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
click here to read article
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...
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?
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.
I think it is disingenuous to argue that the origin of life is irrelevant to evolution
evolutionist Gordy Slack, The Scientist, June 2008.
When dealing with people who need to lie to find an argument, its probably best to laugh at them and walk away.
Such a gnat you are.
Copout. The only viable explanation for the origin of life is Creation/Intelligent design. Darwin’s so-called “theory” = EPIC FAIL.
“Natural selection cannot explain the origin of life...”
You finally got it right!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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 dont 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"
"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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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?
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.
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!
Seeing as Darwin's "theory" has nothing to do with the origin of life, your logic = EPIC FAIL.
“Where did the first cell come from?”
That’s completely irrelevant. But you know that.
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.