The Evolution Fraud

[Ringel05]

As usual, its most strident advocates confuse evolution with adaptation. The former is a tidy theory with no direct evidence to back it up, whereas the latter is easily observable and replicated.

As usual, its most strident opponents endeavor to separate evolution from adaptation. Evolution is the result of adaptation. Evolution is a theory with (literally) mountains of direct evidence, gathered over centuries, to back it up. Its opponents are usually either too ignorant, too blinded by religion, or too lazy to evaluate the evidence for themselves and so depend on the word of others who are likewise either too ignorant, too blinded by religion, or too lazy to evaluate the evidence for themselves.

Part of the issue here is how "evolution" is taught and addressed specifically towards students. The word itself is used much too broadly instead of how it was intended, "descent with modification." Most don't even try to teach evolution it's simply tossed out without any attempt to truly engage the students and this is for a multitude of reasons the primary is a real lack of knowledge among the teachers and the fear of the Pandora's box that could potentially be opened by doing so. That in and of itself is a causative problem and rests squarely on the shoulders of scientists and teachers.
One of the scientist/teacher caused problems is associating evolution with the origin of life. Evolution IS NOT a definition of the origin of life nor can it explain it, they are two completely different subjects so stop equating the two. Evolution also DOES NOT negate the possibility of divine design except to those on both sides who I will call "fundamentalists" for lack of a bettor descriptor.
You wish people to understand evolution? Teach it for what it is not what many wish it to be and be understanding of natural human resistance fed by lack of information, misinformation and wishful thinking on ALL sides.

 

[Ringel05]

Polar Bears are white because of adaptation, not evolution. (They are still bears.) Get it?

P.S. Where are these mountains of direct evidence located?

Humans evolved from apes when they adapted to life on the savanna.

Almost any mountain composed of fossil-bearing, sedimentary layers will do. Study the fossil record carefully and you'll find that, of the trillions of fossils found there, not a single one violates the theory of evolution. There are no eyewitnesses but mountains of evidence.

How do you know they weren't planted there to confuse?

Planted by who? God? Is God deceiving us or does he have a sense of humor?

Try Corinthians..........

Doesn't mean you have to believe simply answering your question based on what the Bible says.

I'm not a believer and I'm not sure what in Corinthians answers my questions. Can you narrow it down?

Basically it talks about God confusing and confounding "the wise". Now whether it actually applies in this instance is probably open to interpretation. You basically asked for an example, I gave you one to mull over.

 

[ReinyDays]

Cornith is there by the Sahara Desert, where we find these "basil whale" fossils ... just because the men-folk were eager to marry the dorkable widow women doesn't mean they were stupid, just horny ... maybe they sent Paul some of these fossils asking why they made a perfect intermediary between cows and whales ... and just maybe in the context of asking the men to quit wife swapping he didn't want to deal with explaining the fossils ... "A mystery of God, now focus on what's plain and simple" ...

One of my kids asked me where babies come from instead of explaining why he spray-painted the neighbor's dog ... it's clever dodge ...

 

[ChemEngineer]

Odds are against winning Mega Millions....people still win.

Math is hard, harder if you're a liberal.....

Stay with me here. I'll give you some math. I know, it's hard.

1. Lotteries have odds of one chance in a hundred or two hundred or three hundred million.
2. A hundred or two hundred million people buy tickets.
Surprise, surprise. Sometimes someone buys the winning ticket! One in ten to the eighth, or ninth.
Whoop de do.
3. I presented a coherent argument for what is clearly impossible, one in 10 to the 150th.
4. Ten to the 150th is 141 or 142 orders of magnitude than the lottery odds you cite.

Now let me explain why 1 in 10 to the 50th is impossible.

10 to the 50th grains of sand would fill fifteen spheres the size of our solar system out to Pluto.
Now imagine a man in a space suit plunging into any one of 15 spheres the size of our solar system full of sand and picking the one specially marked grain of sand, on his first and only try.
He doesn't get an infinite number of attempts. This is 1 in 10 to the 50th, not infinite in 10 to the 50th.

 

[ChemEngineer]

Attempting to prove God exists utilizing man's science is as foolish and fruitless as attempting to prove God doesn't exist utilizing man's science.

Nobody attempted to prove anything. It is foolish and fruitless to misunderstand science, as you so clearly do.
Science doesn't do "proofs." Statistical evidence was presented and obviously that upset you. It should not.

