Evolutions' fatal flaw.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
A theory always has limitations. Evolution is a nice example. Its limitations?
It only works if life already exists.
So, it fails to explain the origin of life you cry.
Of course it does. That's beyond its limits.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

It wasn't ALWAYS THAT WAY BABY !!

When they realized that it ...[text shortened]... ordal soup bit kicking off Evolution.

Shhhhhhh! Let's not talk about that anymore.[/b]

You're talking utter rot. Where do you get these ridiculous ideas from?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
You're talking utter rot. Where do you get these ridiculous ideas from?

From the Urey-Miller (now discredited) experiment to demonstrate how life could be spontaneously produced from non living material.

And from Pastuer who demonstrated that spontaneous generation of life, though the prevailing assumption of Darwinists, was not responsible for organisms in his sterilized flask.

And from biochemist Klaus Dose who wrote that thirty years of research into the origin of life has led to:

"a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on Earth rather than to its solution. At present all discussions on principal theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance."

- "The Origin of Life: More Questions than Answers" Interdisciplinary Science Review 13 (1998) 348, quoted in Lee Stobel, The Case for Faith,Zondervan 2000, pg. 107

(cited from pg. 121 "I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Athiest" - Giesler and Turek)

It is my objective opinion from observation over a little more than 50 years, that Evolutionary theorists have distanced themselves more and more from origin of life issues. There was a time when the two topics were very much related.

My opinion is that it is a bit of historical revisionism to suggest that Evolutionists NEVER suggested any connection between spontaneous generation of life and the evolutionary process.

To be fair Origin of Species by Charles Darwin does make reference to the Creator. However it would be naive to suggest that many who believed his theory did not attempt spread the scope of the Evolutionary process over the emergence of life on earth.

Here is where Darwin, I admit, refers to a Creator of life:

"On the ordinary view of the independent creation of each being, we can only say that so it is; --- that it has pleased the Creator to construct all the animals and plants in each great class on a uniform plan; but this is not a scientific explanation." C. Darwin, On the Origin of Species, 1859, 6th Edition, 1910, Vol. II, pg. 233)

From the Urey-Miller (now discredited) experiment to demonstrate how life could be spontaneously produced from non living material.

An investigation into theories of abiogenesis. The theory of evolution by natural selection was not involved.

And from Pastuer who demonstrated that spontaneous generation of life, though the prevailing assumption of Darwinists, was not responsible for organisms in his sterilized flask.

Can you cite an evolutionary biologist or 'Darwinist' who ever claimed that microbial life was spontaneously generated? Doesn't sound like evolutionary thinking to me.

And from biochemist Klaus Dose who wrote that thirty years of research into the origin of life has led to:

"a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on Earth rather than to its solution. At present all discussions on principal theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance."

- "The Origin of Life: More Questions than Answers" Interdisciplinary Science Review 13 (1998) 348, quoted in Lee Stobel, The Case for Faith,Zondervan 2000, pg. 107


That doesn't say that he ever thought that evolution first kicked off life. He's just saying that it is a difficult problem to work out the processes that did start life.

It is my objective opinion from observation over a little more than 50 years, that Evolutionary theorists have distanced themselves more and more from origin of life issues. There was a time when the two topics were very much related.

My opinion is that it is a bit of historical revisionism to suggest that Evolutionists NEVER suggested any connection between spontaneous generation of life and the evolutionary process.

I can't see how anyone with a reasonable knowledge of evolution could suggest such a connection. Evolution by Natural Selection requires self-replicating structures. It will not work until they exist. Therefore how they came into existance is outside the scope of the theory.

Of course you can argue that 'self replicating structures' are not life. However, Evolution by Natural Selection does work once they exist and there is no theoretical problem why they should not then evolve into something that all would agree was life. However, I think you are saying that evolutionists used to say that Darwin's theory also described how the salf replicating structures came about.

I'm sure I asked for a reference to or quote of an evolutionist who said the first self replicators came into existence through evolution by natural selection the last time this came up and I'm equally sure I never saw an answer.

