Renowned Chemist: Evolutionists Do Not Understand the Origin of Life

[ARGOSY]

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.

 

I understand you point, there is a lot of ambiguity surrounding the terms "macro" and "micro" evolution. There is also a lot of ambiguity surrounding the term "species".

 

As a creationist I believe major physiological changes can occur rapidly, even together with slight DNA changes, and the result can be a new species. This can occur in a few decades, and has been shown to do so.  Often if there have been one or two DNA mutations in the one species, there can even be an inability to breed between the two species. 

 

Its the increased DNA complexity that evolutionists battle to prove.  And the evolutionary timeframes. Without those two, all you are left with is slightly speciated prokaryotes. 

[Guest Teditis]

 

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?

 

 

Quite simply, No... on several counts.

Where are you getting your numbers from btw?

[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?

 

 

Quite simply, No... on several counts.

Where are you getting your numbers from btw?

 

Then demonstrate it in a manner that isn't stupid and doesn't lie.

 

These ones? My butt. They're to illustrate a point not be exact.

 

 

 

 

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.

 

I understand you point, there is a lot of ambiguity surrounding the terms "macro" and "micro" evolution.

Which is why they're seldom used in a scientific context. The only time I've seen the terms used is in debates against evolution.

 

 

 

here is also a lot of ambiguity surrounding the term "species"

Pretty much. I wonder what could have caused such a confluence of displayed genes and phenotype.

 

 

As a creationist I believe major physiological changes can occur rapidly, even together with slight DNA changes, and the result can be a new species.

Yes. Evolution happens at a greatly increased rate when population sizes shrink. Demonstrating that you do accept evolution.

 

 

This can occur in a few decades, and has been shown to do so.

Yes. Again. Only when reduced to tiny interbreeding populations.

 

 

Often if there have been one or two DNA mutations in the one species, there can even be an inability to breed between the two species.

Which is why internationalization is one of the criteria by which we mark (de-mark?) a species. You have agreed with established scientific fact on every-point here. What's the problem?

 

 

 

Its the increased DNA complexity that evolutionists battle to prove.

And now you're off the deep end. Relative complexity of DNA is relatively unimportant. (Once the DNA has been established that is.) What matters is which genes express themselves across a lifeforms life. Is torso size or limb structure about "complexity?" How about the ability to better digest some substances over others? If I had vampire fangs, three fingers and a tail would my DNA be more "complex" than yours? (I've always wanted a tail.)

 

 

And the evolutionary timeframes.

What evolutionary timeframes? Are the ~four hundred million years of reproducing life not enough?

 

 

Without those two, all you are left with is slightly speciated prokaryotes.

And we have them both. And you just referenced our observations of evolution in action. And we (Which I'm including you in because these discoveries were made as much on my behalf as yours.) also have the fossil record, taxonomic observations that preceded Darwin, comparative biology, and philogenetics. All seven of which cross confirm each other and support the principle.  We (Including you remember.) have everything.

 

Edit: I included an absolute statement. Dumb of me.

Edited October 24, 2014 by Scintillic_Atom_Marriage

[Enoch2021]

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

Argosy:  I understand you point, there is a lot of ambiguity surrounding the terms "macro" and "micro" evolution.

 

Which is why they're seldom used in a scientific context. The only time I've seen the terms used is in debates against evolution.

 

 

Except these (just a few of thousands) and are these debates against evolution??....

 

 

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.)

 

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

 

The simplest and most common definition of the two terms is that microevolution involves “relatively small changes below the species level,” while macroevolution involves “relatively large changes sufficient to produce new species and higher taxa” including new families, phyla, or genera.

Price, P., Biological Evolution: Saunders, Fort Worth, TX. pg 11, 1996.

