Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Natural selection cannot explain the origin of life (Darwin's epic failure re: comprehensive ToE)
CMI ^ | November 12, 2009 | David Catchpoole, Jonathan Sarfati and Don Batten

Posted on 11/12/2009 8:53:24 AM PST by GodGunsGuts

While Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species has been described as “a grand narrative—a story of origins that would change the world”,1 ironically his book very pointedly avoided the question of the origin of life itself.

This ought not be surprising. Darwin’s theory of the origin of species “by means of natural selection”2 presupposes self-reproduction, so can’t explain the origin of self-reproduction.

Unfortunately, many proponents of evolution seem unaware of that. They don’t acknowledge that natural selection requires pre-existing life. As leading 20th century evolutionist Theodosius Dobzhansky lamented: ...

(Excerpt) Read more at creation.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; Philosophy; US: Georgia; United Kingdom
KEYWORDS: abiogenesis; antiscienceevos; atheism; belongsinreligion; bible; catholic; christian; christianity; christianright; creation; darwniniacs; evangelical; evolution; evoreligionexposed; genesis; godsgravesglyphs; intelligentdesign; judaism; notasciencetopic; originoflife; propellerbeanie; protestant; science; spammer; templeofdarwin
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-223 next last

1 posted on 11/12/2009 8:53:25 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: metmom; DaveLoneRanger; editor-surveyor; betty boop; Alamo-Girl; MrB; GourmetDan; Fichori; ...

Ping!


2 posted on 11/12/2009 8:55:13 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Alfred Wallace, who co-founded the theory of evolution with Charles Darwin, was a pioneer in pychic research. Just wanted to throw that out there...


3 posted on 11/12/2009 8:55:35 AM PST by Flightdeck (Go Longhorns)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
RE :”Unfortunately, many proponents of evolution seem unaware of that. They don’t acknowledge that natural selection requires pre-existing life..

Then the article goes on to quote all the ‘evolutionists’ that DO acknowledge that natural selection requires pre-existing life. So what is the got-ya?? Where's the evos that say that natural selection works on non-life (the dead) as this title says? Another imaginary straw man to beat up?

4 posted on 11/12/2009 9:00:12 AM PST by sickoflibs ( "It's not the taxes, the redistribution is the government spending you demand stupid")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
has been described as “a grand narrative—a story of origins that would change the world”,.

written by a 19th century scientist and though his basic principles are sound there is so much more to it than Darwin's original treatise...and an infinite number of facts that need to be uncovered...it will never be a complete picture as we are limited to what can be wrested from the earth...but there is no reason to lose ones faith in God and his creation...to believe in evolution ...neither are mutually exclusive of each other.

5 posted on 11/12/2009 9:04:14 AM PST by Vaquero ("an armed society is a polite society" Robert A. Heinlein))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs
Apparently you missed this one:

‘I think it is disingenuous to argue that the origin of life is irrelevant to evolution’

—evolutionist Gordy Slack, The Scientist, June 2008.

6 posted on 11/12/2009 9:06:18 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Natural selection isn't supposed to have anything to do with the origin of life. The fact that your electric razor is not capable of fueling your car does not mean that the idea behind the razor is bad.
7 posted on 11/12/2009 9:06:56 AM PST by Behemoth the Cat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs

When dealing with people who need to lie to find an argument, its probably best to laugh at them and walk away.


8 posted on 11/12/2009 9:08:17 AM PST by cripplecreek (Seniors, the new shovel ready project under socialized medicine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Vaquero

right on


9 posted on 11/12/2009 9:08:26 AM PST by babble-on
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Such a gnat you are.


10 posted on 11/12/2009 9:11:12 AM PST by Misterioso (The uncontested absurdities of today are the accepted slogans of tomorrow. -- Ayn Rand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Behemoth the Cat

Copout. The only viable explanation for the origin of life is Creation/Intelligent design. Darwin’s so-called “theory” = EPIC FAIL.


11 posted on 11/12/2009 9:11:50 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

“Natural selection cannot explain the origin of life...”

You finally got it right!


12 posted on 11/12/2009 9:12:52 AM PST by Buck W. (The President of the United States IS named Schickelgruber...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vaquero

One of the stupidest headlines ever..

That’s like saying that “Medical experts say LAsik surgery will NOT allow x-ray vision”...

Lasik surgery does not attempt to create X-ray vision.

Evolutionary theory does not attempt to explain the origins of life.

Plain dumb.


