Why Classic "Evolution" Fails

[Dr.Traveler]

Weird stuff happens in nature. Turns out there used to a naturally formed nuclear reactor in Africa. Considering the amount of science and engineering that goes into a modern nuclear reactor, stuff like that just shouldn't happen, and yet it does.

There's a common math fallacy here about probability. Just because something is extremely unlikely doesn't mean it can't happen.

 

[newpolitics]

The interaction of physical bodies, neorons protons electrons. A little of this, a little of that. Friction, heat, discharge.

Hydrogen, oxygen. And a host of elements. Interacting, reacting and creating new elements.

It's elementary, my dear Watson.

You are describing, albeit poorly, the state of certain realms of our universe and some of the processes therein. Thanks. I'm not sure what intention you possess, but it is always refreshing to see someone admiring nature for what it is.

Any other "certain realms" you'd like to share?

Don't do it poorly now.

My interem of reference is our reference at hand... physics and chemistry.

No. Just trying to get across the fact that god does not equal nature, including physics and chemistry. Put differently, the mere state of existence is not evidence of god, which you seem to be espousing, ultimately.

Also, would you mind describing the meaning of your last sentence? As far as I can tell, it is rather non-descriptive of any ideas relevant to this discussion.

 

[newpolitics]

This OP is a question, not an example of how evolution fails. Most glaringly, it seems to miss the distinction between evolution and abiogenesis, and attempts to conflate the two in order to discredit both. This is a common creationist tactic. I had read about this straight from creationist online sources, which attempt to convince some that in fact, any weakness for abiogenesis is a weakness for evolution, when this is not the case. This is a simple category error.

 

[pjnlsn]

Without a set of instructions, how can molecules form proteins?

Why should they?

There is an organization built into the fabric of the Universe, that's what assembles life. It was there the whole time

Personifying a single molecule, when it takes trillions of varied and complex molecules interacting to have intelligence or a personality is.....daft.

'nuff said, hmm?

 

[t_polkow]

Without a set of instructions, how can molecules form proteins?

Why should they?

There is an organization built into the fabric of the Universe, that's what assembles life. It was there the whole time

Education Time!!!!

When used in non-scientific context, the word “theory” implies that something is unproven or speculative. As used in science, however, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.

Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. In the scientific method, there is a clear distinction between facts, which can be observed and/or measured, and theories, which are scientists’ explanations and interpretations of the facts. Scientists can have various interpretations of the outcomes of experiments and observations, but the facts, which are the cornerstone of the scientific method, do not change.

A theory must include statements that have observational consequences. A good theory, like Newton’s theory of gravity, has unity, which means it consists of a limited number of problem-solving strategies that can be applied to a wide range of scientific circumstances. Another feature of a good theory is that it formed from a number of hypotheses that can be tested independently.

A scientific theory is not the end result of the scientific method; theories can be proven or rejected, just like hypotheses. Theories can be improved or modified as more information is gathered so that the accuracy of the prediction becomes greater over time.