 

 

Source: http://www.creationresearch.org/members-only/crsq/41/41_1/2004v41n1p60.pdf :

 

In a review of Defending Evolution (Alters and Alters, 2001), a book highly recommended “by such eminent evolutionists as Ernst Mayr and Stephen J. Gould ... [and] Eugenie C. Scott,” Morris (2001) concludes that their defense of Darwinism fails because...it focuses almost exclusively on defending micro-evolution (what creationists call adaptive variation), whereas it is only macroevolution that creationists reject in the first place. Essentially only three pages of the book (pp. 117–119) are devoted to defending macroevolution, and the concluding sentence of this section simply complains that it is “unreasonable” to expect observational evidence of macroevolution, since this does not follow the “normal procedures used in historical science research.” That is true of course, but then why call it science? (p. 1) {Emphasis Mine}

Morris, H.,  How not to defend evolution.  Back to Genesis 153:1, pg 1, September 2001

 

In other Words, all they have to defend is a Strawman (Fallacy)....Speciation.  Species is a Man-made construct and has had over 50 different definitions over the past 40 years... and 5 currently.

 

Evolutionists made the terms up (SEE: Chicago Conference) to muddy the waters (SEE: Illustration, The 2 Equations/Equivocation (Fallacy) et al explanation in post # 26)

 

 

I wonder what could have caused such a confluence of displayed genes and phenotype.

 

Change in Allele Frequency (which is NOT evolution, SEE Definition: Kerkut).  You also need to get up to speed with Epigenetics:  Simple Diet changes can have Huge Impacts on Phenotype/expression....

 

Agouti mice (so-called because they have the agouti gene) are typically yellow, obese and highly susceptible to cancer and type II diabetes. However, this experiment produced mice that were brown, slender and didn’t share their parents’ vulnerability for disease, despite carrying the dominant agouti gene.

How?...... simply by feeding the pregnant mothers a methyl-rich diet, which managed to ‘switch off’ the harmful agouti gene! And not only can a mother’s diet profoundly affect gene expression in her children but also her grandchildren and possibly succeeding generations after that.

Watters, E., DNA is not destiny: the new science of epigenetics rewrites the rules of disease, heredity, and identity, Discover, pp. 33–37, 75, November 2006.

Cropley, J.E. et al., Germ-line epigenetic modification of the murine A^vy allele by nutritional supplementation, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 103(46):17308–17312, 14 November 2006.

 

 

Yes. Evolution happens at a greatly increased rate when population sizes shrink.

 

 

This is evolution....

 

‘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 don't see Genetic Drift in the above description....?

 

 

Which is why internationalization is one of the criteria by which we mark (de-mark?) a species. You {Argosy} have agreed with established scientific fact on every-point here.

 

 

"Internationalization" is a Criteria? for what?  Scientific Fact ??  Can you show one....

 

SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE: consists of OBSERVATIONS and EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS that serve to support, refute, or modify a scientific hypothesis or theory, when collected and interpreted in accordance with the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.'

 

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

 

??

 

Relative complexity of DNA is relatively unimportant. (Once the DNA has been established that is.)

 

 

Yes, that's what we need "Established", since it's the SOLE foundation of the "alleged" theory...

 

‘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.

 

So Please explain....

 

DNA/RNA/"Functional Proteins" NEVER spontaneously form "naturally", outside already existing cells, from Sugars, Bases, Phosphates, and Aminos, respectively.

It's Physically and Chemically IMPOSSIBLE.

That's just the Hardware!

 

DNA "CODE"/Software------------------Design(Intelligence)--------------------Designer!

 

To refute:

 

1. Prove that the Genetic CODE is not....."CODE"/Software. OR....

2. Prove that Atoms/Molecules have Sentience and Intelligence.

 

Tell us:  How did Stupid Atoms write their own Software.....?

 

 

Relative complexity of DNA is relatively unimportant.

 

DNA is just not "Complex" it's "Specifically Complex", big difference....