13 posted on 11/12/2009 9:12:55 AM PST by KeepUSfree (WOSD = fascism pure and simple.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

I have follow Evolution and Creation debates on Free Republic. Most Freepers that agree with Evolution understand the Darwinism does not address the Origin of Life issue.


14 posted on 11/12/2009 9:15:12 AM PST by 11th Commandment (History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme - Mark Twain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Misterioso
Typical evo with zero ammunition but plenty of frustration. Don't blame me that that the argument from Creation/Design is continually strengthening while Darwin's unscientific creation myth is being falsified on all sides...I'm just the messenger.
15 posted on 11/12/2009 9:16:40 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Natural selection explains why changes in EXISTING organisms lead to better adjustment of future generations of these organisms to the environment. The concept of natural selection DOES NOT raise the issue of origins of life AT ALL - this is an entirely different matter.

Now, I know that science education in the United States sucks big time, but I am not convinced that it sucks enough for someone to confuse such elementary concepts. So, I start suspecting that our YE creationists here are actually Leftist provocateurs. The cui bono rule of thumb certainly suggests such possibility, because painting the conservative movement as ignorant benefits the Left. By, for example, depriving us of the credibility to challenge (using rational arguments) their global warming religion, their beliefs in successful socialist economy, etc.

16 posted on 11/12/2009 9:21:28 AM PST by Behemoth the Cat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts; cripplecreek

RE :”I think it is disingenuous to argue that the origin of life is irrelevant to evolution”( evolutionist Gordy Slack)

That’s it? Is that even his complete sentence? You got the source text so we can see what he is talking about? For all I know from this text he was arguing for Creation.


17 posted on 11/12/2009 9:23:35 AM PST by sickoflibs ( "It's not the taxes, the redistribution is the government spending you demand stupid")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Behemoth the Cat

Mutant CO2.


18 posted on 11/12/2009 9:24:47 AM PST by Old Professer (The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, then writes again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs

The first living cell got selected from where?

Somehow it assembled/got assembled from something and because of it’s suitability for survival, survived to reproduce.

But evos constantly dodge the question of where the first one came from.


19 posted on 11/12/2009 9:25:53 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Let’s see. A lightning spark or a volcano fart on an isolated blob of goo resulted in a form that all at once could intake nutrients, expel waste, preform respiration, reproduce, repair DNA and other systems. Give me a break. The people who believe this have great faith in a belief system or are stupid.


20 posted on 11/12/2009 9:27:50 AM PST by rsobin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: metmom
"But evos constantly dodge the question of where the first one came from."

Sure, to avoid confusing two separate matters. Natural selection (of existing live organisms) is one thing, the origin of life is another. Now, what do you want to discuss, the mechanism of evolution, or the origins of life?

21 posted on 11/12/2009 9:29:30 AM PST by Behemoth the Cat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: rsobin

Or both.


22 posted on 11/12/2009 9:30:53 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs
For all I know from this text he was arguing for Creation.

That's how I saw it. Its kind of stupid to argue for or against evolution if life were never created in the first place.
23 posted on 11/12/2009 9:32:07 AM PST by cripplecreek (Seniors, the new shovel ready project under socialized medicine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: metmom
RE :”But evos constantly dodge the question of where the first one came from,.

Maybe God created it. Maybe not. Maybe they dodge it because they were not there when it happened and there are no fossils. Maybe the ones you are talking about just address things they know about....Maybe the creationist got-ya game turns this professionalism into a negative.

Seems like creation origins evidence is the same quality as what the those evos have that make up their own theories on it, NONE.

24 posted on 11/12/2009 9:34:44 AM PST by sickoflibs ( "It's not the taxes, the redistribution is the government spending you demand stupid")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Behemoth the Cat; metmom
LOL! Let's see, if the evos can't explain the origin of life, then it's not part of evolution. But if they ever were able to explain the origin of life via naturalistic processess, then it would be part of evolution. Typical evo logic.
25 posted on 11/12/2009 9:34:58 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Natural selection does not TRY to explain the origins of life.

Physics does not explain the origin of life.

Chemistry does not explain the origihn of life.

Immunology does not explain the origin of life.

Endocrinology does not explain the origin of life.

Cell biology does not explain the origin of life.

Genetics does not explain the origin of life.

Population biology does not explain the origin of life.

Developmental biology does not explain the origin of life.

...............

Unfortunately, many proponents of evolution seem unaware of that. They don’t acknowledge that natural selection requires pre-existing life.

