Re: Five major misconceptions for evolution

Richard Forrest wrote:
> andrevan808@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > Please refute *any of these classes of evidence:
> > > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
> > > Look! Here's another:
> > > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
> > > you could always look at some of the evidence:
> > > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
> > > Ooh! Here's some:
> > > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
> > Considering the fact that you can't even be bothered to actually
> > debate any of these "evidences for evolution" yourself, and instead
> > take the lazy route and point to a link; I will likewise do the same.
> > If any of you are brave enough, read these scientific rebuttals of the
> > alleged evidences for evolution here:
> > http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1a.asp
> > and then see if you can scientifically counter any of them without
> > heading into philosophical territory or personal character attacks. Try
> > actually using science for once.
> >
> > Science students are taught the basic law of science that without
> > intelligent input, matter always tends to a state of greater disorder
> > and disorganization.
>
> Do you understand the meaning of the word "tend"?
> It means that it doesn't always happen. If it did, we wouldn't have an
> structures at all in the universe.
>
> > Yet in the same science class it is claimed that way back in the past,
> > contrary to this observable law of science, matter somehow became
> > highly organized without any intelligent input.
>
> How so? Although matter and energy may tend towards as state of
> disorder, this does not mean that it always does. Push energy into a
> system, and it can increase order. Just as well, or you'd never be able
> to boil a kettle.
The amount of energy available for work is running out, or entropy is
increasing to a maximum.
The water in the kettle will eventually return to room temperature, the
energy will be lost.

>
> > Here we see the
> > philosophy of evolution in direct opposition to science.
>
> We don't, because your basic premise is flawed even in its own terms.
> "Tends to" does not mean the same as "always does"
>
> >
> > Chemical evolution is clearly excluded by the evidence.
>
> What evidence excludes "chemical evolution"? Under certain
> circumstances chemicals organise themselves into more complex forms.
> Surely you can't deny that this occurs?
Did these more complex forms become a living cell?

>
> > None of the major steps in the supposed chemical evolutionary process
> > can be reproduced in the lab, under simulated naturalistic conditions,
> > because the laws of chemistry prevent them.
>
> So in what way does the Urey/Miller experiment *not* demonstrate a
> major step in the evolution of living organisms? Amino acids are the
> building blocks of proteins. Surely this is a major step?
>
> > Appeals to chance cannot accomplish what the laws of nature do not
> > allow.
>
> Who is appealing to chance?
What guided the lifeless chemicals to become living cells?

>
> >
> > Evolution by natural selection is claimed to be the process by which
> > life, as we know it came into existence.
>
> No it isn't. It is a theory of how living organisms diversify.
>
> > However, this claim is not
> > testable against observation,
>
> This claim is not made.
So how then how did life as we know it come about?

>
> > neither is it supported by the facts, as
> > no one can test against observation how life actually came into
> > existence.
>
> Why is testing by observation the only criterion which can be used?
> What's wrong with testing by experiment?
>
> >
> > Science cannot produce any final answers on the subject of origins.
>
> So what? Science cannot produce final answers on anything.
>
> > Science operates in the present, by observation and experiment;
>
> And is always and only observes things that happened in the past. Or
> are you suggesting that science can observe things which haven't
> happened yet?
>
> > it has
> > no direct access to the past.
>
> It doesn't? How about observing the effects of things that happened in
> the past? After all, that's all that anyone can ever do.
All we do is observe the results of past events.

>
> > We cannot directly observe the past,
>
> What else can we observe? Are you suggesting that we can observe the
> future?
>
> > nor
> > can we repeat it (as an experiment would require),
>
> Why can't we repeat it by setting up the same conditions and seeing if
> the same thing happens? If we couldn't do this, there would be no
> experimental science of any sort.
Do you know for sure what those conditions were?

>
> > therefore anything
> > scientists say about the past has to be based on extrapolation from
> > present-day observations.
>
> So how else do you propose to investigate events which happened in the
> past?
>
> > These extrapolations have, in turn, to be based on assumptions; these
> > assumptions are in turn constructed within the framework of a belief
> > system.
>
>
> Not a belief system, but on the tried and tested methods of science.
Only in your atheist imagination. You believe your ancestor was a cell,
however you cannot show me this to be a fact.

> They work very well, otherwise we would not be corresponding now. Why
> should we change the method?
How does 'evolution' work very well when the evidence doesn't
support it?

>
> >
> > The whole origins debate is not about science v religion but rather it
> > is about philosophy v philosophy.
>
> ACtually, the "orgins debate" is between scientists formulating
> different models of how life might have originated and trying to test
> them by experiment and observation. There is a so-called 'debate' which
> creationists are pursuing for religous and political reasons. As the
> creationist side ignore all evidence and argument which demostrates
> that their cause is dishonest, it isn't much of a debate.
Your statement is arrogant and bigoted to say the least. Interesting
how this Talk Origins forum is a debate set up by evolutionists.

> >
> > The fact is both creationists and evolutionists have the same evidence
> > to scientifically test and interpret.
>
> The fact is that creationists ignore most of the evidence, have no
> means of evaluating evidence, and base their case on distortions,
> misrepresentations and falsehoods.
Show me how and where creationists "ignore most of the evidence".
Creationists have the means of science to evaluate the evidence. Again
you're either bluffing, or this time you actually believe the
nonsense you make up.

>
> If you think I'm wrong, post a link to a creationist source which does
> not contain factual errors.
>
> > The real question is, which
> > interpretation (and to a greater extent philosophy) best fits the
> > evidence?
>
> This question can only be addressed if both sides address all the
> evidence. Creationists don't.
Which ones don't they address?

> > Evolution is therefore not a "fact"
>
> It has been observed in the laboratory, and in the wild.
Oh please, for once offer us some actual scientific evidence that this
has occurred, instead of just making one-off statements in the hope
that some ignorant readers out there will buy it. And read through this
thread first before presenting 'evidence' that I've already
addressed.

> How is this not a 'fact'?
Try reading this thread from the top, and you might find some examples,
and then try refuting them.

>
> > and it is not science.
>
> In what way? It uses the tools of science to investigate the operation
> of the natural world.

>The scientific community regard it as science.
Rubbish. That is what evolutionists try and pull off to give their
useless theory/hypothesis some credibility. Science is not and does not
need 'evolution'.
We all have the same tools of science to use to examine the evidence,
so get used to it.

In an open letter to the Kansas Board of Education, Philip Skell a
biomedical researcher & Professor Emeritus of Chemistry, wrote: "For
those scientists who take it seriously, Darwinian evolution has
functioned more as a philosophical belief system than as a testable
scientific hypothesis. This quasi-religious function of the theory is,
I think, what lies behind many of the extreme statements that you have
doubtless encountered from some scientists opposing any criticism of
neo-Darwinism in the classroom. It is also why many scientists make
public statements about the theory that they would not defend privately
to other scientists like me."

