Evidently human invention is not related to evolution - all human advancements are designed and invented by man.
I assume this is a paraphrased representation of what someone is supposed to have said. If anyone did, it would have been easy to refute. There are numerous well documented technological advances that have been made by deliberately imitating nature. For example, there are clever computer programs that randomly adjust themselves and preserve any adjustments that result in an improvement, while discarding any that don’t have a desirable effect. The programmers didn’t think of this all by themselves: they got the idea from nature.
Magog’s post about bats is a variant of the 18th Century argument of William Paley, which has often been used and re-used in an attempt to discredit evolution. Keith takes the argument into the 20th Century by introducing examples of what others have called irreducible complexity, mentioning bombardier beetles and knee joints, which he says are too complex to have evolved. Others have cited the blood clotting system and the human eye and the bacterial flagellum as examples of what they call irreducible complexity.
The essence of the irreducible complexity argument is that there are many examples of biological systems that each contain several components that are all individually essential for the system to work. If any one of them is absent then the system doesn’t work. The argument goes that such a system could not evolve because there would be no selective pressure or advantage to be gained until all the components had evolved and the system was complete.
The weakness of this argument is that it depends on assumptions that have never been shown to be true and in some cases have been shown to be false. To make the argument work, it has to be assumed that the components were always individually essential at all stages of their evolution or creation. It also has to be assumed that these components had no other function.
It is possible for an enzyme, for instance, let us call it enzyme A, to be able to do a job all by itself early in its evolution, but then another enzyme or co-enzyme B, which may originally have had a different function, undergoes a slight change that enables it to help enzyme A to do its job better. You now have a 2-component system in which only one of the components is essential. The two components continue to evolve in a way that makes their cooperation more effective, and in the process enzyme A may lose its ability to do the job without the help of B. Now you have a 2-component system in which both components are essential. The process can continue as more components are added one at a time, and you finish up with what has been called irreducible complexity. So irreducible complexity as an argument against evolution has failed.
This process that I have described is not just a hypothetical possibility. There are several specific examples in which there is strong evidence that such a process did in fact happen.
The evidence for evolution having happened and continuing to happen is very strong, so I predict that attempts to discredit it will eventually fade away, like the geocentric universe and the young earth and the flat earth.
In the meanwhile, however, such attempts are damaging the public perception of Christianity. They are giving many people the impression that Christian faith depends on discrediting evolution. It doesn’t. Christian faith can flourish along with acceptance of evolution. Such attempts to discredit it are also discouraging young Christians from pursuing what could be fruitful careers in science and medicine, where they could make huge contributions to the alleviation of sickness, malnutrition, poverty and ignorance. Putting one’s energy into the solution of such human problems seems to me an eminently Christian thing to do.