Renowned Chemist: Evolutionists Do Not Understand the Origin of Life

[gray wolf]

 

 

I agree as well.  There are voices out there that are not full fledged creationists who harbor doubts about evolution.  People will probably disagree with me, but I think we should all get up to speed about science, even evolution.  Then we can pinpoint better WHY we dissent from these ideas.

while I agree that the overwhelming physical evidence of speciation points to evolution, you are totally correct that if one is to argue against a point, one should understand it.  Most of the time creationists come off looking very ignorant of the science of evolution.  That hurts their argument.

 

 

Jerry, I'm curious as to how speciation would point to evolution?

 

I've pointed out to you before, almost no creationsits believe that there were tigers, lions, cougars, cheetahs, etc. on the ark, but that there was some pair of cats with a genome that had great potential for genetic diversity and since then speciation has occured to give us the diversity we see amoung the various cat species today.

 

If both explainations require speciation to be viable, how can it be evidence for one of them over and against the other?

 

But I thought speciation is evidence of macroevolution, which many argue does not occur.

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

 

 

 

I agree as well.  There are voices out there that are not full fledged creationists who harbor doubts about evolution.  People will probably disagree with me, but I think we should all get up to speed about science, even evolution.  Then we can pinpoint better WHY we dissent from these ideas.

while I agree that the overwhelming physical evidence of speciation points to evolution, you are totally correct that if one is to argue against a point, one should understand it.  Most of the time creationists come off looking very ignorant of the science of evolution.  That hurts their argument.

 

 

Jerry, I'm curious as to how speciation would point to evolution?

 

I've pointed out to you before, almost no creationsits believe that there were tigers, lions, cougars, cheetahs, etc. on the ark, but that there was some pair of cats with a genome that had great potential for genetic diversity and since then speciation has occured to give us the diversity we see amoung the various cat species today.

 

If both explainations require speciation to be viable, how can it be evidence for one of them over and against the other?

 

But I thought speciation is evidence of macroevolution, which many argue does not occur.

 

 

That term makes no sense to me. As you know, biological evolution is the theory that changes at a cellualar level account for the biological diversity we see today. All evolution would be microevolution and macroevolution would be microevolution over time. It's simply redundant to use those unnecessary qualifiers.

 

But if the changes occuring in the genome are not contributing to biological diversity, but instead are limiting the potential for the expression of diversity (which is my case), then it's not evolution on either a micro or macro level.

[gray wolf]

I am using the term because it and miicroevolution are tossed about in discussion and debate. I don't know if they are really separate processes or just one comprehensive one. I don't know enough about the subject.

[Scintillic_Atom_Marriage]

To put it as simply as possible.

 

Evolution: Reproduction with variation.

 

Creature A is born and is slightly different to it's parents. (Creatures 0) Creature A's spawn are again, slightly different. Until after thousands of generations Creature X is dissimilar enough to Creatures 0 that they can no longer be considered the same species.

 

Micro-Evolution: An extremely small amount of evolution.

 

Mutation on the scale where Creature X is still similar to Creature 0 but they can still interbreed. Creature X may have a differently shaped head, retractable claws and is better at digesting berries but it is still the same species as Creature 0.

 

Macro-Evolution: Large amounts of evolution.

 

Creature X has entirely different proportions, a different diet, it's bigger and sleeps in trees rather than burrows. It is a different species to Creature 0 and a different species again to Creature's Y and Z. But they're all still related to Creature 0.

 

Neither term is generally used because it's imprecise. The only difference between Micro and Macro evolution is the amount of generations the change has taken. Which we cannot determine exactly. Only that the changes have taken place.

 

To say that you don't believe in macro-evolution while believing in micro-evolution is like saying that you think somebody can walk to the shops but they can't walk to the mall.

[Guest]

Neither term is generally used because it's imprecise. The only difference between Micro and Macro evolution is the amount of generations the change has taken. Which we cannot determine exactly. Only that the changes have taken place.

 

To say that you don't believe in macro-evolution while believing in micro-evolution is like saying that you think somebody can walk to the shops but they can't walk to the mall.

 

 

To Say That One Refuses To Believe In The Precise Observations Of Variance Within A Kind

 

And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass,

 

the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind,

 

whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

 

And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind,

 

and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

 

And the evening and the morning were the third day. Genesis 1:11-13

 

While One Continues To Believe And To Preach Micro-Evolution

 

And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark,

 

to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.

 

Of fowls after their kind,

 

and of cattle after their kind,

 

of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind,

 

two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.