To be fair Origin of Species by Charles Darwin does make reference to the Creator. However it would be naive to suggest that many who believed his theory did not attempt spread the scope of the Evolutionary process over the emergence of life on earth.

Well it doesn't take much thought to realise that before one of the primary requirements was met, evolution by natural selection simply would not work so although they may have considered it, I doubt they would have done so for very long and I think you will have a hard time finding a quote.

Here is where Darwin, I admit, refers to a Creator of life:

"On the ordinary view of the independent creation of each being, we can only say that so it is; --- that it has pleased the Creator to construct all the animals and plants in each great class on a uniform plan; but this is not a scientific explanation." C. Darwin, On the Origin of Species, 1859, 6th Edition, 1910, Vol. II, pg. 233)

An interestting quote. If you read the surounding context, He's talking here about the way that similar basic structures have been adapted for different purposes in different animals, for example the forleg and front foot also being used as a wing (in birds and bats), a fin (in other birds such as penguins, and in aquatic mammals such as whales) and as an arm and hand (in the great apes including us).

As an aside, none of this discussion affects the basic theory and its scope, even if there was a period when it was thought to cover abiogenesis. If a theory is wrong or does not cover all the scenarios it is thought to cover, the scientific method, peer review and skeptical enquiry should expose its weaknesses, as happened with Newton's 'laws' of motion. This normally happens when somebody comes up with a more robust theory that that explains all that the original theory did and more.

--- Penguin.

Originally posted by jaywill
It is my objective opinion from observation over a little more than 50 years, that Evolutionary theorists have distanced themselves more and more from origin of life issues. There was a time when the two topics were very much related.

The two topics are still very much related and as far as I am aware most people who are doing research into the origin of life could be called 'Evolutionary theorists' and most people who could be called 'Evolutionary theorists' are interested in the origin of life. That doesn't in any way translate into you unfounded claim that The Theory of Evolution must explain the origin of life or was ever thought to be able to by any of its proponents.

Originally posted by twhitehead
The two topics are still very much related and as far as I am aware most people who are doing research into the origin of life could be called 'Evolutionary theorists' and most people who could be called 'Evolutionary theorists' are interested in the origin of life. That doesn't in any way translate into you unfounded claim that The Theory of Evolution must explain the origin of life or was ever thought to be able to by any of its proponents.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The two topics are still very much related and as far as I am aware most people who are doing research into the origin of life could be called 'Evolutionary theorists' and most people who could be called 'Evolutionary theorists' are interested in the origin of life.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


Why do you think they are interested ? Just a coincidence?


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
That doesn't in any way translate into you unfounded claim that The Theory of Evolution must explain the origin of life or was ever thought to be able to by any of its proponents.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

If laboratory life synthesis could be achieved in the future would you consider this helpful to the theory of evolution or detrimental?


Or would you consider it benighly irrelevant?

Originally posted by Penguin
[b]From the Urey-Miller (now discredited) experiment to demonstrate how life could be spontaneously produced from non living material.

An investigation into theories of abiogenesis. The theory of evolution by natural selection was not involved.

And from Pastuer who demonstrated that spontaneous generation of life, though the prevailing assump explains all that the original theory did [i]and more.

--- Penguin.

"When abiogenesis comes up in the course of creation/evolution debates, darwinists sometimes object that "abiogenesis is a non-issue, and has nothing to do with evolution, because evolution only occurs with already living things."


Not true. --There is a scientific term --"pre-biotic evolution"-- which concerns evolution of non-living biochemicals leading up to the development of the first life-form.

And if abiogenesis is such a "non-issue," then why do Dawkins, Gould and many other major darwinists trouble themselves to explain how it must have happened?
Why such excited headlines over the possible evidence of life on a Mars rock?
Why all the money and effort spent by SETI, NASA (recently on the Mars Rover probes), a probe to Saturn's moon, and many others to find life (and/or conditions for its abiogenesis) in space? (...or to find water, which --to some-- makes abiogenesis an easily assumed result). This is admittedly NASA's main reason for the effort.
And why does every newly discovered planet (or moon) that might have (or does have) water on it cause such a hopeful stir (such as the March 2006 discovery of water geysers on Saturn's moon "Enceladus" ...called "the greatest space discovery in 25 years"😉?