"Almost nothing is known for certain except in pure mathematics." - Carl Sagan, a scientist

 

[ChemEngineer]

As usual, its most strident opponents endeavor to separate evolution from adaptation. Evolution is the result of adaptation. Evolution is a theory with (literally) mountains of direct evidence, gathered over centuries, to back it up. Its opponents are usually either too ignorant, too blinded by religion, or too lazy to evaluate the evidence for themselves and so depend on the word of others who are likewise either too ignorant, too blinded by religion, or too lazy to evaluate the evidence for themselves.

“WE CONCLUDE – UNEXPECTEDLY – that there is little evidence for the neo-Darwinian view: its theoretical foundations and the experimental evidence supporting it are weak.” – Department of Ecology and Evolution, University of Illinois, Chicago, The American Naturalist, November 1992

“I can think of no other example in all of history when an important scientific theory (Neo-Darwinism) – a dominant position in intellectual life – was held in such contempt and skepticism by people who are paying for its research. People just found that theory impossible to swallow.” – David Berlinski, 2008 lecture

All these ignorant, lazy, blinded people, with PhDs. Tsk, tsk.

In 1978, Gareth Nelson of the American Museum of Natural History wrote: “The idea that one can go to the fossil record and expect to empirically recover an ancestor-descendant sequence, be it of species, genera, families, or whatever, has been, and continues to be, a pernicious illusion.”

“I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When that happens, many people will pose the question, ‘How did that happen?’ – (Dr Soren Luthrip, Swedish embryologist)

If you continue calling them names, alang1216, perhaps you will convince all of these scientists of your intellectual superiority. Ya think? Does name calling and condescension convince people of "science"?
Is that how it works in your Leftist domain? Evidently so.


“My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed…..It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of paleobiological facts…The idea of an evolution rests on pure belief.”(Dr. Nils Herbert-Nilsson, noted Swedish botanist and geneticist, of Lund University)

“It is the sheer universality of perfection, the fact that everywhere we look, to whatever depth we look, we find an elegance and ingenuity of an absolutely transcending quality, which so mitigates against the idea of chance. Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which — a functional protein or gene — is complex beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man? Alongside the level of ingenuity and complexity exhibited by the molecular machinery of life, even our most advanced artefacts appear clumsy. We feel humbled, as neolithic man would in the presence of 20th century technology…” (Michael Denton, Evolution — A Theory in Crisis, p. 328).

“In the meantime, the educated public continues to believe that Darwin has provided all the relevant answers by the magic formula of random mutations plus natural selection—quite unaware of the fact that random mutations turned out to be irrelevant and natural selection tautology.” (Dr. Arthur Koestler)

“A growing number of respectable scientists are defecting from the evolutionist camp…..moreover, for the most part these “experts” have abandoned Darwinism, not on the basis of religious faith or biblical persuasions, but on strictly scientific grounds, and in some instances, regretfully.” (Dr. Wolfgang Smith, physicist and mathematician)

“It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student….have now been debunked.” (Dr. Derek V. Ager, Department of Geology, Imperial College, London)

“One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom, a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has not been written.” (Dr. Hubert P. Yockey)

 

[Syriusly]

The Insuperable Statistics of Life - Scientific Proof of Nature's God


Intelligent design has been viciously attacked, not so much for its claim that design can be detected, and not so much for the mathematical methods it uses, but because it trumps the belief system of those who consider themselves to be our ruling intellectual elite. It trumps Scientism. – Counting to God, A Personal Journey Through Science to Belief, by Douglas Ell, p 50

Dembski suggests a lower bound, a “universal probability limit,” of 1 in 10 to the 150. He gets that by taking the number of protons, neutrons and electrons in the visible universe (10 to the 80), multiplying it by the number of seconds since the creation of the universe (about 4 times 10 to the 17), and multiplying by 10 to the 43 units of “Planck time” in each second. (Planck time is theoretically the smallest time measurement that will ever be possible.) – p 52

----------------------

Now consider the universal probability limit of 1 in 10 the 150th power in comparison to any naturalistic synthesis of a modest human protein of just 300 amino acid residues in length.

1/20 x 1/20 x 1/20... 300 times is 1 chance in 20 to the 300th power, which is equal to 1 chance in 10 to the 390th power.

