I doubt the wisdom of following the instructions of one like you who has such a poor understanding of science.
Just out of curiosity, what is your scientific background?
I'm about to destroy you....
Let me warn you in advance: Keep your hands inside the ride at all times.
Let's review:
A well constructed scientific critique of Darwinian evolution reveals the weaknesses that have make a number of experts discard said theory.
Objects of two varieties popped up:
a. aspersions aimed at your humble messenger,
and b. suggestions that the critique is based on religion.
Of course,
there was no reference to religion, leading one to believe that criticism of Darwinism serves as a personal affront to the less intelligent.
And none of those who objected to the OP
dared to address the questions raised. These include:
1. Darwin's theory revolves around his idea of
random mutations gradually leading to new species.
His erstwhile defender, Stephen Gould, realized that
this didn't fit the facts....so, based on his inveterate Marxism, he devised "Punctuated Equalibrium," which is, in fact, the
opposite of Darwinism....it claims changes are sudden, spontaneous.
Yet...numbskulls accept both as correct. Where is their explanation?
2.
Damning evidence against Darwin's theory comes from the Burgess Shale discovery, which attests to an extraordinary profusion of new animal forms, including unique anatomical structures not seen before in earlier life forms, and new arrangements of body parts. But there is
no evidence of gradual development!
Yet...numbskulls ignore the sudden appearances. Where is their explanation?
3. All of those new and original organs and body forms
each require new and specific arrangements of DNA, the nucleic acid which serves a blueprint for each structure. To be clear, there is no chemical evolutionary process that has been shown to
explain the origin of the information in DNA or RNA needed to produce life from simple, preexisting chemicals.
a. " If you really want a glimpse at how complex "simple organisms" are, and how incredible it is that anyone could believe they spontaneously formed by chance, just consider the cell's nucleus.
This organelle contains DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid), a coiled supermolecule, a "digitally coded" database containing the roughly 4,000,000 pieces of information (nucleotide base pairs) required to replicate the cell.
And nucleotide
sequencing along the DNA supermolecule must be exact "to the nucleotide" or results could be disastrous."
5 REASONS CHEMICAL EVOLUTION IS FALSE: Reason #1—ReligiouslyIncorrect.org
Yet...numbskulls pretend that they have some explanation for the new DNA. Where is their explanation?
4.
The time period from the Pre-Cambrian until we find all sorts of new organism, the Cambrian, is not one that allows both the creation of the specific DNA sequence by random mechanisms for each organ and body form,.....
remember that these structures must occur in just the right order.
a." Some scientists are now trying to show how RNA was "spontaneously formed" and subsequently advanced to DNA.
Why the new theory?
DNA, they have determined, is too complex to have been formed by the "random encounters of chemicals."
This is correct.
The odds of "random creation" of just 3% of the human genome are, conservatively,
1 in 10 to the 45 millionth power.
This far exceeds the total number of collective events of hundreds of trillions of universes like ours.
Only problem is, how did RNA come into being? It too is enormously complicated.
And how did it, in turn, "randomly form to DNA?"
5 REASONS CHEMICAL EVOLUTION IS FALSE: Reason #1—ReligiouslyIncorrect.org
Yet...numbskulls ignore the time and possibility restrictions. Where is their explanation?
"...great questions often make very good science.
Unsolved mysteries provide science with motivation and direction. Gaps in the road to scientific knowledge are not potholes to be avoided, but opportunities to be exploited."
In Praise of Hard Questions
I just proved which of us is a scientist, and that you, merely an acolyte.