Philip Skell, also wrote in The Scientist 19(16):10, 29 August 2005:
"Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II
received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor
did Alexander Fleming's discovery of bacterial inhibition by
penicillin. ...I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the
past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization
of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and
drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the
development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists
working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have
most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to
antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin's
theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after
the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss."

>
> > The
> > evidence does not support evolution.
>
> Only if you ignore vast amounts of evidence.
A popular one-liner from evolutionists. I examine the evidence and
find it doesn't support 'evolution' at all.

>
> >
> > You can either believe in the one religion or the other. Who is your
> > god, the Big Bang or the Creator?
>
> There are many evolutionary scientists who are devout Christians and
> see no such false dichotomy. The position of Christian churches
> representing the majority of the world's Christians supports this view.
So what? If some 'Christians' want to exchange the Word of God for
the word of man, that's their decision. Truly devout Christians
don't need to swallow the half-baked ideas of men. Just because
'main stream' churches have been compromised, doesn't mean the
rest of us have to blindly follow suite.

>
>
> Why should anyone believe that you have any special insight which
> allows you to make such as sweeping assertion?
>
> RF

Bob wrote:
> > Try actually using science for once.
>
> Maybe YOU should try some of that. You said:
>
> > Science students are taught the basic law of science that without
> > intelligent input, matter always tends to a state of greater disorder
> > and disorganization.
>
> In a CLOSED system.
>
> How do you explain the growth of a plant, or a child?
>
> Energy inputs from sunlight in the case of a plant or food, in the case
> of a child, enable them to enable a lesser state of disorder, with an
> net increase in disorder down the food chain.
>
> Similarly with Evolution. Living systems are 'driven' ultimately by the
> sun's energy. Natural Selection operates on successive generations, to
> 'cull' those individuals in a species which are less effective than
> others. Random mutations continually supply the variation upon which
> selection operates.
>
> The input doesn't have to be intelligent. The instructions encoded in
> DNA provide the INFORMATION required, ultimately sunlight provides the
> ENERGY.
Less SHOUTING would be welcome, we're not blind.

>
> The INFORMATION content builds up through the process of Evolution.
>
> Natural selection repeatedly selecting out information collections
> (genomes) that are less effective at surviving. Random mutations adding
> to the range of available information collections. Together, these two
> processes INCREASE the information, or at least maintain it at an
> optimum for the extant conditions.
You're either bluffing or you are ill-informed of the facts. Perhaps
you are getting confused with 'genetic load'. Mutations have never
ever shown to create or add any new genetic information (base pairs) to
an organism. Natural selection , by itself, cannot explain the rise of
new genetic information (code). Evolution requires this by default to
go from a cell (fewer base-pairs) to all complex life forms today.
Traits resulting from point mutations do not add any new genetic code
to an organism, rather, a mutation in the hox gene results in
already-existing information being switched on in the wrong place. Any
geneticist can tell you this.

unrestrained_hand@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> andrevan808@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > Please refute *any of these classes of evidence:
> > > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
> > > Look! Here's another:
> > > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
> > > you could always look at some of the evidence:
> > > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
> > > Ooh! Here's some:
> > > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
> > Considering the fact that you can't even be bothered to actually
> > debate any of these "evidences for evolution" yourself, and instead
> > take the lazy route and point to a link; I will likewise do the same.
> > If any of you are brave enough, read these scientific rebuttals of the
> > alleged evidences for evolution here:
> > http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1a.asp
> > and then see if you can scientifically counter any of them without
> > heading into philosophical territory or personal character attacks. Try
> > actually using science for once.
>
> So, you accuse us of being lazy for offering you links, then challenge
> us to refute ...a link! Cute. Dr. Theobald has refuted this attempted
> refutation by Cash quite nicely. I you have any specific questions, I
> or soemone else here will help clarify it for you.
>
> >
> > Science students are taught the basic law of science that without
> > intelligent input, matter always tends to a state of greater disorder
> > and disorganization.
>
> Ummm... which basic law is that?
> Sounds like Sunday School in a biblical literalist sect to me.
>
> > Yet in the same science class it is claimed that way back in the past,
> > contrary to this observable law of science, matter somehow became
> > highly organized without any intelligent input. Here we see the
> > philosophy of evolution in direct opposition to science.
>
> If you were thinkig of the Second Law of Thermodynamics (which says
> nothing about intelligent input. Sheesh!) then that's in another
> building. This is the biology lab, son.
>
> >
> > Chemical evolution is clearly excluded by the evidence.
>
> Which evidence would that be?
>
> > None of the major steps in the supposed chemical evolutionary process
> > can be reproduced in the lab, under simulated naturalistic conditions,
> > because the laws of chemistry prevent them.
>
> One dog steps in front of a car and is killed. Another sits by the side
> of the road until traffic clears (I've seen it) and then crosses. She
> later has puppies. What laws of chemistry prevented this?
>
> > Appeals to chance cannot accomplish what the laws of nature do not
> > allow.
>
> So, if you were watching some radioactive atoms, which ones would
> split, emitting energy and becoming a daughter element, and when would
> this happen?
>
> If I toss a speck of potassium into some water, which water molecules
> would interact with it?
>
> If we know we're going to have a particularly wet winter, which days
> exactly would it snow or rain?
Please stay focused, I'm talking in terms of the chemical evolution
hypothesis, not dogs having puppies (reproduction) or the weather
forecast.

>
> >
> > Evolution by natural selection is claimed to be the process by which
> > life, as we know it came into existence.
>
> Are you deliberately using fuzzy terms? If you mean how the first
> replicating molecules speciated into the current living species, yes.
> If you mean the processes by which those first replicators came about,
> then that would be abiogeneis, and evolution worked by whatever
> mechanism produced it, no matter how life first came about.
>
> > However, this claim is not
> > testable against observation, neither is it supported by the facts, as
> > no one can test against observation how life actually came into
> > existence.
>
> We can test the evidence which would lead to reasonable conclusions.
> The chemical and physical processes are the same that works today,
> every day. When we can understand the early environment of the Earth in
> detail with some confidence, then we be able to induce the likely
> scenario by which the first life came about.
The very same way that creationists approach the evidence.
The "reasonable conclusions" you and I arrive at are based on our
pre-belief in our axioms.