Titin is a protein in the muscles of everyone reading this. Titin is 34,350 amino acid residues in length. Please do the math. There are at least 5,000 different proteins in your body. Do the math. 1 chance in 10 to the 150th is statistically equivalent to 0.

Do you realize that Evolution doesn't concern itself with where the first life came from?

That if some fairy in the sky dropped the first single cells creatures on Earth, evolution still would be the model that best accounts for all of the current life on earth?

Anyway- if it makes you feel better that some guy has said that he doesn't think it is mathematically possible- go with whatever makes you feel better- just don't call it science.

 

[ReinyDays]

3. I presented a coherent argument for what is clearly impossible, one in 10 to the 150th.

No ... you didn't ... it's an incoherent argument that any non-zero value is in fact zero ... that violates the fundamental rule of real numbers ... there's always a smaller one no matter how small the number is ... in every way, the odds of 1 to 10 raised to the 150th power is within the realm of possibilities ... ya, I know, math is hard ...

 

[BlindBoo]

Attempting to prove God exists utilizing man's science is as foolish and fruitless as attempting to prove God doesn't exist utilizing man's science.

Nobody attempted to prove anything. It is foolish and fruitless to misunderstand science, as you so clearly do.
Science doesn't do "proofs." Statistical evidence was presented and obviously that upset you. It should not.

"Almost nothing is known for certain except in pure mathematics." - Carl Sagan, a scientist

How does the ID Creation theory cause the Evolution theory to be a fraud?

Most scientist do not subscribe to scientism do they?

 

[Syriusly]

As usual, its most strident advocates confuse evolution with adaptation. The former is a tidy theory with no direct evidence to back it up, whereas the latter is easily observable and replicated.

As usual, its most strident opponents endeavor to separate evolution from adaptation. Evolution is the result of adaptation. Evolution is a theory with (literally) mountains of direct evidence, gathered over centuries, to back it up. Its opponents are usually either too ignorant, too blinded by religion, or too lazy to evaluate the evidence for themselves and so depend on the word of others who are likewise either too ignorant, too blinded by religion, or too lazy to evaluate the evidence for themselves.

Polar Bears are white because of adaptation, not evolution. (They are still bears.) Get it?

P.S. Where are these mountains of direct evidence located?

Polar Bears are white because of adaptation, not evolution.

Not exactly. Polar Bears are Polar Bears because of evolution. And Polar Bears are white because of evolution.

Adaptation is the process of adjusting something to better match it's environment or situation.
Evolution is a broad term that refers to any change in anything over time.

 

[Syriusly]

As usual, its most strident opponents endeavor to separate evolution from adaptation. Evolution is the result of adaptation. Evolution is a theory with (literally) mountains of direct evidence, gathered over centuries, to back it up. Its opponents are usually either too ignorant, too blinded by religion, or too lazy to evaluate the evidence for themselves and so depend on the word of others who are likewise either too ignorant, too blinded by religion, or too lazy to evaluate the evidence for themselves.

“WE CONCLUDE – UNEXPECTEDLY – that there is little evidence for the neo-Darwinian view: its theoretical foundations and the experimental evidence supporting it are weak.” – Department of Ecology and Evolution, University of Illinois, Chicago, The American Naturalist, November 1992

“I can think of no other example in all of history when an important scientific theory (Neo-Darwinism) – a dominant position in intellectual life – was held in such contempt and skepticism by people who are paying for its research. People just found that theory impossible to swallow.” – David Berlinski, 2008 lecture

All these ignorant, lazy, blinded people, with PhDs. Tsk, tsk.

In 1978, Gareth Nelson of the American Museum of Natural History wrote: “The idea that one can go to the fossil record and expect to empirically recover an ancestor-descendant sequence, be it of species, genera, families, or whatever, has been, and continues to be, a pernicious illusion.”

“I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When that happens, many people will pose the question, ‘How did that happen?’ – (Dr Soren Luthrip, Swedish embryologist)

If you continue calling them names, alang1216, perhaps you will convince all of these scientists of your intellectual superiority. Ya think? Does name calling and condescension convince people of "science"?
Is that how it works in your Leftist domain? Evidently so.


