Evidence Disproving Evolution

myself | 10/11/02 | gore3000

[gore3000]

Evidence Disproving Evolution

The basis of a valid scientific theory is that it be able to explain all the scientific data in the field it is concerned with and that no evidence contradicting the theory be true. This is a harsh test, but one which all legitimate scientific theories must pass. This is a test which the theory of evolution has failed in spades as the following abundantly shows.

Religion and Science:

Access Research Network Discovery Institute -- Origins -- Creation Science -- Creation/Evolution Sites -- Creation & Evolution Links from the Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness (IDEA) Club -- True Origins -- Answers in Genesis -- Faith Facts -- Center for Renewal of Science and Culture -- Center for Scientific Creation -- Creation Research Society -- Biblical Creation Society -- Christian Apologetics -- Institute for Creation Research

"It is interesting to contemplate an entangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent on each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us. These laws, taken in the largest sense, being Growth with Reproduction; Inheritance which is almost implied by reproduction; Variability from the indirect and direct action of the external conditions of life, and from use and disuse;. a Ratio of Increase so high as to lead to a Struggle for Life, and as a consequence to Natural Selection, entailing Divergence of Character and the Extinction of less-improved forms. Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows evolution." From: Charles Darwin, "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life"

Intelligent Design:
Darwin's Mistake by Stu Pullen -- Rebuttals of Criticisms of Darwin's Black Box -- Dembski - Another Way to Detect Design -- Behe, Michael J. - ARN Authors Page -- Leadership U. Designer Universe: Intelligent Design Theory of Origins -- Flagellar Structure and regulated transcription of flagellar genes -- Dr. Lee Spetner's continued exchange with Dr. Edward E. Max -- Intelligent Design Research Community -- Intelligent Design Theory Resources -- Intelligent Design. The bridge between science and theology. (William Dembski). -- Evolution vs Creation (Intelligent Design) WorldView -- Detailed defense of "Icons" by Wells -- Dembski on Intelligent Design -- Dembski: No Free Lunch -- Behe's Book -- A True Acid Test:Response to Ken Miller : Behe, Michael -- Intelligent Design Articles -- Phillip Johnson's Page -- Ohio Science Standards - IDN	A Moment in History... That a maker is required for anything that is made is a lesson Sir Isaac Newton was able to teach forcefully to an atheist-scientist friend of his. Sir Isaac had an accomplished artisan fashion for him a small scale model of our solar system which was to be put in a room in Newton?s home when completed. The assignment was finished and installed on a large table. The workman had done a very commendable job, simulating not only the various sizes of the planets and their relative proximities, but also so constructing the model that everything rotated and orbited when a crank was turned. It was an interesting, even fascinating work, as you can image, particularly to anyone schooled in the sciences. Newton's atheist-scientist friend came by for a visit. Seeing the model, he was naturally intrigued, and proceeded to examine it with undisguised admiration for the high quality of the workmanship. "My! What an exquisite thing this is!? he exclaimed. "Who made it?? Paying little attention to him, Sir Isaac answered, "Nobody." Stopping his inspection, the visitor turned and said: "Evidently you did not understand my question. I asked who made this. Newton, enjoying himself immensely no doubt, replied in a still more serious tone. "Nobody. What you see just happened to assume the form it now has." "You must think I am a fool!? the visitor retorted heatedly, "Of course somebody made it, and he is a genius, and I would like to know who he is." Newton then spoke to his friend in a polite yet firm way: "This thing is but a puny imitation of a much grander system whose laws you know, and I am not able to convince you that this mere toy is without a designer and maker; yet you profess to believe that the great original from which the design is taken has come into being without either designer or maker! Now tell me by what sort of reasoning do you reach such an incongruous conclusion?" From: Sir Isaac Newton Solar System Story, "The Truth: God or evolution?" by Marshall and Sandra Hall