>
> >
> > Science cannot produce any final answers on the subject of origins.
>
> Correct. Only closed systems of logic can be absolutely certtain of the
> pertinent conclusions.
>
> > Science operates in the present, by observation and experiment; it has
> > no direct access to the past. We cannot directly observe the past, nor
> > can we repeat it (as an experiment would require), therefore anything
> > scientists say about the past has to be based on extrapolation from
> > present-day observations.
>
> Correct. So if you hear a loud crash and the house shakes, and you run
> out the door, and you car in the driveway is smashed, with another
> wedged into its side, a bloody driver behind the wheel, airbags
> deployed, smoke rising, dogs barking, and a piece of chrome dangling
> from the bumper... you would have to extrapolate what happened.
> Hopeless, ain't it?
The police investigating the scene would disregard me as an eyewitness,
because all I could do is make a guess or an assumption as to how the
crash happened from the wreckage I see.
However, if someone standing across the street witnessed the whole
thing, they would be able to give the police an eyewitness account of
the events that led to the crash. No interpretation or extrapolation is
necessary.
Were any evolutionists eyewitnesses at the scene of the dawn of the
first life on earth? No. Were any evolutionists eyewitnesses to the
event of all complex life diverging from a cell? No. Were any
evolutionists at the scene when the fossil record was laid down to give
an eyewitness account of how it happened? No. You just have faith in
how the evidence came about and that evolution 'happened'. It is no
'fact'.

>
> > These extrapolations have, in turn, to be based on assumptions; these
> > assumptions are in turn constructed within the framework of a belief
> > system.
> >
>
> Now you are begining to understand science.
>
> > The whole origins debate is not about science v religion but rather it
> > is about philosophy v philosophy.
>
> Umm... no. Are you claiming that science doesn't work? False dichotomy,
> anyway.
I am not claiming that. You're confusing evolution and science, they
are not the same, as I've just mentioned above. Still can't grasp
it? Evolution is the philosophy, science is the tool you use to
interpret the evidence to fit your philosophy.

> The scientific outlook can certainly be considered philosphy, and
> religion is sometimes philosphy (sometimes it is merely a psychological
> acting out of powerful emotional needs, without enough coherent thought
> to be called a philosophy).
>
> >
> > The fact is both creationists and evolutionists have the same evidence
> > to scientifically test and interpret. The real question is, which
> > interpretation (and to a greater extent philosophy) best fits the
> > evidence?
>
> True.
>
> >
> > Evolution is therefore not a "fact" and it is not science. The
> > evidence does not support evolution.
>
> Well, evolution is a fact. I suppose that the fossils of extinct
> species could be the Devil's illusions, but then the church you go to
> could be a computer program and you a simulation. But if give such
> ideas serious consideration, then we desend into an epistemological
> nihilism from which nothing useful or interesting can come.
One illusion (lie) of the devil is that of evolution (naturalism,
materialism).
The fossil record exists but does not support 'evolution' at all.

>
> The question is, does neodarwinism best explain the observed fact of
> evolution (bacteria in the lab, fossils, genetic evidence, beeding dogs
> and food crops, etc), or is there any other reasonable explanation?
Perhaps if you tried thinking 'outside the square' you would find
another reasonable explanation.

>
> >
> > You can either believe in the one religion or the other. Who is your
> > god, the Big Bang or the Creator?
>
> Many scientists would say they have no trouble accepting both as true.
> I've never heard of one who spoke of the Big Bang as a god. Do you have
> references? Many scientists are too polite or busy to say anything to
> folks of your persuasion, but they are insulted by the suggestion that
> they should dismiss the evidence of God's handiwork.
Their error occurs when they place science above the authority of
God's Word.
What stands as a valid scientific idea today, is overturned tomorrow by
another scientific idea.

>
> The proper dichotomy is: who are you going to believe, the evidence
> around you, or the preacher behind the literalist pulpit?
Who are you going to believe concerning the origin of everything:
fallible man's half-baked account or God's account? I suggest you
choose God. Man is forever changing his mind.


TomS wrote:
> "On 24 Oct 2005 05:28:01 -0700, in article
> <1130156881.068058.236560@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, andrevan808@xxxxxxxxx
> stated..."
> [...snip...]
> >Science students are taught the basic law of science that without
> >intelligent input, matter always tends to a state of greater disorder
> >and disorganization.
> [...snip...]
>
> One of the reasons that this is false is that there is *nothing*
> about "intelligent input" in the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
>
> As a matter of fact, one of the reasons for the discovery of
> thermodynamics was that the very clever *designers* could not bypass
> certain limitations.
>
> You can't design your way around thermodynamics.
>
> Therefore, *if* there is something in the world of life which
> seems to violate the laws of thermodynamics, either (1) things aren't
> what they seem or (2) there's something wrong with thermodynamics.
>
> In this case, your statement of the "2nd law", that "matter always
> tends to a state of greater disorder and disorganization" - that's
> wrong. Others will help fill you in on that, so I won't get into
> those details. So, if there are parts of the world of life which seem
> to violate this - like acorns coming from trees, and trees from acorns -
> there's no problem with thermodynamics, there's just another mistaken
> idea that's been falsified.
>
> But I'll just stick with this:
>
> The hunt for an "intelligent designer" is a non-starter, as far
> as thermodynamics is concerned.
Are you able to show us how?


Augray wrote:
> On 24 Oct 2005 05:28:01 -0700, andrevan808@xxxxxxxxx wrote in
> news:<1130156881.068058.236560@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>
> > > Please refute *any of these classes of evidence:
> > > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
> > > Look! Here's another:
> > > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
> > > you could always look at some of the evidence:
> > > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
> > > Ooh! Here's some:
> > > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
> > Considering the fact that you can't even be bothered to actually
> > debate any of these "evidences for evolution" yourself, and instead
> > take the lazy route and point to a link; I will likewise do the same.
> > If any of you are brave enough, read these scientific rebuttals of the
> > alleged evidences for evolution here:
> > http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1a.asp
>
> Yet in news:esfdl1phcej0oojr3g4bohro5ln6mg9kmn@xxxxxxx I gave you
> evidence of bird evolution, and I've yet to see a response.
>
>
> > and then see if you can scientifically counter any of them without
> > heading into philosophical territory or personal character attacks. Try
> > actually using science for once.
>
> I did this in news:esfdl1phcej0oojr3g4bohro5ln6mg9kmn@xxxxxxx but I've
> yet to see a response.
>
>
> > Science students are taught the basic law of science that without
> > intelligent input, matter always tends to a state of greater disorder
> > and disorganization.
>
> What about snowflakes?
What about them?

>
>
> > Yet in the same science class it is claimed that way back in the past,
> > contrary to this observable law of science, matter somehow became
> > highly organized without any intelligent input. Here we see the
> > philosophy of evolution in direct opposition to science.
>
> Are snowflakes in direct opposition to science?
>
>
> > Chemical evolution is clearly excluded by the evidence.
> > None of the major steps in the supposed chemical evolutionary process
> > can be reproduced in the lab, under simulated naturalistic conditions,
> > because the laws of chemistry prevent them.
>
> This is false. Amino acids have been reproduced in the lab, under
> simulated naturalistic conditions.
Did the amino acids in the lab eventually 'evolve' into living
cells?

>
>
> > Appeals to chance cannot accomplish what the laws of nature do not
> > allow.
> >
> > Evolution by natural selection is claimed to be the process by which
> > life, as we know it came into existence.
>
> No, that's false.
So life, as we know it today, did not come about by natural selection?