I am fully aware that evolution and natural selection presupposes that life exists. This is not only a freakin' stupid thing to say, it is also just a strawman to kick around.

So, natural selection could only work on a living organism that could produce offspring. By its very definition natural selection could not work on non-living chemicals.

Ummmm....yeah. ANOTHER absolutely freakin' stupid thing to sauy. D'uh......my bottle of phosphoric acid does not evolve through natural selection. Yes, natural selection does not work on animals that cannot reproduce.

Darwin himself was well aware that he had not produced such an account. It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.

Baseless statement....strike three.

Lemme guess..."it's complicated, thusly...God did it"

26 posted on 11/12/2009 9:37:09 AM PST by ElectricStrawberry (Didja know that Man walked with 100+ species of large meat eating dinos within the last 4,351 years?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

bookmark


27 posted on 11/12/2009 9:38:38 AM PST by GOP Poet (Obama is an OLYMPIC failure.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Nonsense. Here is the definition of evolution, for your benefit (Webster):

"the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species) : phylogeny b : a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations; also : the process described by this theory"

NOTHING about origins of life.

28 posted on 11/12/2009 9:38:38 AM PST by Behemoth the Cat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

Comment #29 Removed by Moderator

To: Behemoth the Cat; metmom

Well metmom could generously grant you the one living cell and you’d still have nothing intelligible to discuss.

Or even more generously grant you the amoeba. Now please explain how it ‘re-programs itself’ into another genus. How does it create the more complex organs and limbs needed?

I’ll go get the popcorn and hurry right back.


30 posted on 11/12/2009 9:41:37 AM PST by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek; metmom
RE :” Its kind of stupid to argue for or against evolution if life were never created in the first place.

No, science is (or should be) about trying to explain what they find, fossils in this case. Making up ‘origins’ theories based on nothing is Creationists turf. That's called faith.

Say the first cell was really created... that says nothing about Noah's Ark or the other Books of Moses. Creationist logic says “Until you evos prove how life came to, the entire Bible must be treated like a modern science book. We dont have to prove anything. ”. That's called , “heads I win,tails you lose” You can claim your biblical interpretation is fact for all time with no basis what so-ever. And that is the rules you make.

31 posted on 11/12/2009 9:45:41 AM PST by sickoflibs ( "It's not the taxes, the redistribution is the government spending you demand stupid")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Whenever I want to read about the
frontiers of Science I always go to the
Creation Ministries International.


32 posted on 11/12/2009 9:46:17 AM PST by DoctorMichael (Creationists: The crazy Aunts and Uncles of Conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Behemoth the Cat

Where did the first cell come from?

From what did IT evolve?

The questions are not two separate issues, as evos like to present. The chemical reactions that allegedly gave rise to the first life are all part of one continuum.

At what point did life first become life? Or did it just pop into existence and then we pick up the ToE from there?


33 posted on 11/12/2009 9:49:07 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: BrandtMichaels
"Well metmom could generously grant you the one living cell and you’d still have nothing intelligible to discuss."

Because you guys are still unable to comprehend that, for example, you can't watch CNN on your lawn mower. Natural selection ONLY applies to existing, living things, capable of producing offspring. Conversely, when you are talking about origins of life, you DO NOT have the factors of adjustment of the organism to the environment, transforming energy, producing offspring etc. Yet GGG wants to mix these two things, to produce an argument that natural selection doesn't work. Sure, your lawn mower doesn't work either! Can you watch CNN on it? No? Gotcha!

So, what do you want to talk about today? The origins of life? OR how the existing life evolves?

34 posted on 11/12/2009 9:50:28 AM PST by Behemoth the Cat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: ElectricStrawberry; Behemoth the Cat

You are both a bit math challenged and possibly have done little if any computer code in your lives right?

Slight changes in any [DNA] code will not cause it to morph into a new kind or life-form. Even with trillions of years the math is not there to support the number of changes needed with even just 1% change in the DNA. Not too mention that most code will break when you keep introducing change.


35 posted on 11/12/2009 9:50:51 AM PST by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: BrandtMichaels

No need to hurry. You already know that no good answer is forthcoming.

Evos aren’t obligated to answer it because it isn’t part of the ToE, dontcha know?


36 posted on 11/12/2009 9:52:30 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: metmom
"Where did the first cell come from? From what did IT evolve?"

The theory of evolution does not say that the first cell evolved. I gave you guys the definition from the Webster. Read it, with understanding, please.