For sure, abiogenesis is a big issue, alright, because materialists (who believe that matter alone is real --and not any intelligent Creator) need a materialist explanation for the origin of life, which supposedly then evolves to higher forms. The late Carl Sagan once said that if only one planet has life on it, that could be a miracle; but if there is life on two, it proves life to be a natural evolutionary process, and atheists can "sleep soundly."


Copied without permission from
http://www.accessexcellence.org/RC/miller.html

The wink is a typo. I don't know how that happens.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
A theory always has limitations. Evolution is a nice example. Its limitations?
It only works if life already exists.
So, it fails to explain the origin of life you cry.
Of course it does. That's beyond its limits.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

It wasn't ALWAYS THAT WAY BABY !!

When they realized that it ...[text shortened]... ordal soup bit kicking off Evolution.

Shhhhhhh! Let's not talk about that anymore.[/b]

But surely every theory (apart from the theory of everything, not yet extant) has limitations. So, if having limitations is sufficient reason to abandon every theory (but one), then we could have theories at all-- which would rather impair our capacity to understand, now, wouldn't it?

Consider the theory that God so loved the world that He sent His only Son to die for our sins. This theory doesn't explain where God came from, does it? To paraphrase, "it only works if God already exists."

So, should we conclude that the incarnational theory has a fatal flaw, on the same grounds that you conclude evolution has a fatal flaw?

I know how much you value consistent reasoning.

But surely every theory (apart from the theory of everything, not yet extant) has limitations. So, if having limitations is sufficient reason to abandon every theory (but one), then we could have theories at all-- which would rather impair our capacity to understand, now, wouldn't it?

I do not think the theory of evolution should be totally abandoned. I think they may be onto something. I do think they should stop saying "We're the only pebbles on the beach. And any other theory is not scientific."

But for the record I don't think Evo Theory should be totally abandoned. I prefer it when they admit that it is a theory and not preach it as fact.


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Consider the theory that God so loved the world that He sent His only Son to die for our sins. This theory doesn't explain where God came from, does it? To paraphrase, "it only works if God already exists."
++++++++++++++++++++

In the book of Ephesians we see that before the creation of the universe God had a plan to have sons. Before the foundation of the world it was God's good pleasure to have sons of God who would share His life and nature.


Christ's coming therefore fits in with this pre-creation eternal plan of God.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
So, should we conclude that the incarnational theory has a fatal flaw, on the same grounds that you conclude evolution has a fatal flaw?

I know how much you value consistent reasoning.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++

Well, when I originally posed Life's Origin as a fatal flaw to Evolution, I did so in the form of a question. In other words if there was a fatal flaw this is what I would propose was that flaw.

I think this is realized by Evolutionists themselves to the point that they more and more distance themselves as Evolutionists from that subject.

All the while, just in case, they're darn interested to keep an eye out on "pre-biotic evolution". Materialism demands a naturalistic first cause of life.

Folks like Evolutionists Stanley Miller and Richard Dawkins would be the first make the loudest victory shout of "We TOLD YOU SO !!!" if ever a lab CAN produce life.

Please don't insult my intelligence by suggesting Abiogenesis has a benigh and inconsequential relationship to the verification of Evolution theory.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]But surely every theory (apart from the theory of everything, not yet extant) has limitations. So, if having limitations is sufficient reason to abandon every theory (but one), then we could have theories at all-- which would rather impair our capacity to understand, now, wouldn't it?

I do not think the theory of evolution should be total ...[text shortened]... enigh and inconsequential relationship to the verification of Evolution theory.[/b]

The theory of evolution, being about *evolution*, is not a theory about how life first emerged, but a theory about what factors shape life through successive generations.

The theory of abiogenesis, being about *abiogenesis*, is not theory about factors shape life through successive generations, but a theory about how life first emerged.