>
>
> > However, this claim is not
> > testable against observation, neither is it supported by the facts, as
> > no one can test against observation how life actually came into
> > existence.
> >
> > Science cannot produce any final answers on the subject of origins.
> > Science operates in the present, by observation and experiment; it has
> > no direct access to the past. We cannot directly observe the past, nor
> > can we repeat it (as an experiment would require), therefore anything
> > scientists say about the past has to be based on extrapolation from
> > present-day observations.
>
> Are you claiming that the past is unknowable?
No. Directly not testable.

>
>
> > These extrapolations have, in turn, to be based on assumptions; these
> > assumptions are in turn constructed within the framework of a belief
> > system.
> >
> > The whole origins debate is not about science v religion but rather it
> > is about philosophy v philosophy.
> >
> > The fact is both creationists and evolutionists have the same evidence
> > to scientifically test and interpret. The real question is, which
> > interpretation (and to a greater extent philosophy) best fits the
> > evidence?
>
> I pointed out the similarity of Archaeopteryx to theropod dinosaurs in
> news:esfdl1phcej0oojr3g4bohro5ln6mg9kmn@xxxxxxx so I would claim that
> the evolutionary interpretation best fits the evidence. If you disagree,
> can you explain why?
>
>
> > Evolution is therefore not a "fact" and it is not science. The
> > evidence does not support evolution.
>
> In fact, it does. See my post at
> news:esfdl1phcej0oojr3g4bohro5ln6mg9kmn@xxxxxxx
>
> You won't ignore it, will you?
>
>
> > You can either believe in the one religion or the other. Who is your
> > god, the Big Bang or the Creator?
>
>That's a false dichotomy. Why couldn't God create using evolution?
Point me specifically to where in God's Word the Scriptures, God
tells us He used evolution to create.


Ash wrote:
> andrevan808@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >>Please refute *any of these classes of evidence:
> >>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
> >>Look! Here's another:
> >>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
> >>you could always look at some of the evidence:
> >>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
> >>Ooh! Here's some:
> >>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
> >
> > Considering the fact that you can't even be bothered to actually
> > debate any of these "evidences for evolution" yourself, and instead
> > take the lazy route and point to a link; I will likewise do the same.
> > If any of you are brave enough, read these scientific rebuttals of the
> > alleged evidences for evolution here:
> > http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1a.asp
> > and then see if you can scientifically counter any of them without
> > heading into philosophical territory or personal character attacks. Try
> > actually using science for once.
>
> Given the known lack of integrity of that site, I doubt that would be hard
Really, why don't you have a scientific go then? Or are you
all-talk-no-evidence like most other evolutionists?

>
> > Science students are taught the basic law of science that without
> > intelligent input, matter always tends to a state of greater disorder
> > and disorganization.
>
> Only the ignorant ones
>
> > Yet in the same science class it is claimed that way back in the past,
> > contrary to this observable law of science, matter somehow became
> > highly organized without any intelligent input. Here we see the
> > philosophy of evolution in direct opposition to science.
> >
> > Chemical evolution is clearly excluded by the evidence.
> > None of the major steps in the supposed chemical evolutionary process
> > can be reproduced in the lab, under simulated naturalistic conditions,
> > because the laws of chemistry prevent them.
> > Appeals to chance cannot accomplish what the laws of nature do not
> > allow.
>
> This is not true. Ignoring the fact that the major steps are not known,
> the chemcials can be produced and they can link
This is rather pathetic. How does your statement support chemical
evolution creating life?

>
> > Evolution by natural selection is claimed to be the process by which
> > life, as we know it came into existence. However, this claim is not
> > testable against observation, neither is it supported by the facts, as
> > no one can test against observation how life actually came into
> > existence.
>
> No it isn't
So all life, as we know it today, did not come about by natural
selection?


Tracy Hamilton wrote:
> andrevan808@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > Science students are taught the basic law of science that without
> > intelligent input, matter always tends to a state of greater disorder
> > and disorganization.
>
> Citation and quote from a science or engineering text at ANY level,
> please. Make that two, since this is such a basic law of science, it
> must be in many texts, all of which I have missed. I would prefer
> general chemistry texts myself.
Surely in your deft process of researching the 'evidence' for
evolution for yourself, you would have encountered a science book?
Considering that evolutionists claim that it is science.

shane wrote:
> andrevan808@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >>Please refute *any of these classes of evidence:
> >>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
> >>Look! Here's another:
> >>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
> >>you could always look at some of the evidence:
> >>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
> >>Ooh! Here's some:
> >>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
> >
> > Considering the fact that you can't even be bothered to actually
> > debate any of these "evidences for evolution" yourself, and instead
> > take the lazy route and point to a link; I will likewise do the same.
> > If any of you are brave enough, read these scientific rebuttals of the
> > alleged evidences for evolution here:
> > http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1a.asp
> > and then see if you can scientifically counter any of them without
> > heading into philosophical territory or personal character attacks. Try
> > actually using science for once.
>
> Oh how great it must feel to have the moral high ground. Let us look at
> just how rickety your perch is there though; from our part of this
> thread, first comment is mine, second is yours;
>
> --------------------
> >Having not read all of your previous posts, i am still left wondering
> >in which microdot you posted all the vouminous evidence.
>
> Fine. http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1a.asp
> Can you scientifically refute any of these arguments against evolution?
Why are you unable to read this thread through for some of my answers?
Maybe you have but your memory is unable to retain anything.

> ----------------------
>
> So, considering the fact that you can't even be bothered to actually
> post any of these "evidences for creation" yourself, and instead take
> the lazy route and point to a link; I will likewise do the same. If you
> are brave enough, read these scientific rebuttals of the alleged
> problems for evolution here:
>
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/camp.html
>
>
> Shane
> The truth will set you free.



R. Baldwin wrote:
> <andrevan808@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1130156881.068058.236560@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> Please refute *any of these classes of evidence:
> >> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
> >> Look! Here's another:
> >> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
> >> you could always look at some of the evidence:
> >> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
> >> Ooh! Here's some:
> >> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
> > Considering the fact that you can't even be bothered to actually
> > debate any of these "evidences for evolution" yourself, and instead
> > take the lazy route and point to a link; I will likewise do the same.
> > If any of you are brave enough, read these scientific rebuttals of the
> > alleged evidences for evolution here:
> > http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1a.asp
> > and then see if you can scientifically counter any of them without
> > heading into philosophical territory or personal character attacks. Try
> > actually using science for once.
> >
> > Science students are taught the basic law of science that without
> > intelligent input, matter always tends to a state of greater disorder
> > and disorganization.
>
> Baloney. That is not a basic law of science. You are misrepresenting the 2nd
> Law of Thermodynamics, which states that when an irreversible or spontaneous
> process occurs in a system between two equilibrium states, the entropy of
> the system plus the entropy of its environment increases. Because these two
> entropies are added, a system can lower its entropy by exporting it to its
> environment. Generally this requires energy to flow from the environment to
> the system. No intelligence is necessary, as may be shown with the
> production of ozone gas in the presence of high-energy photons or electrons.
> Entropy is related to molecular disorder, not the disorder of large-scale
> objects.
The 2nd Law: The amount of energy available for work is running out, or
entropy is increasing to a maximum.