Biology Disproving Evolution
Alternative Splicing -- Scientists snap first 3-D pictures of the "heart" of the transcription machine -- Molecular Biology Book -- Cell Interactions in Development -- Oldest Living Plant -- Fruit Flies Speak Up -- The Nature of Nurture: How the environment shapes our genes -- Nanobes (Nanobacteria) are crystals -- Regulation of the Cell Cycle 2001 Nobel Prize -- Amniota - Problems with the Philogeny of -- Basic Principles of Genetics Mendel's Genetics -- Photosynthesis -- Population Variability and Evolutionary Genetics -- Fossil Hominids mitochondrial DNA -- Genetics Glossary AB -- Genomics and Its Impact on Medicine and Society 2001 Primer -- The molecular clock -- Cell Signaling: The Inside Story on MAP Kinases -- Protein Synthesis -- Watching genes at work -- Cell snapshot spots cancer -- Development protein atracts and then repels muscle tissue -- Evolution of the Genomes of Mammals and Birds -- Gene Silencing - Study shows plants inherit traits from more than gene sequence alone -- Gene silencing - Environmental Stress reactions -- Bio-Tech Info - Gene Silencing Articles -- Advances In "Micro" RNA Exploring Process Of Life -- Monkeys and Men - gene expression -- Chimps, Humans and Retroviruses -- Gene activity in human brain sets us apart from chimps -- Pros and Cons of Inbreeding -- Inbreeding and desth of species -No Need to Isolate Genetics -- How Organisms Protect Themselves Against Transposons -- Uses of transposons -- Cell Suicide -- Protein Transforms Sedentary Muscles Into Exercised Muscles, Researchers Report -- Gene insertion in Transgenic Animals -- "50,000 Genes, and We Know Them All (Almost)"	While evolution continues to tell us that species transform themselves in a simple almost magical manner, modern biology shows this not to be the case. Organisms are so complex that for them to transform themselves into different ones would require a theory of COevolution. The random processes assumed by evolutionary theory deny such a possibility. Genes are just information encoded along a long string of the chemical DNA; they cannot do anything themselves. David Baltimore, Nobel Prize Winner

Mutations:
A Scientific Defense of a Creationist Position on Evolution -- Evolutionist View of Evolutionary Biology -- Creation, Selection, And Variation -- Population Genetics, Haldane's Dilemma and the Neutral Theory of Evolution -- Haldane Rebuttal -- Point_Mutations -- Inbreeding and Population Genetics -- Introduction to Evolutionary Biology -- Neutral Mutations -- Computational Geneticists Revisit A Mystery In Evolution -- Mutations - organisms fixes them itself -- Mutations	Funny thing about mutations, it is almost impossible for them to spread throughout a species. In addition, mutations which either transform a species into another or which add any kind of greater complexity have not been seen in spite of the daily experimentation going on in thousands of research labs daily.

Junk DNA:
The Human Genome Project -- Junk DNA in man and mouse -- Junk DNA - Over 95 percent of DNA has largely unknown function -- JUNK dna and transpositions -- Junk DNA Tips Off Tumor Comeback -- Transgenics, Junk DNA, Evolution and Risks: Reading Through Rows	Evolutionists are always making assumptions. They assumed that the tonsils and the appendix were remnants of previous species from which humans had evolved and were totally useless. They were wrong about that. When the human genome was sequenced and it was found that only 5% of it was used in genes they immediately assumed that the 95% not in genes was 'junk'. They were wrong again of course. The now called 'non-coding' DNA is the source of what makes humans tick and a marvel of creation in itself.

Abiogenesis:
RNA World: A Critique -- Evolution and the Origin of Life -- Thermodynamics and the Origin of Life - Part II -- The Mystery of Life's Origin -- Message Theory/Remine -- Bruce Lipton, Insight Into Cellular Consciousness	There is a tremendous amount of proof against abiogenesis. First of all is Pasteur's proof that life does not come from inert matter (and this was of course at one time the prediction of materialists). Then came the discovery of DNA and the chemical basis of organisms. This poses a totally insurmountable problem to abiogenesis. The smallest living cells has a DNA string of some one million base pairs long and some 600 genes, even cutting this number by a quarter as the smallest possible living cell would give us a string of some 250,000 base pairs of DNA. It is important to note here that DNA can be arranged in any of the four basic codes equally well, there is no chemical or other necessity to the sequence. The chances of such an arrangement arising are therefore 4^250,000. Now the number of atoms in the universe is said to be about 4^250. I would therefore call 4^250,000 an almost infinitely impossible chance (note that the supposition advanced that perhaps it was RNA that produced the first life has this same problem). The problem though is even worse than that. Not only do you need two (2) strings of DNA perfectly matched to have life, but you also need a cell so that the DNA code can get the material to sustain that life. It is therefore a chicken and egg problem, you cannot have life without DNA (or RNA if one wants to be generous) but one also has to have the cell itself to provide the nutrients for the sustenance of the first life. Add to this problem that for the first life to have been the progenitor of all life on earth, it necessarily needs to have been pretty much the same as all life now on earth is, otherwise it could not have been the source of the life we know. Given all these considerations, yes, abiogenesis is impossible.

