Which is an idiotic statement in light of the scientific evidence, especially when the alternative offered is about as sophisticated as this:
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 ...
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.
Its “Snap Your Finger” time again.
Which is an idiotic statement in light of the scientific evidence, especially when the alternative offered is about as sophisticated as this:
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!
It seems that adherents to evolution have a greater faith in God as the creator than the YECs on FR do.
That would be a demotion from an ankle biter, wouldn't it?
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.
Sorry for the typo in #46 - I am typing on a small keyboard.
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.
http://www.tufts.edu/as/wright_center/cosmic_evolution/docs/splash.html
Don’t think I’ve ever heard of Sunday school math class. /s
Well please, if you can put your pride aside, explain the math because every explanation so far makes macro-evolution probablistically and mathematically impossible.
Plus your algorithms are a lot closer to intelligent design rather than the game of evolutionary chance.
“Plus your algorithms are a lot closer to intelligent design rather than the game of evolutionary chance.”
Really? Would that not depend upon who the designer actually is?
Who IS the designer, anyway?
Well you did leave out what percentage of mutations are beneficial. Maybe truth challenged suits you better. Or you just don’t like to state your assumptions upfront.
You must be confusing me with someone else as I have no problem with God being the designer of all life.
Anyway, no sane biologist/biochemist would confuse origins of life with evolution of species.
Before Darwin, the great majority of naturalists believed that species were immutable productions, and had been separately created. Today, his theory that they undergo modification and are the descendants of pre-existing forms is accepted by everyone (or by everyone not determined to disbelieve it). Most people would, if asked, find it hard to explain why. We all know that men and chimps are relatives and that plants, animals and everything else descend from a common ancestor. The struggle for existence, the survival of the fittest and the origin of species are wisdom of the most conventional kind. Evolution happened; and in 1996, even the Pope agreed (although he would admit only that “new knowledge leads us to recognize in the theory of evolution more than a hypothesis”).
BM: please read a little bit about natural selection.
If a mutation is not beneficial, it does not carry on to subsequent generations (I am oversimplifying a little). This involves a similar explanation to why proteins fold, although they should not, according to "your" math. A protein is a huge molecule, with many chemical bonds. These bonds can rotate, and this creates an enormous, astronomical combinatorial space of particular angles. So how come, a Creationist would ask, that an enzyme can fold into an organized structure? Yet we know that they fold, and the concept of cumulative selection (accepting PARTIALLY correct organization and thus pruning the tree of possibilities) provides the answer as to why.
No. They use chance and the imposed boundaries, thus they are more like the concept of theistic evolution (God creates the laws of physics and lets the system shuffle and re-shuffle, until it creates something of value).
Then how does ID differ from creationism?
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.