>
> > Yet in the same science class it is claimed that way back in the past,
> > contrary to this observable law of science, matter somehow became
> > highly organized without any intelligent input. Here we see the
> > philosophy of evolution in direct opposition to science.
>
> No, we don't. The second law of thermodynamics is perfectly satisfied by
> evolution. T.O. poster Chris Ho-Stuart once calculated that solar energy
> received by earth over the span of life on earth was sufficient to convert
> all the carbon in the biosphere from carbon dioxide gas to solid diamond.
And did it?

> Since all possible forms of life in the biosphere are between those two
> entropy levels, there is no possible violation of the second law.
The amount of energy available for work is running out, or entropy is
increasing to a maximum.

>
> >
> > Chemical evolution is clearly excluded by the evidence.
> > None of the major steps in the supposed chemical evolutionary process
> > can be reproduced in the lab, under simulated naturalistic conditions,
> > because the laws of chemistry prevent them.
> > Appeals to chance cannot accomplish what the laws of nature do not
> > allow.
>
> How do you know this, and why would it matter? Not all science is conducted
> in a lab.
>
> >
> > Evolution by natural selection is claimed to be the process by which
> > life, as we know it came into existence. However, this claim is not
> > testable against observation, neither is it supported by the facts, as
> > no one can test against observation how life actually came into
> > existence.
>
> No, evolution by natural selection is the process by which life changes, not
> the process by which life came into existence. You are thinking of
> abiogenesis.
This is convenient. You reduce the role/definition of evolution down to
just natural selection because you cannot use it any longer to explain
the origin of life as we know it today, as you have no evidence.
Unfortunately for evolutionists, natural selection is useless in
explaining the diversification of life from a cell without delving into
philosophical evolutionary trees.

Life as we know it today, the massive variety of complex life forms
would have, in evolutionary terms, come about from the result of
abiogenesis by naturalistic chance.
Abiogenesis would have in turn come about from the alleged explosion of
gas from the size of a pinhead. Ridiculous isn't it? Sounds like a
bad science fiction movie.

>
> >
> > Science cannot produce any final answers on the subject of origins.
> > Science operates in the present, by observation and experiment; it has
> > no direct access to the past. We cannot directly observe the past, nor
> > can we repeat it (as an experiment would require), therefore anything
> > scientists say about the past has to be based on extrapolation from
> > present-day observations.
>
> Wrong. All observations are of the past. Light travels at finite speed, and
> your brain processes vision at finite speed. When you see something, it
> happened in the past. Ignoring the limitations of your brain and nervous
> system, when you look at the floor, you are seeing 4 nanoseconds into the
> past. When you look at the sun, you are seeing 4 minutes into the past. When
> you look at Neptune through a telescope, you are seeing 4 hours into the
> past. When you look at the nearsest star to Sol, Proxima Centauri, you are
> seeing 4 years into the past.
What has this got to do with being able to directly observe how the
fossil record was laid down or how life came about? We observe the
results of past events that are completed.

>
> Much of science is interested in the past. This includes astronomy, geology,
> paleontology, and archeology.
How do you directly observe and test the past in paleontology &
geology. Are you able to directly eyewitness how they occurred in the
past?

>
> > These extrapolations have, in turn, to be based on assumptions; these
> > assumptions are in turn constructed within the framework of a belief
> > system.
> >
> > The whole origins debate is not about science v religion but rather it
> > is about philosophy v philosophy.
>
> No, it is about ignorant religious fundamentalism v. reason.
>
> >
> > The fact is both creationists and evolutionists have the same evidence
> > to scientifically test and interpret. The real question is, which
> > interpretation (and to a greater extent philosophy) best fits the
> > evidence?
>
> Creationists twist or ignore evidence.
Can you show how?

>
> >
> > Evolution is therefore not a "fact" and it is not science. The
> > evidence does not support evolution.
> >
> > You can either believe in the one religion or the other. Who is your
> > god, the Big Bang or the Creator?
> >
>
> Ridiculous. Science does not preclude belief in God.
I never said it did. You're confusing science with evolution, which
it is not. Evolution is a philosophy.



Bob wrote:
> On 24 Oct 2005 05:28:01 -0700, andrevan808@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> >
> >Science students are taught the basic law of science that without
> >intelligent input, matter always tends to a state of greater disorder
> >and disorganization.
>
> really? we are? gee. i took 5 classes in thermo and intelligence was
> never mentioned. enthalpy was. energy was.
>
> but never intelligence since your statement is wrong. intelligence
> does not cause order.
Can you show how it doesn't?

>
> >
> >Chemical evolution is clearly excluded by the evidence.
>
> funy we chemists don't think so.
Good, then maybe you could show us otherwise, instead of making empty
statements.

>
> >None of the major steps in the supposed chemical evolutionary process
> >can be reproduced in the lab
>
> the cure for the common cold can't be done in the lab. so what?
What has the common cold have to do with some lifeless chemicals
randomly assembling themselves by pure chance into living cells in a
primordial pond?

>
> , under simulated naturalistic conditions,
> >because the laws of chemistry prevent them.
>
> logical fallacy. if we dont KNOW how life got started how can you say
> it's impossible?
I said: the laws of chemistry prevent them.

> >
>
> >Evolution by natural selection is claimed to be the process by which
> >life, as we know it came into existence. However, this claim is not
> >testable against observation, neither is it supported by the facts, as
> >no one can test against observation how life actually came into
> >existence.
>
> blithely ignorant assertions like this without evidence are beneath
> both comment and contempt.
An example of how natural selection is not 'molecules to man'
evolution (and therefore is not evidence of diversification from a
single cell):
Scientists decided to test Drosophila birchii in the lab to see how
quickly this rainforest fly would be able to adapt to a dryer
environment.

They exposed flies to desiccation (drying) stress until 80 to 90% had
died, and then bred from the survivors. The offspring were no better
than there parents at surviving drier-than-normal conditions. With
mounting surprise, the researchers repeated the process, for 30 cycles
over 50 generations, but still no increase in desiccation resistance.
Even after dry-stressing fresh batches of the flies from 4 separate
rainforest populations, the researchers noted that 'the most
resistant population lacks the ability to evolve further resistance
even after intense selection over 30 generations.'