37 posted on 11/12/2009 9:54:22 AM PST by Behemoth the Cat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Behemoth the Cat

So your saying that if the Temple of Darwin were to ever find a naturalistic origin of life that it wouldn’t be considered part of evolution? PLEASE!


38 posted on 11/12/2009 9:55:24 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
The only viable explanation for the origin of life is Creation/Intelligent design. Darwin’s so-called “theory” = EPIC FAIL.

Seeing as Darwin's "theory" has nothing to do with the origin of life, your logic = EPIC FAIL.

39 posted on 11/12/2009 9:55:26 AM PST by ElectricStrawberry (Didja know that Man walked with 100+ species of large meat eating dinos within the last 4,351 years?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: metmom

“Where did the first cell come from?”

That’s completely irrelevant. But you know that.


40 posted on 11/12/2009 9:57:39 AM PST by Buck W. (The President of the United States IS named Schickelgruber...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: JMack

All naturalistic attempts to explain the origin of life have utterly and totally failed. The only empirical explanation for the origin of the complex, specified, super-sophisticated digital DNA code is Creation/Intelligent Design.


41 posted on 11/12/2009 9:57:56 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Its “Snap Your Finger” time again.


42 posted on 11/12/2009 10:02:18 AM PST by Allen In Texas Hill Country
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rsobin
"The people who believe this have great faith in a belief system or are stupid."

Which is an idiotic statement in light of the scientific evidence, especially when the alternative offered is about as sophisticated as this:


43 posted on 11/12/2009 10:03:46 AM PST by stormer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: ElectricStrawberry

Actually, it does have to do with the origin of life in that Darwin’s evo-atheist creation myth can’t explain it. If the evos ever do manage to explain the origin of life (which of course they won’t) via naturalistic processess then they will call it evolution. As such, Darwin’s evo-atheist creation myth = EPIC FAIL!


44 posted on 11/12/2009 10:04:03 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Behemoth the Cat

It seems that adherents to evolution have a greater faith in God as the creator than the YECs on FR do.


45 posted on 11/12/2009 10:04:20 AM PST by Buck W. (The President of the United States IS named Schickelgruber...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: BrandtMichaels
Since you are asking... I have a PhD in physical chemistry, and I develop probabilistic algorithms for de novo design of proteins. They work and they do what they are supposed to do, so I have a pretty food feel what can be achieved by algorithms driven by random input. Or let me put it differently: my opinions pertaining to math and probability are NOT based on what I have heard at Sunday school, or read from some atheist blog. As for the merit of your question: yes, the math is there.
46 posted on 11/12/2009 10:06:08 AM PST by Behemoth the Cat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Misterioso
Such a gnat you are.

That would be a demotion from an ankle biter, wouldn't it?

47 posted on 11/12/2009 10:07:59 AM PST by Moonman62 (The issue of whether cheap labor makes America great should have been settled by the Civil War.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
"So your saying that if the Temple of Darwin were to ever find a naturalistic origin of life that it wouldn’t be considered part of evolution? PLEASE!"

Precisely. Evolution is one thing, origins quite another. Evolution involves natural selection. Any hypothetical naturalistic explanation of the origins of life would be likely based on an entirely different concept of probability.

48 posted on 11/12/2009 10:09:01 AM PST by Behemoth the Cat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

Sorry for the typo in #46 - I am typing on a small keyboard.


49 posted on 11/12/2009 10:12:33 AM PST by Behemoth the Cat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: BrandtMichaels
Yeah...I only made it to Calc 2...so "challenged" I am...

Gonna ask for my science credentials again?

Even with trillions of years the math is not there to support the number of changes needed with even just 1% change in the DNA.

Baseless statement that presupposes the DNA in all genomes is as extensive as the current organism with the most DNA basepairs...in addition to extremely low mutation rates never before seen in an organism.

....but talk about "math challenged"....the human genome is about 3,000,000,000 base pairs...the human DNA mutation rate is about 100-200 mutations per generation...call it 100. Let's see.....1 trillion years.....estimate a generation at say 20 years.....makes it 50 billion generations.

50 billion generations times 100 mutations/generation is 5 trillion mutations.....or about a 1667% change in the genome over 1 trillion years.

You have exactly ZERO standing in calling other "math challenged"....but I'll await the next ignorant comment.

50 posted on 11/12/2009 10:21:05 AM PST by ElectricStrawberry (Didja know that Man walked with 100+ species of large meat eating dinos within the last 4,351 years?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-223 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson