One of the most serious objections to Darwinian evolution, the molecules to man scenario purely by natural means, is the fact that for life to live it requires a certain number of parts. In postulating his theory of evolution, Nobel Prize winner Albert Szent-Gyorgyi (1977) attempted to confront one of the primary difficulties of evolution — the fact that a body organ is useless, or worse,  until it is functional. The fact is, it generally must be completely (or largely) developed for it to confer a positive selection advantage. 

Szent-Gyorgyi concludes that only after millions (or at least thousands) of the proper mutations — all working together — have produced a superior working organ, could it confer an advantage to the organism possessing it. And these useless mutations would somehow have to be passed on for thousands of generations until the proper set as a unit occurred that resulted in an organ that was functional as a combination and in tandem with all other body organs. This difficulty is summed up by Szent-Gyorgyi as follows:


Where this innate drive came from he never states. Of the non-neutral (non-effective or effect producing) mutations, none has been documented to produce an information gain, and most of the less-than-beneficial mutations would be selected against. Selection would favor a new organ or structure only after a large number of individual mutations occurred that were retained by the organism and, as a set, produced a beneficial structure or organ. Selection could act only when the mutations were able to function as a set to produce a complete functional organ that is superior to the older structure, or to no structure.

Although all animal organs and structures differ greatly in size, structure, and function, in a literature search I was unable to find a single example of a non-functional organ. Although some were assumed to be such, but further research has proven they are all functional (Bergman, 2019). Every one researched so far has been found to be developed specifically for the animal’s own requirements. No evidence exits that even one of the vast number of existing organs and structures in living animals is half-developed or in the process of developing.

As an example, how could the male and female sex organs become perfect functional complements of each other if they developed independently in some kind of "parallel evolution" as hypothesized by Darwinists? They could be functional as a unit only eons after they began to develop, yet evolutionists must show how animals effectively could reproduce before and during the entire evolution of the gonads. Anything less than a complete system — meaning an imperfect, non-functional system — would be sterile, dooming that species to extinction.

Evolutionists postulate that the sex organs originated gradually by coevolution but an animal cannot reproduce until the organs as a functional pair are at least as functional as asexual reproduction (which is highly effective — if food and similar conditions permit, reproduction is automatic). A single pair of some types of bacteria can divide in only 20 minuets and can produce trillions of offspring if enough food is available.

Even Darwin concluded that "any variation in the least degree injurious would be rigidly destroyed." In other words would cause the extinction of the animals with the "less than functionally developed" organ. The difficulty of having offspring until the reproductive system was perfected is no small problem. The chasm between sexual and asexual reproduction, and also between reptile egg, as the non-viviparous reptiles and birds, and live birth (viviparous as in mammals) reproduction, is not bridged. No viable "transitional" form candidates exist (Denton, 1986, pp. 157-195). What LaGard Smith called "Darwin's Secret Sex Problem" (Smith, 2018). In many cases, it is difficult to even mentally create possible intermediate workable forms. Darwin noted that:


Although Darwin sited some alleged examples of intermediate organs, research has proven all of his examples, as well as all those all those proposed since, fallacious (Grasse, 1977). For example, Darwin evaluated all types of eyes, and lined them up from what he thought was the simplest (the eye spot) to the most complex (the human eye), and then postulated that the complex eye could have evolved from the simple eye (or one like it). One of the many problems with this conclusion, aside from the fact that no transitional forms have been found, is that these different eye types were designed for entirely different purposes and environments. 

An animal, such as the euglena with an eye spot, would not be able to use a human eye or another type of eye. The euglena eye is a complex specialized organ and is not merely a simpler version of the human eye. Only the so called eye spot eye serves its requirements to allow it to live in the environment in which it must exist. Among other adaptions, a more complex eye requires a more complex nervous system, resulting in a larger animal, which requires yet other modifications. The result is, using a more complex eye we would end up with another animal that probably would be less adapted than is the highly successful euglena. Euglenas do not need to produce the image quality required for human needs, nor even the type of image an octopus eye requires for its environment. 

Sight organs vary greatly — many clearly different types of eyes exist — yet each is fully functional and highly integrated with its scores of necessary complex support structures (Dowling, 1987). Many different kinds of eyes exist, but each one is designed for its owner's needs in its owner's habitat. No "intermediate" eyes have been discovered, only fully distinct and different types of eyes, each one fully functional. Even the simplest eye is still enormously complex and demonstrates the concept of irreducible complexity.

All human mechanical inventions first must be designed by human intelligence and developed by building prototypes. Then, testing of the prototype must occur, and feedback from these tests must be used to modify the original design. Eventually, sometimes after years of testing, the product may be able to be marketed. The most difficult test of all is the consumer vote. Most products are continually evaluated by the feedback obtained from market testing; then they are often redesigned and tested again.  Living organisms do not have this luxury; all their millions of necessary parts must work correctly the first time, both separately and as a complete and functional unit, or the animal will die or be barely able to survive.  For the animal to survive during each and every stage of its evolution, each animal must have many thousands of different complex parts, all which must work together and function as a unified whole. 

In summary, the irreducibly complex problem Darwin had is still a major problem for evolutionists today. Actually, it is far worse today because research into the cell and DNA has documented that life is far more complex than believed in Darwin’s time.


References

Bergman, Jerry. 2919. Useless Organs: The Rise and Fall of the Once Major Argument for Evolution. Tulsa, OK: Bartlett Publishing.

 Bergman, Jerry. 2019. The "Poor Design" Argument Against Intelligent Design Falsified. 2019. Tulsa, OK: Bartlett Publishing.

Denton, Michael. 1986. Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. Bethesda, MD: Adler and Adler.

Darwin, Charles. 1859. The Origin of Species. London: John Murray.

Dowling, John. 1987. The Retina. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Grasse`, Pierre. P. 1977. Evolution of Living Organisms. New York: Academic Press.

Smith, LaGard. 2918. Darwin's Secret Sex Problem. Bloomington, IL: WestBow Press.

Szent-Gyorgyi, Albert. 1977. "Drive in Living Matter to Perfect Itself." Synthesis. 1(1):14-26.