Natural selection eliminates genes. It cannot create new ones. This is
noticeable in extreme environments, eg. In dry conditions, flies that
lose body moisture too quickly will die out and, without offspring,
their genes will be lost from that population. But in a wet rainforest
environment, there's no advantage in conserving body moisture;
what's needed is just the opposite; the ability to withstand high
humidity and the rampant diseases that thrive in such conditions.
Therefore Drosophila birchii populations have become higly adapted to
life in the rainforests, but it has come at a cost. The price paid for
such specialization is the permanent loss of genetic information useful
for survival in a drier environment.
In contrast, the Drosophila flies (D. melanogastor, D. simulans, D.
serrata) from intermediate (less humid) environments still contain
sufficient genetic variation to enable the population to adapt to drier
conditions.
Science 301(5629): 58-59 & 100-102, 2003.
What we have here is a culling of genes already in existence. No new
genetic information was created, and the flies remained flies.

>
> >
> >Science cannot produce any final answers on the subject of origins.
>
> then how can you know it's impossible to form life from inorganic
> matter if you dont know HOW it got started?
Then how is evolution a "fact" if you don't know how it got
started?

>
> >Science operates in the present, by observation and experiment; it has
> >no direct access to the past. We cannot directly observe the past
>
> sure we can. we do it all the time. in fact the past is the ONLY thing
> we CAN observe. by the laws of relativity, EVERYTHING we see has
> already happened.
How do you observe it directly? We only observe the results of past
events.


Scientific evidence against "Bird evolution" and the fossil record
as "evidence for evolution":

If we examine the mutation/selection theory, which is the mechanism of
evolution held by the overwhelming majority today, we see that each
change is slow and gradual, involving the accumulation of a vast number
of 'micromutations' or 'point mutations'. We see then, that the
number of transitional forms involved in the transformation of, say,
fish to amphibian over hundreds of millions of years are incredibly
vast, so much so that we would not expect to be able to recognize end
forms and transitional forms separately, there would be an almost
imperceptible 'oozing' of one kind into another.

Furthermore, it is an integral part of the theory that each form is
successful, that is, each 'successive approximation' has a survival
or reproductive advantage over its predecessor, or else it would not
become established and give rise to subsequent forms. Therefore there
is no reason whatever for the 'end forms' to have more chance of
fossilization than the 'intermediates'.
All higher kinds of plants and animals appear abruptly and without
transition.

The sudden appearance, fully formed, of all the complex invertebrates
(snails, clams, jellyfish, sponges, worms, sea urchins, brachiopods,
trilobites, etc.) without a trace of ancestors, and the sudden
appearance, fully formed, of every major kind of fish (supposedly the
first vertebrates) without a trace of ancestors, proves beyond
reasonable doubt that evolution has not occurred.

There are three other basically different types of flying creatures:
flying insects, flying reptiles (now extinct), and flying mammals
(bats). It would be really strange, even incomprehensible, that
millions of years of evolution of these three basically different types
of flying creatures, each involving the remarkable transition of a land
animal into a flying animal, would have failed to produce large numbers
of transitional forms. If all of that evolution has occurred, our
museums should contain scores, if not hundreds or thousands of fossils
of intermediate forms in each case. However, not a trace of an ancestor
or transitional form has ever been found for any of these creatures!

The fashionable theory is that birds evolved from theropods
(carnivorous dinosaurs), but the evolutionist Storrs Olson, Curator of
Birds, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution,
called it 'one of the grander scientific hoaxes of our age-the
paleontological equivalent of cold fusion.'
[Olson, S.L., Open Letter to: Dr Peter Raven, Secretary, Committee for
Research and Exploration, National Geographic Society, 1 November
1999.]


Archaeopteryx appears to exhibit a mosaic of characters, sharing some
in common with the class Aves and some with the class Reptilia.
The feathers are not halfway transition from scales to feathers, an
assumed transformation of the most astounding complexity. If for no
other reason, this would disqualify it as a transitional form. A bat is
not a transitional form between bird and mammal, nor is a platypus
transitional between duck and mammal, even though it exhibits some
features of both.

Archaeopteryx stands alone, uniquely itself with no fossil between
itself and either birds or reptiles.
All the living birds with claws on their wings are obviously birds.
Archaeopteryx and the living 'clawed' birds tell us only that some
kinds of birds have wing claws and some don't. Such claws are not
something new in birds, and they do not indicate that birds with them
are any more reptile-like than birds without such claws.

Evolutionist Barbara Stahl, in her book 'Vertebrate History: Problems
in Evolution' writes:
'Since Archaeopteryx occupies an isolated position in the fossil
record, it is impossible to tell whether the animal gave rise to more
advanced fliers...'

The evolutionist A.J. Marshall writing in 'Biology and Comparative
Physiology of Birds' states that:
'The origin of birds is largely a matter of deduction. There is no
fossil of the stages through which the remarkable change from reptile
to bird was achieved.'

The above has been known for years, and still many evolutionists
present it as a striking example of a transitional form.

A bird which is unquestionably a true bird has been found which dates
(by the evolutionists' own methods) at some 60 million years older
than Archaeopteryx. This was announced in 'Science-News' (Vol. 112,
Sep. 1977 p.198)
It has a 'mosaic' of characters in common with both groups but
shows no true transitional structure such as a part-scale,
part-feather.
There are no fossil links between it and either reptiles or birds-it
stands alone. True birds have been found which are assigned by
evolutionists to an earlier time than Archaeopteryx.

Archaeopteryx had an impressive array of features that immediately
identify it as a bird, whatever else may be said about it. It had
perching feet. Several of its fossils bear the impression of feathers.
These feathers were identical to those of modern birds in every
respect. The primary feathers of non-flying birds are distinctly
different from those of flying birds. Archaeopteryx had the feathers of
flying birds, had the basic pattern and proportions of the avian wing,
and an especially robust furcula (wishbone). Furthermore, there was
nothing in the anatomy of Archaeopteryx that would have prevented it
being a powered flyer. No doubt Archaeopteryx was a feathered creature
that flew, a bird.

L.D. Martin and co-workers have established that neither the teeth nor
the ankle of Archaeopteryx could have been derived from theropod
dinosaurs, the teeth being those typical of other (presumably later)
toothed birds, and the ankle bones showing no homology with those of
dinosaurs.

A.D. Walker has presented an analysis of the ear region of
Archaeopteryx that shows, contrary to previous studies, that this
region is very similar to the otic region of modern birds.

Scales are flat horny plates; feathers are very complex in structure,
consisting of a central shaft from which radiate barbs and barbules.
Barbules are equipped with tiny hooks which lock onto the barbs and
bind the feather surface into a flat, strong, flexible vane. Feathers
and scales arise from different layers of the skin.

Furthermore, the development of a feather is extremely complex, and
fundamentally different from that of a scale. Feathers, as do hairs,
but unlike scales, develop from follicles. A hair, however, is a much
simpler structure than a feather. The developing feather is protected
by a horny sheath, and forms around a bloody, conical, inductive dermal
core. Not only is the developing feather sandwiched between the sheath
and dermal core, it is complex in structure.
Development of the cells that will become the mature feather involves
complex processes. Cells migrate and split apart in highly specific
patterns to form the complex arrangement of barbs and barbules.