 

And take thou unto thee of all food that is eaten, and thou shalt gather it to thee;

 

and it shall be for food for thee, and for them. Thus did Noah; according to all that God commanded him, so did he. Genesis 6:19-22

 

Is To Say One Will Remain Confused

 

For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens;

 

God himself that formed the earth and made it;

 

he hath established it,

 

he created it not in vain,

 

he formed it to be inhabited:

 

I am the LORD; and there is none else. Isaiah 45:18

 

By The Words Of Men

 

And the kings of the earth, and the great men,

 

and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men,

 

and every bondman, and every free man,

 

hid themselves in the dens

 

and in the rocks of the mountains;

 

And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us,

 

and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne,

 

and from the wrath of the Lamb: For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand? Revelation 6:15-17

 

Over The Word Of God

 

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

 

The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him;

 

and without him was not any thing made

 

that was made. John 1:1-3

 

In My Belief

 

~

 

Believe

 

He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

 

He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

 

But as many as received him,

 

to them gave he power

 

to become the sons of God,

 

even to them that believe on his name: John 1:10-12

 

And Be Blessed Beloved

 

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us,

 

(and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. John 1:45

 

Love, Your Brother Joe

[Enoch2021]

To put it as simply as possible.

 

Evolution: Reproduction with variation.

 

Creature A is born and is slightly different to it's parents. (Creatures 0) Creature A's spawn are again, slightly different. Until after thousands of generations Creature X is dissimilar enough to Creatures 0 that they can no longer be considered the same species.

 

Micro-Evolution: An extremely small amount of evolution.

 

Mutation on the scale where Creature X is still similar to Creature 0 but they can still interbreed. Creature X may have a differently shaped head, retractable claws and is better at digesting berries but it is still the same species as Creature 0.

 

Macro-Evolution: Large amounts of evolution.

 

Creature X has entirely different proportions, a different diet, it's bigger and sleeps in trees rather than burrows. It is a different species to Creature 0 and a different species again to Creature's Y and Z. But they're all still related to Creature 0.

 

Neither term is generally used because it's imprecise. The only difference between Micro and Macro evolution is the amount of generations the change has taken. Which we cannot determine exactly. Only that the changes have taken place.

 

To say that you don't believe in macro-evolution while believing in micro-evolution is like saying that you think somebody can walk to the shops but they can't walk to the mall.

 

 

 

============================================================================================================

 

To put it as simply as possible.

 

Evolution: Reproduction with variation.

 

 

I don't think so....

 

‘General Theory of Evolution’, defined by the evolutionist Kerkut as ‘the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.’

Kerkut, G.A., Implications of Evolution, Pergamon, Oxford, UK, p. 157, 1960.

 

“I think it is disingenuous to argue that the origin of life is irrelevant to evolution. It is no less relevant than the Big Bang is to physics or cosmology. Evolution should be able to explain, in theory at least, all the way back to the very first organism that could replicate itself through biological or chemical processes. And to understand that organism fully, we would simply have to know what came before it. And right now we are nowhere close.”

Slack, G., What neo-creationists get right—an evolutionist shares lessons he’s learned from the Intelligent Design camp, The Scientist, 20 June 2008

 

 

Micro-Evolution: An extremely small amount of evolution.

 

Mutation on the scale where Creature X is still similar to Creature 0 but they can still interbreed. Creature X may have a differently shaped head, retractable claws and is better at digesting berries but it is still the same species as Creature 0.

 

Macro-Evolution: Large amounts of evolution.

Creature X has entirely different proportions, a different diet, it's bigger and sleeps in trees rather than burrows. It is a different species to Creature 0 and a different species again to Creature's Y and Z. But they're all still related to Creature 0.

 

Neither term is generally used because it's imprecise. The only difference between Micro and Macro evolution is the amount of generations the change has taken. Which we cannot determine exactly. Only that the changes have taken place.

To say that you don't believe in macro-evolution while believing in micro-evolution is like saying that you think somebody can walk to the shops but they can't walk to the mall.

 

 

I don't think so.....

 

Chicago Field Museum of Natural History Conference on 'Macroevolution'...

 

"The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No."  {Emphasis Mine}

Roger Lewin PhD, Science (Vol. 210(4472):883–887, 1980.)

 

 

This equation is a Observable, Measurable, Repeatable, and is a Scientific FACT:

1. "Micro"-evolution: Change in Allele frequency, Biblical "KIND"

Natural Selection + Genetic Variation = Biblical "Kind", This is (Humans: Tall/Short, Green Eyes/Blue Eyes, Dark Skin/Light Skin, Puerto Rican/ Greenland Eskimo ... Dogs: Big/Small, Short hair/Long hair, Boxer/Collie) THEY'RE STILL DOGS and HUMANS!

 

This Equation is an Epic Fairytale with NO PROOF (ZERO):

2. "Macro"- evolution: "Bacteria to Boy Scout"....