“My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed…..It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of paleobiological facts…The idea of an evolution rests on pure belief.”(Dr. Nils Herbert-Nilsson, noted Swedish botanist and geneticist, of Lund University)

“It is the sheer universality of perfection, the fact that everywhere we look, to whatever depth we look, we find an elegance and ingenuity of an absolutely transcending quality, which so mitigates against the idea of chance. Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which — a functional protein or gene — is complex beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man? Alongside the level of ingenuity and complexity exhibited by the molecular machinery of life, even our most advanced artefacts appear clumsy. We feel humbled, as neolithic man would in the presence of 20th century technology…” (Michael Denton, Evolution — A Theory in Crisis, p. 328).

“In the meantime, the educated public continues to believe that Darwin has provided all the relevant answers by the magic formula of random mutations plus natural selection—quite unaware of the fact that random mutations turned out to be irrelevant and natural selection tautology.” (Dr. Arthur Koestler)

“A growing number of respectable scientists are defecting from the evolutionist camp…..moreover, for the most part these “experts” have abandoned Darwinism, not on the basis of religious faith or biblical persuasions, but on strictly scientific grounds, and in some instances, regretfully.” (Dr. Wolfgang Smith, physicist and mathematician)

“It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student….have now been debunked.” (Dr. Derek V. Ager, Department of Geology, Imperial College, London)

“One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom, a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has not been written.” (Dr. Hubert P. Yockey)

 

[ChemEngineer]

Do you realize that Evolution doesn't concern itself with where the first life came from?

Stop trying to put words in my mouth. I never mentioned abiogenesis. That only makes your naturalistic claims even more impossible.

That if some fairy in the sky dropped the first single cells creatures on Earth, evolution still would be the model that best accounts for all of the current life on earth?

Anyway- if it makes you feel better that some guy has said that he doesn't think it is mathematically possible- go with whatever makes you feel better- just don't call it science.

1. If a model doesn't work, it must be abandoned. This you cannot do because your handlers have their snouts deep in the government grant trough.
2. "Science advances one funeral at a time." - Max Planck [Do you know who he was?]
3. Biochemistry is science. You should study it some time.
4. Explain the generation of a functional 1,000 link polypeptide, including chirality and lots of waving the Magic Wand of *Selection*. Keep in mind that Douglas Axe demonstrated that only 1 polypeptide in 10 to the 77th combinations is functional. Show us your science. I'm sure everyone will be impressed.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Odds are against winning Mega Millions....people still win.

Math is hard, harder if you're a liberal.....

Stay with me here. I'll give you some math. I know, it's hard.

1. Lotteries have odds of one chance in a hundred or two hundred or three hundred million.
2. A hundred or two hundred million people buy tickets.
Surprise, surprise. Sometimes someone buys the winning ticket! One in ten to the eighth, or ninth.
Whoop de do.
3. I presented a coherent argument for what is clearly impossible, one in 10 to the 150th.
4. Ten to the 150th is 141 or 142 orders of magnitude than the lottery odds you cite.

Now let me explain why 1 in 10 to the 50th is impossible.

10 to the 50th grains of sand would fill fifteen spheres the size of our solar system out to Pluto.
Now imagine a man in a space suit plunging into any one of 15 spheres the size of our solar system full of sand and picking the one specially marked grain of sand, on his first and only try.
He doesn't get an infinite number of attempts. This is 1 in 10 to the 50th, not infinite in 10 to the 50th.

Now let me explain why 1 in 10 to the 50th is impossible.

You don't have to explain why your fake number is impossible, you need to prove evolution is wrong.
With evidence.

Saying, unlikely times unlikely equals impossible.....isn't evidence.

Now imagine a man in a space suit plunging into any one of 15 spheres the size of our solar system full of sand and picking the one specially marked grain of sand, on his first and only try.

Now imagine millions of men over billions of years. Only try? LOL!

He doesn't get an infinite number of attempts.

He doesn't? Link?

 

[ChemEngineer]

View attachment 290723

You don't understand science. If Neo-Darwinism fails, as it does and very miserably, it must be abandoned, notwithstanding your emotional tantrums and diatribes and name-calling. No "alternative" is required.
Since when did failed science continue to be promoted and defended because no "better alternative" was offered? Only since 1859. Only since then. Your Magic Selection Wand is anti-science and anti-intellectual.
"It's fit because it survives and it survives because it's fit! Science in A>B>C>D Land.

"In China we can criticize evolution but not the government. In America, you can criticize the government but not evolution." - Prominent Chinese Paleontologist

 

[jwoodie]

Nice try, but the burden of proof is on the proponent of a theory. And your conclusory statements are not evidence of anything other then your limited state of mind.

