Skip to comments.Natural selection cannot explain the origin of life (Darwin's epic failure re: comprehensive ToE)
Posted on 11/12/2009 8:53:24 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
While Charles Darwins On the Origin of Species has been described as a grand narrativea 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. Darwins theory of the origin of species by means of natural selection2 presupposes self-reproduction, so cant explain the origin of self-reproduction.
Unfortunately, many proponents of evolution seem unaware of that. They dont acknowledge that natural selection requires pre-existing life. As leading 20th century evolutionist Theodosius Dobzhansky lamented: ...
(Excerpt) Read more at creation.com ...
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?
Sorry, not buying it. And I done a lot more research than you’ll ever know.
Extinctions are often caused by deleterious mutations.
Although rare, fatal mutations can be copied into the offspring [obviously they are not immediately fatal].
Furthermore, for all mutations, the beneficial mutations number approx 1 in a million.
I’ve not made that claim therefore I’m not the one to ask to defend it.
I will say that the majority [theistic evolutionists] seem to want to ‘have their cake and eat it too’ so that they can allow for millions / billions of years yet also reflect the design so obvious in DNA.
The folks are Berkeley disagree....
More unsubstantiated lies. If posting this the first 5,000 times didn't work why bother posting it 5,001 times. In Darwin's Origin of Species he deliberately avoided the topic of the "origin of life" but did acknowledge the Creator. The scientific accuracy of his "EPIC FAILURE" continues to gain corroboration 150 years after it was first published in spite of the hallelujah crowd's continuous ad hominem and fallacious assault on it. It underscores John Adam's quote; "Facts are stubborn things."
Only because it’s the central issue that would blow the ToE out of the water.
At what point did the first clump of chemicals become life in order to pass down its genetic information?
Did the first cell just pop into existence?
Are viruses alive? Are they the precursors to whole cells?
If not, then what was?
How far back does one go in the chemical structures to determine life?
What is life?
If you really want, you can always find a "gotcha" when subjects that can fill whole books are reduced (for the purpose of creating a web page) to two sentences.
You doubt? So write them, ask what "natural selection" has to do with "the origin of the first self-replicating organism".
Maybe you simply have no freakin’ clue what you’re talking about but need to claim other people to be challenged, even when they show you’re full of shi’ite.
Question my scientific credentials again.
Question my math skills again.
Next step is to call me a liberal.
Your link, 3 pages forward. So, perhaps they see, after all, the distinction between "origins" and SUBSEQUENT "natural selection"?
Sigh. And once again I'll point out that Berkeley's Origins of Life page is reached by a "Take a Side Trip" link from the main sequence of pages about evolution. Other "Take a Side Trip" links include radiographic dating and the geologic timeline. Are you going to argue that geology is part of evolution too?
Is there a new Hare Christian chant this week?
The charge is posting abuse, nothing more.
I'd LOVE to hear about an extinction of an entire species because of a deleterious mutation....or even a string of deleterious mutations. Ever taken population biology/genetics? Rhetorical question.
Wow....fatal mutations can be "copied" into offspring? Must be a computer programming term, as we like to say that mutations would be "passed on to" or "inherited by" offspring. ...but ya don't say...must be some sort of genetics master to come up with a brainchild like mutations, even bad ones being passed on to offspring. Whoduthunkit!!!
Furthermore, for all mutations, the beneficial mutations number approx 1 in a million.
LOVE to see where this number comes from.....but say that's right. Take one trillion years from now.....that's 5 million beneficial mutations.......but that's with ONE individual having ONE offspring per generation and then dying.
....and I don't really care what you "buy" when in the world of Man walking with meat eating dinosaurs. "Research" indeed....
Never refer to this book by its partial name. Call it by it’s full name, The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.
That way it’s much easier to see how it led to eugenics, abortion, sterilization, population control and master races.
It’s not a science book, it’s a recipe, like The Twilight Zone’s How To Serve Man.
I didnt know UC Berkeley was infested with insane biologists and biochemists (Marxists/Socialists, surely, but not insane biochemists and biologists, or even Christians). However, it must be the case, if we are to believe the Berkeley website From soup to cells the origin of life, under the general heading evolution 101 and further billed as your one-stop source for information on evolution. (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/origsoflife_01).
Clearly, a significant portion of the Science Community perceives a distinct connection between Evolution (the ToE) and the origin of life, and the connection seems to be that the details of Evolution itself point the way to how the origin of life occurred. You need to get in touch with those folks and get their minds right. As things are now, they are undercutting what youre trying to accomplish.
If the origin of life is not part of natural selection theory it is certainly germane thus it was not to elucidate natural selection or evolution that Miller cooked up a goo but rather to search for life's origin.
No life, no selection. No life, no evolution. Without dealing with the origin life there's point to either theory
anymore than a historian can study how a building was built and remodeled without considering how it started to be built.
read “no point”
Please draw no conclusions regarding the intelligence, creativity, or reasoning capability of Christians from the content of this post and others like it on this thread. We are not all this stupid.
Refer to #68.
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?
One need not be confused...only the liberal evolutionists seem to get confused. Are you seriously suggesting you're not intelligent enough to discuss a connection between the two?
Looks like the FRevos need to set some in the scientific community straight on all this evolution stuff.
Sheesh, you’d think at Berkeley they’d have their act together a little bit better than that.
You’d almost think that they’re frequenting those creationist websites posting misinformation like that..../s
Are you sufficiently intelligent to understand that there is no connection between them? Natural selection works on living entities, so natural selection is not supposed to explain the origins of life.