 

Natural Selection + Random Mutations + Billions of years = darwinian evolution

 

If evolution is TRUE, then show 1 PROOF of this! You must show a Family Taxonomic Group or higher change to prove evolution and discredit the Biblical Account.

And please, don't say because #1 is True then Ipso Facto #2 is True. These two equations are in completely different Universes and the only similarity... is that each equation starts with a "Natural Selection"....which by the way, was first Identified and Documented 27 years before origin of species by Edward Blyth (Creationist).

 

It appears evolutionists are using the ole "Bait and Switch" technique (Equivocation Fallacy). Taking "Micro"- evolution" which is Natural Selection and Genetic Variation and "Grandfathering" these into darwinian evolution or "Macro"-evolution"... in a pathetic attempt to feign credulity with the former without explaining the latter. There is a very significant distinction. “Micro"-evolution, by definition, is the same thing as genetic variation (the shuffling of pre-existing genetic information). It is both observable and observed, measurable and measured, repeatable and repeated—in short, it has been scientifically verified as a natural phenomenon. However, in every single case, the organism that has undergone the variation is the SAME KIND OF ORGANISM!

 

“Macro"-evolution” or (Bacteria to Boy Scout) on the other hand, has not been verified as a natural phenomenon. It has not been observed, measured, or repeated. No natural mechanism has successfully been put forth as the means by which new and more complex genetic information is generated so as to result in unequivocally new traits, organs, and organisms. “Macro"-evolution is an entirely contrived notion, extrapolated, with no empirical basis, from “Micro"-evolution.

The distinction is both precise and significant. To blur the distinction is to show contempt for empirical science and mix fact with fantasy.

 

 

One of the most authoritative Darwinists, Ernst Mayr of Harvard, defined microevolution as “evolution at or below the species level” and generally “refers to relatively minor variations that occur in populations over time.” Conversely, he defined macroevolution as “evolution above the species level; the evolution of higher taxa and the production of evolutionary novelties such as new structures”.

Mayr, E., One Long Argument: Charles Darwin and the genesis of modern evolutionary thought; Harvard University Press,Cambridge, MA.  pg. 182, 1991

[Guest Teditis]

Excellent points, once again, Enoch.

GTE proponents always want to put their best face on by

never talking about TOE and origins, much less ontology.

 

Micro vs Macro evolution should never be confused as

being similar... one is obvious and the other absurd. And

one helps explain God while the other was invented to do

away with Him.

Edited October 23, 2014 by Teditis

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

To put it as simply as possible.

 

Evolution: Reproduction with variation.

 

Creature A is born and is slightly different to it's parents. (Creatures 0) Creature A's spawn are again, slightly different. Until after thousands of generations Creature X is dissimilar enough to Creatures 0 that they can no longer be considered the same species.

 

Micro-Evolution: An extremely small amount of evolution.

 

Mutation on the scale where Creature X is still similar to Creature 0 but they can still interbreed. Creature X may have a differently shaped head, retractable claws and is better at digesting berries but it is still the same species as Creature 0.

 

Macro-Evolution: Large amounts of evolution.

 

Creature X has entirely different proportions, a different diet, it's bigger and sleeps in trees rather than burrows. It is a different species to Creature 0 and a different species again to Creature's Y and Z. But they're all still related to Creature 0.

 

Neither term is generally used because it's imprecise. The only difference between Micro and Macro evolution is the amount of generations the change has taken. Which we cannot determine exactly. Only that the changes have taken place.

 

To say that you don't believe in macro-evolution while believing in micro-evolution is like saying that you think somebody can walk to the shops but they can't walk to the mall.

 

The only part of this post that I disagree with is that evolution is defined as reproduction with variation.

 

Reproduction with variation has always been believed.

 

Evolution is a theory that was popularized in the 1800s and is an alternative to special creation.

 

Evolution is the theory that that reproduction with variation from a common cellular origin accounts for all diversity among biological organisms. That's actually what everybody always means by evolution, each and every single time it's used in a rational context.

 

Mirco-evolution therefore demands evolution to be occuring, and yet it simply isn't.

 

The observed changes demonstrate a genetic free-fall away from diversity potential, so it would have to be called micro-devolution to match the observations, not micro-evolution.

 

I totally agree that employing these terms are a total concession to evolution.