 

You're getting confused between "order", "complex", and "Specific Complexity":

"Order" and "complex" is or can be:   abcdabcdabcdabcdabcdabcdabcd. "Sand Dune" "Snowflake".........   Nature Construct.

"Specific Complexity":  The Declaration of Independence.  "Sand Castle"....... Intelligent Design Construct.

 

Do you think a Sand Dune and a Sand Castle are conceptually the same?

Seti: This search would be pointless and quite Nonsensical if they weren't able to tell the difference in random noises "order" from "NATURE" and "Specific Complex" communication "INTELLIGENT DESIGN".

"Living things are distinguished by their SPECIFIED COMPLEXITY. Crystals such as granite fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; mixtures of random polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity."{Emphasis Mine}

L. Orgel PhD Chemistry

 

Examples:

 

Cholecystokinin is a Peptide Hormone produced in the mucosal epithelium of the small intestine and stimulates release of Digestive Enzymes from the Pancreas vital for digestion and absorption...Without it you die.  Caveat: you can survive with Hormone Replacement Therapy.

Albumin is ONLY produced by the Liver. It's consists of a single polypeptide chain of 580 amino acids.  Of it's many functions, it's Main function is to maintain intravascular oncotic (colloid osmotic) pressure. It's vital to homeostasis...without it you die.

 

They are Specifically Complex...you cannot interchange them.  They are Specifically Designed for their Specific Roles and Specific Functions.

 

 

Are the ~four hundred million years of reproducing life not enough?

 

Begging The Question (Fallacy).  Prove the four hundred million years; SEE Scientific Method Above.

 

 

And we ...... also have the fossil record, taxonomic observations that preceded Darwin, comparative biology, and philogenetics. All seven of which cross confirm each other and support the principle.

 

 

The Fossil Record??  What information can you glean from a fossil other than a Contrived Taxonomic Classification and that it died...all of a sudden like? Can you tell me about it's Parents? Offspring? Did they survive?  What's the Independent Varialble(s) of your TESTS/Experiments with fossils... your Eyelids or the Angle of the Shovel?

 

Can you please describe the fossilization process? Then, what conditions on a massive world-wide scale would lend itself to such a scenario?

 

Henry Gee PhD (Paleontology, Evolutionary Biology) Senior Editor Nature...

 

“To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.” {Emphasis Mine}

In Search of Deep Time—Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life.

 

"New fossil discoveries are fitted into this preexisting story. We call these new discoveries 'missing links', as if the chain of ancestry and descent were a real object for our contemplation, and not what it really is: a completely human invention created after the fact, shaped to accord with human prejudices. In reality, the physical record of human evolution is more modest. Each fossil represents an isolated point, with no knowable connection to any other given fossil, and all float around in an overwhelming sea of gaps." {Emphasis Mine}

 

"taxonomic observations"--- from a Manmade Construct and Observations are not TESTS!  This is a Begging The Question (Fallacy).

 

 

"comparative biology"---Homology, eh? The Ole..... If evolution is true the we should observe "similarities"? This is a Textbook Formal Logical Fallacy: Affirming The Consequent ...

 

If P then Q.

Q.

Therefore P.

The logical fallacy is that P doesn't necessarily follow from Q. 

1. IF Evolution is true: Then Insert any "Darwinian Grab-Bag"  Ad Hoc Observations (Fossils/Homology/Genetic Variation et al)

2. We observe (Ad Hoc Observation)

3. Therefore, Evolution is true.

 

1) If I had just eaten a whole pizza, I would feel very full;

2) I feel very full;

3.) Therefore: I have just eaten a whole pizza.

 

Couldn't I have eaten a 20 ounce Ribeye with Fries?  Prove Evolution First!  I can say with Equal "Scientific Vigor"....Common Designer!

 

 

"philogenetics"?  The Tree, eh?  I regret to inform you that it has been thrown into the Wood-Chipper.....

 

Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life; New Scientist, 21 January 2009....