Hence, because they are about different things, there can be evidence for one that is not for the other, and evidence against one that is not against the other.

Very simple really.

Originally posted by jaywill

Why do you think they are interested ? Just a coincidence?

Because it's an interesting topic which the common man finds extremely important for religious reasons?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Because it's an interesting topic which the common man finds extremely important for religious reasons?

I agree. And not just "religious" people but people searching for the truth.

And some people, who happen to be scientific minded, also feel that the truth will be found in a comprehensive Evolutionary process which covers both pre-biotic and biotic history.

I have nothing against people hungering to know what is the truth about man.

Sir J. William Dawson wrote in [b]Modern Ideas of Evolution, 1890, reprinted in 1977, page 22:

"Evolution sometimes professes to explain the origin of things; but of this it knows absolutely nothing. Evolution can take place only where there is something to be evolved, and something out of which it can be evolved, with adequate causes for the evolution. This is admitted in terms by Darwin and his followers, but constantly overlooked in their reasoning, in which evolution is spoken of as if it were, or could be, an efficient cause. The title Origin of Species was itself a misnomer as used by Darwin. The book treated not of origin of species, but of the transmutations of species already in existence."

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
The theory of evolution, being about *evolution*, is not a theory about how life first emerged, but a theory about what factors shape life through successive generations.

The theory of abiogenesis, being about *abiogenesis*, is not theory about factors shape life through successive generations, but a theory about how life first emerged.

Hence, bec ...[text shortened]... ot for the other, and evidence against one that is not against the other.

Very simple really.

Sir J. William Dawson wrote in Modern Ideas of Evolution, 1890, reprinted in 1977, page 22:

"Evolution sometimes professes to explain the origin of things; but of this it knows absolutely nothing. Evolution can take place only where there is something to be evolved, and something out of which it can be evolved, with adequate causes for the evolution. This is admitted in terms by Darwin and his followers, but constantly overlooked in their reasoning, in which evolution is spoken of as if it were, or could be, an efficient cause. The title Origin of Species was itself a misnomer as used by Darwin. The book treated not of origin of species, but of the transmutations of species already in existence."

[My emphasis]

Point being, that in the past Evolutionists did, as I say, speak often about Evolution as a cause of life as even though in theory, they claimed they were not doing so.

The shift away from origins came gradually. Don't try to revize history to say that Evolution was never about origins of life.

Originally posted by jaywill
Sir J. William Dawson wrote in Modern Ideas of Evolution, 1890, reprinted in 1977, page 22:

"Evolution sometimes professes to explain the origin of things; but of this it knows absolutely nothing. Evolution can take place only where there is something to be evolved, and something out of which it can be evolved, with adequate causes for the evolution. Thi ...[text shortened]... gradually. Don't try to revize history to say that Evolution was never about origins of life.

I hope you will compete in the next round of the sermon competition. Its theme is "fire and brimstone".

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]"When abiogenesis comes up in the course of creation/evolution debates, darwinists sometimes object that "abiogenesis is a non-issue, and has nothing to do with evolution, because evolution only occurs with already living things."


Not true. --There is a scientific term --"pre-biotic evolution"-- which concerns evolution of non-living biochemicals lea ...[text shortened]... nce.org/RC/miller.html

The wink is a typo. I don't know how that happens.

My apologies. I think I provided the incorrect link to this statement.

I think it was another link which I must re-find.

I apologies.

Originally posted by jaywill
Sir J. William Dawson wrote in Modern Ideas of Evolution, 1890, reprinted in 1977, page 22:

"Evolution sometimes professes to explain the origin of things; but of this it knows absolutely nothing. Evolution can take place only where there is something to be evolved, and something out of which it can be evolved, with adequate causes for the evolution. Thi gradually. Don't try to revize history to say that Evolution was never about origins of life.

Erm, just reading your quote, that guy isn't an evolutionist.

The rest of your post is therefore irrelevant.

[edit; and there is a HUGE difference between the origin of SPECIES and the origin of LIFE. Are you really so thick as to not be able to see the difference?]