As a corollary ... the opponent to a theory is burdened with stating a replacement that fits all the observed information ... if you wish to offer intelligent design, then what experiment can we conduct to show this? ... how does all the tiny changes in the terrestrial herbivore we find as we go up the rock strata "intelligently" produce whales ... or do you have evidence that whales have always existed ...

1. The opponent of a theory has no burden to come up with a replacement theory. If you believe the Moon is made of green cheese, I do not have no obligation to propose a different material.

2. Archeological records do not support the theory of gradual evolution from one species to another. They merely indicate the extinction of some species and appearance of other species. There is no evidence of a causal relationship between them.

3. Your reference to intelligent design is a straw man argument. I have merely pointed out that the currently popular theory of gradual evolution is fatally flawed, both in concept and physical evidence. For example, it was widely hailed when Copernicus suggested that everything in the universe revolved around the Sun, despite the fact that the Moon didn't seem to behave itself. Let us not assume we have all the answers.

I do not pretend to understand the mysteries of the universe, and am hesitant to attribute them to anthropological explanations. However, I am more inclined to support interventional events in the Earth's history (e.g., asteroids killing the dinosaurs) rather than highly unlikely statistical hypotheses (e.g., it just happens over millions of years).

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Nice try, but the burden of proof is on the proponent of a theory. And your conclusory statements are not evidence of anything other then your limited state of mind.

As a corollary ... the opponent to a theory is burdened with stating a replacement that fits all the observed information ... if you wish to offer intelligent design, then what experiment can we conduct to show this? ... how does all the tiny changes in the terrestrial herbivore we find as we go up the rock strata "intelligently" produce whales ... or do you have evidence that whales have always existed ...

1. The opponent of a theory has no burden to come up with a replacement theory. If you believe the Moon is made of green cheese, I do not have no obligation to propose a different material.

2. Archeological records do not support the theory of gradual evolution from one species to another. They merely indicate the extinction of some species and appearance of other species. There is no evidence of a causal relationship between them.

3. Your reference to intelligent design is a straw man argument. I have merely pointed out that the currently popular theory of gradual evolution is fatally flawed, both in concept and physical evidence. For example, it was widely hailed when Copernicus suggested that everything in the universe revolved around the Sun, despite the fact that the Moon didn't seem to behave itself. Let us not assume we have all the answers.

I do not pretend to understand the mysteries of the universe, and am hesitant to attribute them to anthropological explanations. However, I am more inclined to support interventional events in the Earth's history (e.g., asteroids killing the dinosaurs) rather than highly unlikely statistical hypotheses (e.g., it just happens over millions of years).

I have merely pointed out that the currently popular theory of gradual evolution is fatally flawed, both in concept and physical evidence.

In what post #?

 

[alang1216]

As usual, its most strident opponents endeavor to separate evolution from adaptation. Evolution is the result of adaptation. Evolution is a theory with (literally) mountains of direct evidence, gathered over centuries, to back it up. Its opponents are usually either too ignorant, too blinded by religion, or too lazy to evaluate the evidence for themselves and so depend on the word of others who are likewise either too ignorant, too blinded by religion, or too lazy to evaluate the evidence for themselves.

“WE CONCLUDE – UNEXPECTEDLY – that there is little evidence for the neo-Darwinian view: its theoretical foundations and the experimental evidence supporting it are weak.” – Department of Ecology and Evolution, University of Illinois, Chicago, The American Naturalist, November 1992

“I can think of no other example in all of history when an important scientific theory (Neo-Darwinism) – a dominant position in intellectual life – was held in such contempt and skepticism by people who are paying for its research. People just found that theory impossible to swallow.” – David Berlinski, 2008 lecture

All these ignorant, lazy, blinded people, with PhDs. Tsk, tsk.

In 1978, Gareth Nelson of the American Museum of Natural History wrote: “The idea that one can go to the fossil record and expect to empirically recover an ancestor-descendant sequence, be it of species, genera, families, or whatever, has been, and continues to be, a pernicious illusion.”

“I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When that happens, many people will pose the question, ‘How did that happen?’ – (Dr Soren Luthrip, Swedish embryologist)

If you continue calling them names, alang1216, perhaps you will convince all of these scientists of your intellectual superiority. Ya think? Does name calling and condescension convince people of "science"?
Is that how it works in your Leftist domain? Evidently so.