 

"Biologist Michael Syvanen of the University of California said that, "Roughly 50 per cent of its genes have one evolutionary history and 50 per cent another… We've just annihilated the tree of life. It's not a tree any more…"

 

"Having uprooted the tree of unicellular life, biologists are now taking their axes to the remaining branches."

 

"Conventionally, sea squirts - also known as tunicates - are lumped together with frogs, humans and other vertebrates in the phylum Chordata, but the genes were sending mixed signals. Some genes did indeed cluster within the chordates, but others indicated that tunicates should be placed with sea urchins, which aren't chordates".

 

"But today the project [to reconstruct the tree] lies in tatters, torn to pieces by an onslaught of negative evidence. Many biologists now argue that the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded. "We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality," says [an evolutionary biologist from Marie Curie University in Paris, Eric Bapteste]".

 

"RNA, for example, might suggest that species A was more closely related to species B than species C, but a tree made from DNA would suggest the reverse".

 

"And to make matters worse, protein sequencing might suggest yet a third evolutionary pathway, and then all of these were producing trees that contradicted the traditional pathways based on fossil evidence and anatomy".

 

Phylogeny: Rewriting evolution; Nature, 27 June 2012.....

 

"Tiny molecules called microRNAs are tearing apart traditional ideas about the animal family tree." Says Dr. Kevin Peterson, "I've looked at thousands of microRNA genes, and I can't find a single example that would support the traditional tree."

 

'The microRNAs are totally unambiguous,' he says, 'but they give a totally different tree from what everyone else wants."

 

Understanding phylogenetic incongruence: lessons from phyllostomid bats; Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, November 2012 ....

"Also, "Our analyses have shown that… there is significant incongruence between phylogenies derived from morphological and molecular data..."

 

And....

 

- An elephant shrew is closer to an elephant than to other shrews.

- Horse DNA is closer to bats than to cows.

- Mouse DNA is the same as 80% of the human genome.

- Sponges share 70% of human genes including for nerves and muscles.

- Kangaroo DNA unexpectedly contains huge chunks of the human genome.

- Gorilla DNA is closer to humans than chimps in 15% of the genome.

- Neanderthal DNA is fully human, closer than a chimp is to a chimp.

- The chimp Y chromosome is "horrendously different" from our 'Y'.

- The human Y is astoundingly similar all over the world lacking the expected mutational variation

- Mitochondrial Eve "would be a mere 6000 years old" by ignoring chimp DNA and calculating by mutation rates.

- Roundworms have far more genes than Darwinist predictions,19,000, compared to our 20,500.

- Snake DNA contains a quarter of the cow genome.

http://kgov.com/list-of-genomes-that-just-dont-fit

 

 

We (Including you remember.) have everything.

 

All you have are Demonstrable "Just So" Stories, Fallacies, and a MetaPhysical Religion....as I have "Step by Step" Illustrated.  Good Thing you didn't mention Mutations....

 

"The neo-Darwinians would like us to believe that large evolutionary changes can result from a series of small events if there are enough of them. But if these events all lose information they can’t be the steps in the kind of evolution the neo-Darwin theory is supposed to explain, no matter how many mutations there are. Whoever thinks macroevolution can be made by mutations that lose information is like the merchant who lost a little money on every sale but thought he could make it up on volume."

Lee Spetner (Ph.D. Physics - MIT - Not By Chance)

 

Pierre Grasse  Editor of the 28-volume "Traite de Zoologie" Chair of Evolution at Sorbonne University.......

 

"This logical scheme is, however, unacceptable: first, because its major premise is neither obvious nor general; second, because its conclusion does not agree with the facts. No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution." {Emphasis Mine}

 

"Left to itself, DNA undergoes, during its replications in the germinal cells, the mutations so often referred to in the body of this book. But error modifies what already exists, it does not create it."

 

Ernst Mayr, Professor of Zoology at Harvard University...

