I'm about to destroy you....
Let me warn you in advance: Keep your hands inside the ride at all times.
.............
1. Darwin's theor "Punctuated Equalibrium," which is, in fact, the opposite of Darwinism....it claims changes are sudden, spontaneous.
"Equilibrium"
Punctuated Equilibrium is not the "opposite" of Natural Selection (Darwin's contribution to Evolutionary Biology).
Not quite.
Perhaps you should read the
peer reviewed works of the original source as opposed to relying on someone from a pro-creationsit websight to do your academic legwork for you...
Provided for your edification:
They understand that the theories don't contradict themselves.
I don't really understand your point. You are upset because the change is not gradual enough? What kind of time frame are you operating off of? If sudden speciation invalidates natural selection, what kind of time frame should we see that would support Darwin's model? What, a novel species ever 1 billion years? Every 1 million years?
You need to do a little more work on your end of the argument if you are going to argue that these theories invalidate natural selection.
Let me just refer you to the following little-known Nobel Prize winning work from 60+ years ago.
And frequently are. This is why we have cancer.
While you castigate us for pointing out that your objections to evolution are religiously based. I would re-refer you to the source that YOU provided to support your argument.
Did you think we would be too lame to click on your own link?
It would be nice if your "source" had a lead author to attribute its rather large claims too. Otherwise, it just reads like an opinion piece.
Which it is.
You can read a molecular biology textbook for a more in-depth explanation of mutation if you are truly interested.
remember that these structures must occur in just the right order.
No they don't.
Only problem is, how did RNA come into being? It too is enormously complicated.
"This is just too complicated to have happened on its own" is the battle cry on the intellectually dull.
If you were really interested in seeking answers to these very basic questions there are mountains of text books, papers and online resources to assist you.
However, you obviously aren't interested in honesty. If you were, you wouldn't resort to using an obviously biased source.
You can sit here and amaze the dullards with a bunch of half-assed arguments wrapped in a Master's Degree lexicon.
For everyone else, your arguments can be reduced to the usual creationist mantra: "This is just too complicated to have happened without the help of a supernatural force."
So in summary, you have a major problem in accepting the "numbers of evolution" which are probabilities in the orders of the millions and trillions. However, you have no problem accepting that some omnipotent force made all of this happen with the wave of a hand.
1. ""Equilibrium"
Punctuated Equilibrium is not the "opposite" of Natural Selection (Darwin's contribution to Evolutionary Biology).
Do you know what opposite means?
Darwin: changes gradual due to accumulation of small alterationg
Gould: sudden.
Do you know the mean of 'gradual' and 'sudden'?
Yes....opposites.
Strike one.
2. "I don't really understand your point. You are upset because the change is not gradual enough? What kind of time frame are you operating off of? If sudden speciation invalidates natural selection, what kind of time frame should we see that would support Darwin's model? What, a novel species ever 1 billion years? Every 1 million years?"
a. "THE ABRUPT manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection." Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302
b. Steven J. Gould reported: "In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed." (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)
c.Here is the source of the problem: 'Before about 580 million years ago, most organisms were simple, composed of individual cells occasionally organized into colonies.... The Cambrian explosion, or Cambrian radiation, was the relatively rapid appearance, around542 million years ago, of most major animal phyla, as demonstrated in the fossil record."
Cambrian explosion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
d. Darwin posited evolution based on a gradual series of small changes, many of which would result in doom for the organism, but some which would make same better equipped to survive, and be passed on. But early on, contemporary paleontologists and geologists found contrary fossil evidence: the Cambrian explosion revealed "geologically abrupt appearance of a menagerie of animals as various as any found in the gaudiest science fiction." Meyers, "Darwin's Doubt," p. 31.
Strike two.
3."... 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.
Miller SL, Urey HC."
I am fully familiar with the work.
You are not....or you would have realized that it has no bearing on either DNA or RNA.
Do you know the products he found in the soup that resulted from water, hydrogen, ammonia and methane?
You didn't do well in organic chemistry, did you?
4. "While you castigate us for pointing out that your objections to evolution are religiously based. I would re-refer you to the source that YOU provided to support your argument."
There is no religion based information, data, nor argument. It is fact.
Are you basing your argument on denying what is quoted?
Didn't think so.
Would you like Hoyle better?
"The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in (1020)2,000=1040,000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup." "Evolution from Space" by Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, p.24.
5. "remember that these structures must occur in just the right order.
No they don't. "
Yeah....they do.
"To make an organism requires not only a tremendous variety of these substances, in adequate amounts and proper proportions,
but also just the right arrangement of them. Structure here is as important as composition - and what a complication of structural. The most complex machine man has devised - say an electronic brain - is childÂ’s play compared with the simplest of living organisms. The especially trying thing is that complexity here involves such small dimensions. It is on the molecular level; it consists of a detailed fitting of molecule to molecule such as no chemist can attempt."
G. Wald, “The Origin of Life,” Scientific American, Vol. 191, No. 4.
Strike three.
Well....you tried.....and failed.
I hope you take heed of how easily your abysmal ignorance of the topic is to reveal.
In large measure your government schooling taught you to accept rather than question, and it is that flaw that you can blame for how badly you did today.
It is the reason why my questions proved so daunting to you.