Nonresponsive, sir. But, if that's the best you can do then that's the best you can do.
“Nonresponsive, sir. “
Bull... metmom used the same argument (alleged that some Berkeley scientists identify evolution with the origins of life), so I provided the quote from the very same source that unequivocally says that they DO distinguish, and that natural selection FOLLOWS the emergence of self-replicating entities. Completely responsive, if you guys have just a little intellectual integrity to discuss with a minimum of honesty.
So where did the first cell come from?
From what did it evolve?
What was it’s parent and how did it adapt and survive to reproduce?
Don’t you believe in God?
Gee, you left out communism, islamofascism, Pol Pot, Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Minh, Charles Manson, Ted Bundy.....
I’d LOVE to hear how the Theory of Evolution leads to abortion, sterilization, population control, master races, eugenics, and any other asinine notion you can attach to it.
Think you’re more on the track of blaming all the ills of the world on GENETICS anyway, but ya gotta know the difference.
Do you blame chemistry when some idiot uses sarin nerve agent on a subway?
Blame the first guy to rub 2 sticks together for every incidence of arson?
Samuel Colt every time someone commits murder with a gun?
Yeah...ya sure got something there.
I don't know, and I am not going to present ex cathedra hypotheses as facts. In the context of the current discussion, I was mainly interested in separating the issue of natural selection, dishonestly bundled by GGG together with the subject of the very origins of life in order to "discredit" it.
If you want to learn what are the hypotheses about the origins of life, then the U. Berkeley page you linked is as good as my speculations. And they also expressly identify these hypotheses as unproven. Perhaps it was the self-replicating RNA assembled by chance and cumulative selection (it's possible), perhaps aliens (it's possible), perhaps God (it's also possible).
Evos are nothing if not arrogant.
What bunk. You can't even discuss the one without the other.
The fact that your electric razor is not capable of fueling your car does not mean that the idea behind the razor is bad.
Let's at least pretend to be honest, here let me help you out:
The electric razor is evolution, electricity is origins/life.
The fact that your electric razor can't even run without electricity is the entire point.
This is a very good question, because the belief in the "first cell" implies the belief in evolution. Our YECs try to discredit evolution by linking it with its inability to explain "the first cell", yet the very concept of the first cell implies evolution. ROTFL
Thanks for that little revelation.
Clearly, then, the first cell did not evolve from another self-replicating entity otherwise it would have had a parent cell from which to be selected from, therefore, it must have come from non-living material, in direct violation of spontaneous generation.
YECers are nothing if not bat shi’ite crazy to think that Man walked the Earth with 100+ species of large meat eating dinosaurs. Why are there no human fossils found with dinosaur fossils? Hmmmmmm.....? Lemme guess, they’ve been found, just suppressed by some cabal of controlling evos.
I love it when people challenge my science education level.
I love it when people challenge my math skills by povidng some pretty damned incorrect mathematical thinking and then flail with the all-encompassing “I don’t buy it” when it’s ponted out.
I love it when people whine that the ToE does not explain the origin of life, when the ToE has exactly nothing to DO with the origin of life.
Also love it when people demand you use the ToE to explain the origin of life and when the question is ignored because the ToE does not deal with the origin of life, they feel like they’ve made some victory in getting reality closer to Man living with meat eating dinosaurs 4,400 years ago.
I most certainly love it when people take a little research they’ve done on YEC sites and pass it off as science research.....discounting entire fields of science with one broad eraser.
...you had something to say?
To answer your question, the flying spaghetti monster did it. Just as viable as your answer.
Yes—that first cell has to become something more interesting! However, I believe that the YECs use of the term “first cell” is figurative, that is, “first cell” is used to denote the “first person”.
Isn’t it ironic that they can correctly apply the literary device of allegory in such a circumstance, yet they fail to see the allegory in Genesis?
What’s intellectually dishonest is dissociating origins from the ToE as it is all part of one continuum of chemical reactions going from non-living to living.
The cutoff is completely and conveniently manufactured.
Put it far enough in the *life* end of the continuum to not cause any problems and viola, the ToE stands (sort of).
The ONLY reason that the evos won’t let the ToE address origins is because it violates what has been demonstrated about spontaneous generation and it would cause too many problems with the validity of the ToE.
“Why are there no human fossils found with dinosaur fossils?”
Ah, but you ignore that definitive double imprint of dinosaur and human footprints in Glen Rose, Texas!
Excellent observation, with one small correction: non-living matter can also self-organize, albeit this self organization does not involve natural selection. Natural selection is unique to living, self-replicating organisms. Examples of self organization of non-living matter include crystallization, formation of micelles or creation of specific pairs of nucleotides. The latter may be responsible for the emergence of the first self-replicating chemical systems, but I am not claiming that it for sure wasn't God.
The apparent *self-organization* of non-living matter is magnitudes of order less complex than anything living systems have to offer thus making that comparison invalid.
...is because natural selection is BASED on self-replication, and self-replication emerges ONLY AFTER the "origin" milestone. We are not going to sacrifice elementary logic to make the discussion easier for you - because we are mean and arrogant. :)
You walk before you run, nicht wahr?
What’s a “magnitude of order”? Is is something other than a factor of ten?
The self-organization is not “apparent”. Go to school, because you are disputing the occurrence of observable (actually quite common) phenomena to facilitate your “argumentation”.