;" you've said that the statement is "scientifically indefensible" several times; you've said that "It IS impossible by current scientific laws (Laws of Thermodynamics)". Thus I've concluded that you reject it because of the 2nd law of Thermo, and summarized it as you've quoted me in this paragraph. If you've got a clearer explanation for your rejection of your 'paradox' statement, please lay it on me.
This is the problem. You repeatedly misrepresent my position at almost every place you can. I don't "reject the paradox statement." Why would you say that? I'm promoting the paradox statement as a true statement if evolution is true. I reject the notion that it is scientifically tenable. And based on that I'm encouraging others to reject evolutionary theory.
Example: You said, "But let's go back to my question for you- "What evidence would you need to see to begin thinking that random mutations are the root cause of all species?" I already gave you a very detailed and precise answer to this question. Did you see it? You've written: "Show me a scientific reason why The Natural Selection Paradox can be true." This is not a specific answer; it's like saying "I'll change my mind when you show me a good reason to." But you haven't mentioned any specific (hypothetical) data or reason that could induce you to change your mind. If you're thinking scientifically, you can come up with one.
Seriously? I cannot even respond to this. I will assume I have failed to articulate my views or pose good questions.
Thank you for your time! And look for the video--it should be out in a couple of weeks.
Good day!
From Bill:
Well, I guess I'm done also. You've made a statement you claim to be a 'paradox': "Despite natural selection's role in nature, every current species evolved from a first life form solely by cumulative random evolutionary change," and you claim that "this statement must be true if evolution is true." You've gone on to say the "The Natural Selection Paradox is absurd as a scientific matter, and self-contradictory to the theory of evolution." You've said (about your 'paradox' statement) "it is scientifically indefensible."
You haven't sufficiently explained why you believe your 'paradox' statement is scientifically indefensible; you've hinted that it's so obvious that it sufficiently supports itself ("the same statement would be laughed at by scientists; it is simply an absurd idea"; "It is not simply unbelievable; it's the reason it's unbelievable"). You've claimed that it violates the principles of thermodynamics "It IS impossible by current scientific laws (Laws of Thermodynamics)."
Yet your 'paradox' statement is completely viable & scientifically defensible; it it statistically viable (illustrated by my dice analogy), and it doesn't violate the 2nd law of thermo (because Earth & its biome are not a closed system). It is also not contradictory to the theory of evolution, although you maintain this is obvious.
You've claimed that I'm somehow trapped in the paradigm of the theory of evolution ("You won't admit you are beholden to an ideology"), yet I've offered several hypothetical examples of specific evidences that could change my mind. Meanwhile, you have not given me any such examples of evidences that could change your mind. I've got to conclude that you are not thinking scientifically, because you can't imagine any evidence that (if it showed up one day) would change your mind. If there's no hypothetical thing that you can think of that could change your mind, you are the one trapped in an ideology.
But, the discussion has been enjoyable for me. After watching your 'Silver Bullet' video, I was impressed by how much you understood the mechanisms of evolution (not very common amongst creationists). I disagreed with your assertion that your 'paradox' statement must be false, wanted to fully discuss it with you, and I appreciate the civil dialogue we've had. I'm sure you'll successfully spread your ideology in the USA, where we have a large anti-science movement in full swing.
All the best,
From Me:
Thank you, Gordon. One reason I like to do a video recap is that it's a practical way to highlight for me where my argument was not persuasive and how I can improve. That is one of the great benefits I derive from exchanges with evolutionists. And you have helped me greatly!
In case you have not seen it, here is an example of a video re-cap:
. In this video the evolutionist agreed that The Natural Selection Paradox was necessarily true if evolution is true, but could also not come up with a scientific basis of support. But his arguments were different than yours. You might enjoy it.
I will be doing the "post-morten" for our conversation over the next few days/weeks. I'll be in touch!