frontiers of Science I always go to the
Creation Ministries International.
Ping!
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.
Such a gnat you are.
“Natural selection cannot explain the origin of life...”
You finally got it right!
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.
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"
bookmark
Its “Snap Your Finger” time again.
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”).
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.
The fundamental question is not where life came from but where the universe came from. Life is a subset of existence.
Actually, not only can natural selection not explain the origin of life, but any natural science at all can even come close to explaining the origin of life.
Well, duh. Before life originated there was nothing to select from.
Who does the “selecting” in natural selection?
It looks like someone is confusing speciation with abiogenesis. Yawn.
Are viruses alive? Are prions alive? They don't know.
Mr. Juby claims that viruses are not alive because they can't reproduce on their own.
But there are a lot of parasitic species that can't reproduce without their hosts, including fungi and insects (human children could be considered parasites but that's a different example).