 

"The occurrence of genetic monstrosities by mutation, for instance the homeotic mutant in Drosophila,  is well substantiated, but they are such evident freaks that these monsters can be designated only as 'hopeless.' They are so utterly unbalanced that they would not have the slightest chance of escaping elimination through stabilizing selection. Giving a thrush the wings of a falcon does not make it a better flier. Indeed, having all the other equipment of a thrush, it would probably hardly be able to fly at all. It is a general rule, of which every geneticist and breeder can give numerous examples, that the more drastically a mutation affects the phenotype, the more likely it is to reduce fitness. To believe that such a drastic mutation would produce a viable new type, capable of occupying a new adaptive zone, is equivalent to believing in miracles." {Emphasis Mine}

Ernst Mayr, Populations, Species, and Evolution, p.253

 

 

‘Mutations are word-processing errors in the cell’s instruction manual. Mutations systematically destroy genetic information—even as word processing errors destroy written information. While there are some rare beneficial mutations (even as there are rare beneficial misspellings), bad mutations outnumber them—perhaps by a million to one. So even allowing for beneficial mutations, the net effect of mutation is overwhelmingly deleterious. The more the mutations, the less the information. This is fundamental to the mutation process.’

John Sanford, PhD Geneticist Cornell University (Inventor of the 'Gene Gun')

 

"Most DNA sequences are poly-functional and so must also be poly-constrained. This means that DNA sequences have meaning on several different levels (poly-functional) and each level of meaning limits possible future change (poly-constrained). For example, imagine a sentence which has a very specific message in its normal form but with an equally coherent message when read backwards. Now let’s suppose that it also has a third message when reading every other letter, and a fourth message when a simple encryption program is used to translate it. Such a message would be poly-functional and poly-constrained. We know that misspellings in a normal sentence will not normally improve the message, but at least this would be possible. However, a poly-constrained message is fascinating, in that it cannot be improved. It can only degenerate. Any misspellings which might possibly improve the normal sentence will be disruptive to the other levels of information. Any change at all will diminish total information with absolute certainty."

John Sanford PhD Geneticist Cornell University (Inventor of the 'Gene Gun')

Montañez, G.; Marks R.; Fernandez, J. & Sanford, J. (2013). Multiple overlapping genetic codes profoundly reduce the probability of beneficial mutation, In: Biological Information – New Perspectives (pp 139-167).

 

This "Poly-Functional" and 'Poly-Constrained" concept......if true, (WHICH IT IS ) a Fourth Grade Crossword Puzzle Novice, having no clue of even how to spell "Deoxyribonucleic Acid," would not only be able to stand against the most supreme evolutionary geneticist, the 4th Grader would annihilate him with simple logic!

I Love the LORD for that...he did it purposely, I have no doubt......as EVIDENCED BY: (Matthew 11:25) "At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes."

 

 

Meta Information (Instructions). This is Information about the Information.  About 2% of Entire Genome consists of the Protein-Coding Genes with 98% devoted to Regulatory "Meta-Information".  It's like a Recipe for a Cake: Ingredients (Protein-Coding Genes) List of Instructions (Meta Information). 

DNA in humans (about 2 meters in length per Cell) is packed and coiled into 4 different levels of chromatin structure inside the nucleus. Each of these levels carry the "Meta Information".  In fact, for every molecule of protein producing machinery there are 50 molecules of regulatory machinery.

 

evolution says that "Mutations" are the foundation mechanism to get from Bacteria to Boy Scouts.  hmmm

Mutation: a spelling error or a change in the sequence of letters (deletion, inversion, swap, insertion, ect)

 

Question:  If a Mutation occurs in the Protein Coding Region....How on GOD'S GREEN EARTH are you getting Matching and Functional Corresponding Mutations in the Regulatory Instructions (over 50 on a GOOD DAY!!)???

Or better said: You have a List of Ingredients for a Pineapple Upside Down Cake and the Instructions for a Unicycle and your telling me that the cake turned out perfect?   