“My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed…..It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of paleobiological facts…The idea of an evolution rests on pure belief.”(Dr. Nils Herbert-Nilsson, noted Swedish botanist and geneticist, of Lund University)

“It is the sheer universality of perfection, the fact that everywhere we look, to whatever depth we look, we find an elegance and ingenuity of an absolutely transcending quality, which so mitigates against the idea of chance. Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which — a functional protein or gene — is complex beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man? Alongside the level of ingenuity and complexity exhibited by the molecular machinery of life, even our most advanced artefacts appear clumsy. We feel humbled, as neolithic man would in the presence of 20th century technology…” (Michael Denton, Evolution — A Theory in Crisis, p. 328).

“In the meantime, the educated public continues to believe that Darwin has provided all the relevant answers by the magic formula of random mutations plus natural selection—quite unaware of the fact that random mutations turned out to be irrelevant and natural selection tautology.” (Dr. Arthur Koestler)

“A growing number of respectable scientists are defecting from the evolutionist camp…..moreover, for the most part these “experts” have abandoned Darwinism, not on the basis of religious faith or biblical persuasions, but on strictly scientific grounds, and in some instances, regretfully.” (Dr. Wolfgang Smith, physicist and mathematician)

“It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student….have now been debunked.” (Dr. Derek V. Ager, Department of Geology, Imperial College, London)

“One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom, a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has not been written.” (Dr. Hubert P. Yockey)

As Ringel05 said:

The word itself is used much too broadly instead of how it was intended, "descent with modification."

I didn't bother to check your sources but I'm confident that the majority of the scientists you quote have no doubt that all life on earth descended from a common ancestor. How evolution happened is debatable, that it happened is not.

 

[Ringel05]

Attempting to prove God exists utilizing man's science is as foolish and fruitless as attempting to prove God doesn't exist utilizing man's science.

Nobody attempted to prove anything. It is foolish and fruitless to misunderstand science, as you so clearly do.
Science doesn't do "proofs." Statistical evidence was presented and obviously that upset you. It should not.

"Almost nothing is known for certain except in pure mathematics." - Carl Sagan, a scientist

Fantasizing?

 

[ReinyDays]

Stop trying to put words in my mouth. I never mentioned abiogenesis. That only makes your naturalistic claims even more impossible.

[Raises hand] ... that was me who brought up abiogenesis ... many processes in nature are required to be initiated, or they can't happen ... the two can't be separated ... we can't ignore abiogenesis any more than we can ignore vortices ... "it just happened" smacks of pseudo-science ...

1. If a model doesn't work, it must be abandoned. This you cannot do because your handlers have their snouts deep in the government grant trough.
2. "Science advances one funeral at a time." - Max Planck [Do you know who he was?]
3. Biochemistry is science. You should study it some time.
4. Explain the generation of a functional 1,000 link polypeptide, including chirality and lots of waving the Magic Wand of *Selection*. Keep in mind that Douglas Axe demonstrated that only 1 polypeptide in 10 to the 77th combinations is functional. Show us your science. I'm sure everyone will be impressed.

1. Throw the baby out with the bath water? ... if we find a flaw in a theory, we tweek the theory ... we don't throw out the Big Bang theory just because the universe's expansion is still accelerating ... we adjust the theory to match what is observed ...
2. "This experience gave me also an opportunity to learn a fact-a remarkable one, in my opinion: A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." -- Max Planck, 1948; translation Frank Gaynor, 1949 ... if you knew who Max Planck was, you'd know he published in German ...
3. Are you a biochemist? ... do you know what an enzyme is? ...
4. We just need few enzymes to produce all manner of polypeptides ... an enzyme is the same as a catalyst ... whatever roll it plays in the chemical reaction, it is returned whole to be used again for the next reaction ...

 

[alang1216]

2. Archeological records do not support the theory of gradual evolution from one species to another. They merely indicate the extinction of some species and appearance of other species. There is no evidence of a causal relationship between them.

It's not 'archeological' but I know what you meant and you're still wrong. The biology of the extinct species and the biology of the new species it the evidence of their relationship. New species don't just appear with no precursors. If they did we'd have vertebrates with any number of fingers or limbs. The wing of a bat and your arm has more than a causal relationship.