What we are left to believe is that a series of genetic mistakes, or
mutations, just happened somehow to result in a sequence of incredible
events that not only converted a simple horny plate into the
tremendously complex and remarkably engineered structure of a feather,
but completely reorganized the simple method of development of a scale
into the highly complex process necessary to produce a feather. What an
incredible faith in the blind forces of evolution.
Another "Just-so" story of evolution, completely devoid of empirical
support.

Archaeopteryx could not be the ancestral bird, and dinosaurs could not
be ancestral to birds. Chatterjee and his co-workers at Texas Tech
University claim to have found two crow-sized fossils of a bird near
Post, Texas, in rocks supposedly 225 million years older, thus
allegedly 75 million years older than Archaeopteryx and as old as the
first dinosaurs. Totally contrary to what evolutionists would expect
for such a fossil bird, however, Chatterjee claims that his bird is
even more bird-like than Archaeopteryx. In contrast to Archaeopteryx,
this bird had a keel-like breastbone and hollow bones. In most other
respects, it was similar to Archaeopteryx.

As if this was not enough, the most birdlike part of the theropod
progression belongs not to the supposed ancestors of the first known
bird, Archaeopteryx, but to the oviraptorosaurs, a descendant branch of
'secondarily flightless theropods.' And, of course, the
'secondarily flightless' status of these oviraptorosaurs begs the
question about the need for volant ancestors. The need for
evolutionists to invoke this complex scenario of events serves as a
reductio ad absurdum of evolutionary theory. Instead of invoking a
back-and-forth evolutionary process of land animals to birds and (in
the case of oviraptorosaurs) back to land animals, how much more
sensible it is to discard evolution altogether and to accept special
creation instead.
The final irony of all this is the fact that, contrary to the
predictions of those who favor the argument about stratomorphic
intermediates, known theropods occur in the wrong place in the
stratigraphic column to serve as ancestors to birds.

S. Weisburd, Science News, August 16, 1986, p. 103; Tim Beardsley,
Nature 322:677
A.M. Lucas and P.R. Slettenhein, Avian Anatomy: Integument. U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington, DC
S.L. Olson and Alan Feduccia, Nature 278:247
Alan Feduccia and H.B Tordoff, Science 203:1020
L.D. Martin, J.D. Stewart, and K.N. Whetstone, The Auk 97:86
A.D. Walker, as described in Peter Dodson, "International Archaeopteryx
Conference," Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 5(2):177

Scientific evidence against "Chemical evolution"
("abiogenesis"):
No one disputes the existence of living organisms on earth, and that
cells indeed are capable of using simple building blocks to generate
the required complex biochemicals at the necessary time, location and
concentration. The question is whether the massive co-ordination of the
metabolic processes which perform such feats could have arisen without
intelligent guidance and driven by only statistical and thermodynamic
constraints.

Even if we granted that the 'building blocks' were available, it
does not follow that they could actually build anything. For example,
under plausible prebiotic conditions, the tendency is for biological
macromolecules to break apart into the 'building blocks', not the
other way round. Also, the 'building blocks' are likely to react in
the wrong ways with other 'building blocks', for example, sugars
and other carbonyl compounds react destructively with amino acids and
other amino compounds, to form imines, a common cause of browning in
foods.

Furthermore, some of the building blocks are very unstable. A good
example is ribose, which is obviously essential for RNA, and hence for
the RNA-world hypothesis of the origin of life. A team including the
famous evolutionary origin-of-life pioneer Stanley Miller, in PNAS,
found that the half-life of ribose is only 44 years at pH 7.0 (neutral)
and 0 degC. It's even worse at high temperatures: 73 minutes at pH
7.0 and 100 degC. This is a major hurdle for hydrothermal theories of
the origin of life. Miller, in another PNAS paper, has also pointed out
that the RNA bases are destroyed very quickly in water at 100°C;
adenine and guanine have half lives of about a year, uracil about 12
years, and cytosine only 19 days.

Most researchers avoid such hurdles with the following methodology:
find a trace of compound X in a spark discharge experiment, claim
'see, X can be produced under realistic primitive-earth
conditions'. Then they obtain pure, homochiral, concentrated X from
an industrial synthetic chemicals company, react it to form traces of
the more complex compound Y. Typically, the process is repeated to form
traces of Z from purified Y, and so on. In short, the evolutionists'
simulations have an unacceptable level of intelligent interference.

Essential building block missing: cytosine. The evolutionary
biochemist, Robert Shapiro, published a detailed study of the
'prebiotic' synthesis of cytosine in the Proceedings of the NAS.
Previous studies of his had noted that neither adenine nor ribose were
plausible prebiotic components of any self-replicating molecule, but
the problems with cytosine are even worse.
Shapiro noted that not the slightest trace of cytosine has been
produced in gas discharge experiments, and nor has it been found in
meteorites. Thus, he notes, either it is extremely hard to synthesise,
or it breaks down before detection. So 'prebiotic' productions of
cytosine have always been indirect.
Cytosine is deaminated/hydrolyzed (to uracil) far too rapidly for any
'hot' origin-of-life scenario. But it is still very unstable at
moderate temperatures, half-life = 340 years at 25°C. This shows that
a cold earth origin-of-life scenario would merely alleviate, but not
overcome, the decomposition problem. And a low temperature also retards
synthetic reactions as well as destructive ones.

Cells have an ingenious repair system involving a number of enzymes. It
seems that such a repair system would be necessary from the beginning,
because a hypothetical primitive cell lacking this would mutate so
badly that error catastrophe would result. And the far greater
instability of cytosine on single-stranded nucleic acid is yet another
problem that proponents of the RNA-world must account for.

Also, cytosine is readily decomposed under solar UV radiation, which
requires that prebiotic synthesis should be carried out in the dark.
No plausible prebiotic synthesis of cytosine yet exists.

Vital 'building blocks' including cytosine and ribose are too
unstable to have existed on a hypothetical prebiotic earth for long.
Even if cytosine and ribose could have existed, there is no known
prebiotic way to combine them to form the nucleoside cytidine, even if
we granted unacceptably high levels of investigator interference.
Building blocks would be too dilute to actually build anything, and
would be subject to cross-reactions.
Even if the building blocks could have formed polymers, the polymers
would readily hydrolyse.
There is no tendency to form the high-information polymers required for
life as opposed to random ones.

Amino acids can be formed in Miller-type experiments where reducing
gases are sparked, unlike ribose and the nitrogenous bases. Therefore
some evolutionists are investigating protein-first rather than
nucleic-acid-first theories of the origin of life. But proteins do not
have anything similar to the base-pairing in nucleic acids.