 

It's probably the reason why Drosophila,  after years of Radiation-Induced Mutations, has Non-Functional Wings/Antenna/Legs et al growing out its Eyes/Back and Tail!!!  AND IT'S STILL A FLY!

 

 

In conclusion...You need a new "Theory".

[jerryR34]

I find the title of this thread ironic.   Where's Enoch when you need him crying "Plea to authority' fallacy?  

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

I find the title of this thread ironic.   Where's Enoch when you need him crying "Plea to authority' fallacy?  

 

Hey Jerry, could I get an answer to my question please?

 

If speciation is necessary for both theories, how do you suppose that it's evidence of the one over and against the other?

[jerryR34]

 

I find the title of this thread ironic.   Where's Enoch when you need him crying "Plea to authority' fallacy?  

 

Hey Jerry, could I get an answer to my question please?

 

If speciation is necessary for both theories, how do you suppose that it's evidence of the one over and against the other?

 

If iis evidence for evolution, do you accept evolution?  Can you define species in the creation "science" view of things?

[Enoch2021]

I find the title of this thread ironic.   Where's Enoch when you need him crying "Plea to authority' fallacy?  

 

 

Hmmm, Lets see:

 

Appeal To Authority; Definition: Using an authority as evidence in your argument when the authority is not really an authority on the facts relevant to the argument.  

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/21-appeal-to-authority

 

 

So you're "asserting" that if I brought these Experts in their Field into a courtroom "evolution on trial" the Judge would throw them out on the grounds that it's Fallacious and they shouldn't speak to evolution because it's "Outside their Scope", eh?   

 

Roger Lewin, Ph.D., British Anthropologist (staff member of New Scientist in London for nine years).

 

Gerald Allan Kerkut Ph.D., was a noted British zoologist and physiologist. (Dean of Science, Chairman of the School of Biochemical and Physiological Sciences and Head of the Department of Neurophysiology at University of Southampton) evolutionist.

 

Ernst Mayr PhD Professor Emeritus, Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University. Arguably the TOP evolutionist of the 20th Century.

 

Leslie Orgel PhD Chemistry, Legendary Origin of Life Researcher. (evolutionist).

 

Pierre Grasse PhD Editor of the 28-volume "Traite de Zoologie" Chair of Evolution at Sorbonne University.  Legend in Biology.  

Theodosius Dobzhansky (Geneticist and The Father of 20th Century Evolution Theory)...."Now, one can disagree with Grasse but not ignore him, he is the most distinguished of French zoologists, the editor of the 28 volumes of `Traite de Zoologie', author of numerous original investigations and ex-president of the Academie des Sciences. His knowledge of the living world is encyclopedic ...." (Dobzhansky T.G., "Darwinian or `Oriented' Evolution?" Review of Grasse P.-P., "L'Evolution du Vivant," Editions Albin Michel: Paris, 1973, in "Evolution," Vol. 29, June 1975, pp.376-378,).

 

John Sanford, PhD Geneticist Cornell University (Inventor of the 'Gene Gun') (ex-evolutionist).  Author of Genetic Entropy.  Speaking to....Genetics.

 

If they can't speak to "evolution" with "Authority".......who can?  LOL

 

 

Your charge is a Baseless "erroneous" Assertion; Ironically, Fallacious.  And you didn't come close to touching any of the Numerous Postulates outlined and discussed @ Length/Detail....hmmm   

 

 

 

Now to get back on topic, can you or anyone else speak to these...

 

 

DNA/RNA/"Functional Proteins" NEVER spontaneously form "naturally", outside already existing cells, from Sugars, Bases, Phosphates, and Aminos, respectively.

It's Physically and Chemically IMPOSSIBLE.

That's just the Hardware!

DNA "CODE"/Software------------------Design(Intelligence)--------------------Designer!

