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 ...
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”.