Lee et al. made a 32-unit-long a-helical peptide based on the
leucine-zipper domain of the yeast transcription factor GCN4. They
found that it catalysed its own synthesis in a neutral, dilute water
solution of 15 and 17-unit fragments. This was an ingenious experiment,
but it does not help the evolutionary cause because:

1.Where would the first 32-unit long chain of 100 % left-handed amino
acid residues come from? Amino acids are not formed as easily as Lee et
al. claim. If they form at all, they are extremely dilute and impure,
as well as racemic (50-50 mix of left and right-handed forms). Such
amino acids do not spontaneously polymerise in water.

2.Where would a supply of the matching 15 and 17-unit chains come from?
Not only does the objection above apply, but what mechanism is supposed
to produce the right sequences? Even if we had a mixture of the right
homochiral (all the same handedness) amino acids, the chance of getting
one 15-unit peptide right is one in 20 to the power 15 (= one in 3 x 10
to the power 19).
If it is not necessary to get the sequences exactly right, then it
would mean that the 'replication' is not specific, and would thus
allow many errors.

3.The 15 and 17-unit peptides must be activated, because condensation
of ordinary amino acids is not spontaneous in water. Lee et al. used a
thiobenzyl ester derivative of one peptide. As they say, this also
circumvents potential side reactions. The hypothetical primordial soup
would not have had intelligent chemists adding the right chemicals to
prevent wrong reactions!

The exact way in which the protein folds is called the tertiary
structure, and this determines its specific properties. Although Lee et
al. say: "we suggest the possibility of protein self-replication in
which the catalytic activity of the protein could be conserved, they
present no experimental proof."

Shapiro's dogmatism is illustrated in his interesting popular-level
book Origins: A Skeptic's Guide to the Creation of Life in the
Universe, where he effectively critiques many origin-of-life scenarios.
But he says, in a striking admission that no amount of evidence would
upset his faith:
"Some future day may yet arrive when all reasonable chemical
experiments run to discover a probable origin of life have failed
unequivocally. Further, new geological evidence may yet indicate a
sudden appearance of life on the earth. Finally, we may have explored
the universe and found no trace of life, or processes leading to life,
elsewhere. Some scientists might choose to turn to religion for an
answer. Others, however, myself included, would attempt to sort out the
surviving less probable scientific explanations in the hope of
selecting one that was still more likely than the remainder."

Even the simplest free-living cell has 482 genes coding for all the
necessary enzymes, the chemical machines of life. The enzymes are
composed of about 400 building blocks (amino acids) each on average, in
precise sequences, and all in the 'left-handed' form. Of course,
these genes are functional only in the presence of pre-existing
translational and replicating machinery, a cell membrane, etc. But
Mycoplasma can survive only by parasitizing other more complex
organisms, which provide many of the nutrients it cannot manufacture
for itself. So evolutionists must postulate a more complex first living
organism with even more genes.

In the Claudia Huber and Günter Wächterhäuser experiment [C. Huber
and G. Wächterhäuser, 'Peptides by activation of amino acids with
CO on (Ni,Fe)S surfaces: implications for the origin of life',
Science 281(5377):670-672] we find that all that was produced were a
few building blocks joined in pairs (dipeptides) and a minuscule amount
joined in threes (tripeptides). A few paired building blocks are a far
cry from even one enzyme, let alone a living cell.

The exclusive 'left-handedness' required for life was destroyed in
the process. Their excuse was that some cell wall peptides have
right-handed amino acids. But this misses the point: enzymes that break
down cell walls are designed for exclusively left-handed amino acids,
so an occasional right-handed amino acid is the perfect defence in a
left-handed world. Huber and Wächterhäuser also reported that these
pairs were broken down rapidly under the same conditions.

When we consider how life began, there are really only two options.
Either life was created by a supernatural intelligent source or it
'made itself'; i.e. evolved. That is what 'chemical evolution'
and 'biological evolution' are about: things making themselves,
arising spontaneously from within nature, the material world, with no
outside assistance.
So if someone were to claim that synthesizing life in a test-tube
disproves the idea of creation, they would in effect be saying,
'Synthesizing life in a test-tube proves that it evolved.' Now
substitute the words 'synthesizing' & 'evolved' in that phrase
with others of identical meaning, and the absurdity of it becomes
clear: 'Using intelligence to make life in a test-tube proves that it
made itself and did not arise through intelligence.'

Life's long-chain molecules (like DNA) actually carry programmed
information: a specific sequence of symbols (like alphabet letters).
This information can be transmitted, as in reproduction, but it does
not reside in the chemical properties of the matter that carries it,
just as printed information in an encyclopaedia is unrelated to the
properties of ink & paper. A scientist creating life would be imposing
his intelligence onto matter to generate the information needed.
How did the genetic code, which requires intelligence to decode and
understand, get encoded in the beginning without intelligent input?

The fact that, with all our knowledge of molecular biology, we are not
even close to knowing everything about the complexities of even the
'simplest' living organism shows just how much 'design-power'
and intelligence went into the creation of the first of its kind.


Lee, D.H., Granja, J.R., Martinez, J.A., Severin, K. And Ghadiri, M.R.,
1996. A self-replicating peptide. Nature, 382:525-528. See also
Kauffman, S. 1996. Even peptides do it. Nature, 382:496-497, for a
perspective of the leading complexity theorist on the paper of Lee et
al.
See Mills, G.C. and Kenyon, D.H., The RNA world: A critique, Origins
and Design 17(1):9-16.
Larralde, R., Robertson, M.P. and Miller, S.L., Rates of decomposition
of ribose and other sugars: Implications for chemical evolution, Proc.
Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 92:7933-38, 1995.
Levy, M and Miller, S.L., The stability of the RNA bases: Implications
for the origin of life, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 95(14):7933-38.
The evolutionist A.G. Cairns-Smith has raised the objections against
the typical 'origin of life' simulation experiments in his book Genetic
Takeover and the Mineral Origins of Life, Cambridge University Press,
New York.
Shapiro, R., Prebiotic cytosine synthesis: A critical analysis and
implications for the origin of life, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
96(8):4396-4401.
Shapiro, R., The prebiotic role of adenine: A critical analysis,
Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere 25:83-98 &18:71-85.
C.M. Fraser et al., 'The minimal gene complement of Mycoplasma
genitalium', Science, 270(5235):397-403, 20 October 1995;
perspective by A. Goffeau, 'Life With 482 Genes', same issue, pp.
445-6.
Orgel, L.E. and Lohrmann, R., Prebiotic chemistry and nucleic acid
replication, Accounts of Chemical Research 7:368-377.
C. Huber and G. Wächterhäuser, 'Peptides by activation of amino
acids with CO on (Ni,Fe)S surfaces: implications for the origin of
life', Science 281(5377):670-672

As demonstrated above: mutations, natural selection, chemical evolution
& the fossil record are not evidences for evolution, and in many
instances point in the opposite direction. Those who ignore these
obvious facts are either unable to grasp them or do not want to grasp
them, as evolution offers an alternate means of having something to
believe in, a religion without the Creator Lord God, and therefore
no-one to be accountable to.


.