[Enoch2021]

Moreover,

 

evolution isn't even "science" let alone "Scientific" or a "Theory" (It's a Metaphysical Religion...see below). To be "Science" it must adhere to the Scientific Method:

 

Step 1: Observe a Phenomenon
Step 2: Lit Review
Step 3: Hypothesis
Step 4: TEST/EXPERIMENT
Step 5: Analyze Data
Step 6: Valid/Invalid Hypothesis
Step 7: Report Results

 

Well... "The scientific method requires that an hypothesis be ruled out or modified if its predictions are clearly and repeatedly incompatible with experimental tests. Further, no matter how elegant a theory is, its predictions must agree with experimental results if we are to believe that it is a valid description of nature. In physics, as in every experimental science, "experiment is supreme" and experimental verification of hypothetical predictions is absolutely necessary." "Theories which cannot be tested...do not qualify as scientific theories."

http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html

 

"Experimental verification of hypothetical predictions is absolutely necessary"----BUT...

 

“Evolution is not a process that allows us to predict what will happen in the future. We can see what happened in the past only".
Carol V. Ward (paleoanthropologist) University of Missouri; Experts Tackle Questions of How Humans will Evolve; Scientific American, Vol 311, Issue 3; 19 August 2014

 

Ahhh, Don't you have to OBSERVE A PHENOMENON to then make "PREDICTIONS" (Hypothesis) so as to then TEST for VALIDATION?  But Dr. Ward said You can't make "PREDICTIONS" regarding evolution; Ergo...No "VALID" Hypothesis (doh!)

 

 

Lets have a listen to what evolution is by arguably the TOP evolutionist of the 20th Century....

 

Ernst Mayr PhD Professor Emeritus, Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University. (evolutionist)....

 

"Darwin introduced historicity into science. Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science—the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain." {Emphasis Mine}

Ernst Mayr, Darwin's Influence on Modern Thought; Scientific American, 24 November 2009

 

Dr. Mayr---"Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes."

 

What in the World!!!  So now you have NO Hypothesis (SEE: Dr. Ward) and (Obviously... now Documented) NO EXPERIMENTS!

 

Please show us, How On Earth evolution is "science" and not a Demonstrable "Just So" Story and Begging The Question Fallacy IN TOTO!!----(aka: Pseudo-Science)

What's next, the big bang?

 

ps. Professor Mayr's honest appraisal of the situation above is the spittin image of the foundation for Begging The Question Fallacies and "Just So" Stories....

"Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain."

 

Begging The Question: the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true.  http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html

 

 

 

"...Darwin’s founding of a new branch of the philosophy of science, a philosophy of biology."
Ernst Mayr, Darwin's Influence on Modern Thought; Scientific American, 24 November 2009

 

Say again!!  We have Ourselves a Philosopher     

 

 

 

evolution a (Metaphysical) Religion....

 

 

"Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion — a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint — and Mr. Gish is but one of many to make it — the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today". {Emphasis Mine}
Michael Ruse; How evolution became a religion; creationists correct? National Post May 13 2000

 

"Then, sometimes from the same person, you have evolution as secular religion, generally working from an explicitly materialist background and solving all of the world's major problems, from racism to education to conservation. Consider Edward O. Wilson, rightfully regarded as one of the most outstanding professional evolutionary biologists of our time, and the author of major works of straight science. In his On Human Nature, he calmly assures us that evolution is a myth that is now ready to take over Christianity". {Emphasis Mine}
Michael Ruse: Science, March 7 2003 p. 1524

 

Any Corroboration?  Yep....

 

Richard Lewontin (evolutionary biologist) PhD Zoology, Alexander Agassiz Research Professor at Harvard University...

 

"Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection in particular is hopelessly metaphysical, according to the rules of etiquette laid down in the Logic of Scientific Inquiry and widely believed in by practicing scientists who bother to think about the problem. The first rule for any scientific hypothesis ought to be that it is at least possible to conceive of an observation that would contradict the theory. For what good is a theory that is guaranteed by its internal logical structure to agree with all conceivable observations, irrespective of the real structure of the world? If scientists are going to use logically unbeatable theories about the world, they might as well give up natural science and take up religion. Yet is that not exactly the situation with regard to Darwinism? The theory of evolution by natural selection states that changes in the inherited characters of species occur, giving rise to differentiation in space and time, because different genetical types leave different numbers of offspring in different environments... SUCH A THEORY CAN NEVER BE FALSIFIED, for it asserts that some environmental difference created the conditions for natural selection of a new character. It is existentially quantified so that the failure to find the environmental factor proves nothing, except that one has not looked hard enough. Can one really imagine observations about nature that would disprove natural selection as a cause of the difference in bill size? The theory of natural selection is then revealed as metaphysical rather than scientific. Natural selection explains nothing because it explains everything. {Emphasis Mine}

 

[Scintillic_Atom_Marriage]

Micro vs Macro evolution should never be confused as

being similar... one is obvious and the other absurd. And

one helps explain God while the other was invented to do

away with Him.

It doesn't follow that hundreds of changes across thousands of generations will pile together to equal thousands of changes across millions of generations?