Darwin's Frogs

Club New Vrndavan continue their campaign against Darwin and evolutionary theory (personally my campaign is against religious atheism, which I distinguish from those two). The latest installment is a review of the book "Nature's IQ". Here's an excerpt from a review on their site:

Darwin himself discovered the frog in Chile (Rhinoderma darwinii). After female Darwin’s frogs lay their eggs on wet beaches, males sense the scent of the eggs and fertilize them. They then station themselves beside the eggs in groups and guard them for about twenty days. When the developing eggs begin to move in their tiny, jelly-like globules, the males lean over to them and gulp—they seemingly eat them! Of course, they do not eat the eggs but instead place them with their tongue into their long expandable vocal pouch, situated in the lower part of ther body. The eggs continue to develop in the vocal pouch until one day the male suddenly yawns widely, and the fully developed baby frogs jump out of his mouth….

…For viable offspring to hatch, the frog father must know that he has to keep an eye on the eggs. Furthermore, he has to have the instincts commanding the right behavior: when the young are about to hatch, he has to get them into his specially structured vocal pouch. And when they are fully developed, he has to set them free. If any of these elements were missing, the frog’s reproduction would be unsuccessful. Therefore, it is inconceivable that the Darwin’s frog and its special way of reproduction came into existence step by step, as a result of small changes….It is inconceivable that this frog species, with its specialized behavior, came into existence by a sudden large-scale mutation….The chance mutation of these genes causing a series of concerted, appropriate behaviors would be more than a miracle.

The (favorable) reviewer then goes on to say:

This excerpt provides one example of the methodology employed in analyzing and diffusing evolution theory in terms of reproduction and survival of offspring. Other sections cover predation, defense, symbiosis, animal communication, navigation, and mating behaviors.

Eeek. I hope it gets better than that.

In an evolutionary schema things do not spring forth fully formed. For example, take a look at the evolution of pop music. Pop music today utilizes various musical elements, and various intricate electronic elements. If you were to look at recorded music in the 1930's and that of the latter years of the first decade of the 21st century (that is to say: today), you'd see a great difference.

That didn't happen overnight. There are a series of innovations and gradual developments that lead from single microphone recordings of acoustic instruments to digital audio workstations, vocoders, and auto-tune.

So to imply that evolutionary theory requires all the elements of a complex arrangement to all become present simultaneously is disingenuous.

Obviously there is a difference between pop music and biological organisms, and I'm sure someone is going to pull out a comment about orders of magnitude, but my point here is related to evolutionary development and gradual appearance of increasing complexity.

A series of biological innovations can be postulated that would eventually lead to the particular combination of factors observed in these frogs. In fact, if you observe any system where the conscious living entity, the jiva, is in contact with and animating the material elements, you find all kinds of surprising, unexpected, and frankly wonderful arrangements developing over time.

I've heard evolutionary defenders explain their perspective on the development of the eye, another favorite "irreducibly complex" argument point of anti-evolutionists, and they have a coherent narrative in that area.

Of course, you may not be able to find all the intermediate steps in the fossil record, but as a theoretical exercise it's not a show-stopper.

That's not to say that a particular evolutionary narrative is "true". However, in the battle of theoretical narratives I do not find the argument that intricate complexity is not possible through evolutionary development to be particularly compelling.