To refute:

1. Prove that the Genetic CODE is not....."CODE"/Software. OR....

2. Prove that Atoms/Molecules have Sentience and Intelligence.

Tell us:  How did Stupid Atoms write their own Software.....?

[jerryR34]

 

I find the title of this thread ironic.   Where's Enoch when you need him crying "Plea to authority' fallacy?  

 

 

Hmmm, Lets see:

 

Appeal To Authority; Definition: Using an authority as evidence in your argument when the authority is not really an authority on the facts relevant to the argument.  

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/21-appeal-to-authority

 

 

So you're "asserting" that if I brought these Experts in their Field into a courtroom "evolution on trial" the Judge would throw them out on the grounds that it's Fallacious and they shouldn't speak to evolution because it's "Outside their Scope", eh?   

 

Roger Lewin, Ph.D., British Anthropologist (staff member of New Scientist in London for nine years).

 

Gerald Allan Kerkut Ph.D., was a noted British zoologist and physiologist. (Dean of Science, Chairman of the School of Biochemical and Physiological Sciences and Head of the Department of Neurophysiology at University of Southampton) evolutionist.

 

Ernst Mayr PhD Professor Emeritus, Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University. Arguably the TOP evolutionist of the 20th Century.

 

Leslie Orgel PhD Chemistry, Legendary Origin of Life Researcher. (evolutionist).

 

Pierre Grasse PhD Editor of the 28-volume "Traite de Zoologie" Chair of Evolution at Sorbonne University.  Legend in Biology.  

Theodosius Dobzhansky (Geneticist and The Father of 20th Century Evolution Theory)...."Now, one can disagree with Grasse but not ignore him, he is the most distinguished of French zoologists, the editor of the 28 volumes of `Traite de Zoologie', author of numerous original investigations and ex-president of the Academie des Sciences. His knowledge of the living world is encyclopedic ...." (Dobzhansky T.G., "Darwinian or `Oriented' Evolution?" Review of Grasse P.-P., "L'Evolution du Vivant," Editions Albin Michel: Paris, 1973, in "Evolution," Vol. 29, June 1975, pp.376-378,).

 

John Sanford, PhD Geneticist Cornell University (Inventor of the 'Gene Gun') (ex-evolutionist).  Author of Genetic Entropy.  Speaking to....Genetics.

 

If they can't speak to "evolution" with "Authority".......who can?  LOL

 

 

Your charge is a Baseless "erroneous" Assertion; Ironically, Fallacious.  And you didn't come close to touching any of the Numerous Postulates outlined and discussed @ Length/Detail....hmmm   

 

 

 

Now to get back on topic, can you or anyone else speak to these...

 

 

DNA/RNA/"Functional Proteins" NEVER spontaneously form "naturally", outside already existing cells, from Sugars, Bases, Phosphates, and Aminos, respectively.

It's Physically and Chemically IMPOSSIBLE.

That's just the Hardware!

DNA "CODE"/Software------------------Design(Intelligence)--------------------Designer!

To refute:

1. Prove that the Genetic CODE is not....."CODE"/Software. OR....

2. Prove that Atoms/Molecules have Sentience and Intelligence.

Tell us:  How did Stupid Atoms write their own Software.....?

 

so, why, when non-creationists bring the overwhelming evidence of evolution from so many different fields of science do you discredit them? You are cherry-picking your authorities to match your preconceived notions....and again...preconceived notions fly in the face of science.  and...before you go down that road, what we have learned in science is not a preconceived notion...it is learning...

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

I find the title of this thread ironic.   Where's Enoch when you need him crying "Plea to authority' fallacy?  

 

Hey Jerry, could I get an answer to my question please?

 

If speciation is necessary for both theories, how do you suppose that it's evidence of the one over and against the other?

 

If iis evidence for evolution, do you accept evolution?  Can you define species in the creation "science" view of things?

 

Why don't you just answer question, Jerry???