Darwin and His Theory:
Charles Darwin - The Truth -- Darwin's Racism -- Darwi n's Family -- Malthus and evolutionists -- Darwin's Environment -- Darwin, Racism, Evil -- Ascent of Racism -- Talk.Origins and the Darwin/Hitler Test -- Darwin's finches Evolution in real time -- Effects of the 1998 El Niño on Darwins finches on Daphne -- Punctuated Equilibrium at Twenty -- Homology A Concept in Crisis. Origins & Design 182. Wells, Jonathan -- Darwin's Creation Myth -- David Berlinsky 'The Deniable Darwin	Evolutionists try to paint Darwin as a quiet scientist working hard on writing his theory. However, this is a totally false statement. Yes, he was a recluse. However, he was neither a scintist not a very nice person as the following quote shows: With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed. From: Charles Darwin, "The Descent of Man", Chapter V.

Evolutionist Censorship:
Scientists Censored for Publicly Exposing Flaws in Evolution - Suite101.com -- Science and Fairness -- Duane Gish Responds to Joyce Arthur's Critique -- Do Creationists Publish in Notable Refereed Journals? -- Censorship of Information on Origins -- Professor Rigid on Evolution (must "believe" to get med school rec)	Evolutionists almost since the start have tried to silence opponents. While they constantly claim to be scientists, it seems that instead of following the principles of science - questioning, discussion, and challenging of existing theories, they follow the principles of ideology - silencing and destroying opponents.

Species Disproving Evolution:

Morphology of the Archaea -- Humans Are Three Percent Puffer Fish -- JGI Fugu v2.0 Home -- Cyanobacteria not changed in 4 billion years -- Platypus -- Platypus Web Sites -- Eosimias ankle bone proves human descent! -- euglena -- Textbook Fraud: Hyracotherium dawn horse eohippus, mesohippus, meryhippus -- - On the Alleged Dinosaurian Ancestry of Birds - -- Fruit Flies Disprove Darwin -- Hymenopimecis Wasp: Parasite's web of death -- Haploid False Spider Mites -- Cambrian Explosion: Biology's Big Bang -- Cambrian Explosion: Origin of the Phyla -- Kangaroo and platypus not related

Top: Euglena, Hymenopimesis Wasp, Butterfly, Platypus Bottom: Bat, Fugu, Cambrian species

Various Topics:
A Critique of '29 Evidences for Macroevolution' -- Blind Atheist -- Freeper Views on Origins -- Freeper Views on Origins - Patriarchs -- Creation/Evolution Debate -- Homology -- 15 Answers to John Rennie and SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN's Nonsense (by Bert Thompson and Brad Harrub> -- Sir Karl Popper "Science as Falsification," 1963 -- Pope John Paul II: Truth Cannot Contradict Truth (Statement on Evolution - 1996) -- Evolution Shams -- A Critique of PBS's Evolution -- Evolution of a Creationist -- Evolution, Creation, and Thermodynamics -- God, Humanity and the Cosmos Book Section Evolutionary Biology and Theology -- The Revolution Against Evolution -- Sexual Reproduction A Continuing Mystery to Evolutionists -- Splifford FAQ (How talk.origins and sci.bio.evolution really work -- Mathematics vs Evolution -- Evolution vs Logic -- Natural Selection an Agency of Stasis, not Change -- Evolution as Anti-Science -- Critique of Gould -- Radiocarbon dating things which should not radiocarbon date... -- Evolution or Christianity -- Funding for Evolution -- Scientists find biological reality behind religious experience [Free Republic] -- Doctors increasingly find introducing prayer helps calm patients and speeds recovery -- The healing power of prayer. -- There is power in prayer [Free Republic] -- Micro vs Macroevolution -- Science Design Kit -- 50 Reasons to Leave Evolutionism -- The Evolution of Truth -- Fossils and dating -- - Talk.Origins: Deception by Omission -- Talk Origins - FAQ or Fiction? -- McCluskey, E. S. --- Which Vertebrates Make Vitamin C? -- Vitamin c Pseudogene -- Snapshots of God -- Critics of Evolution - Book Reviews	While evolution claims to explain the descent of one species from another, it has never been able to do so. The original explanation for how evolution transforms species, natural selection, has things backwards. Natural selection kills, it does not create anything. For evolution to be true it needed to propose a creative force which would have been able to add new traits, new functions to the simplest creatures and gradually transform them into more complex ones. The original proposal by Darwin, the melding of features from the parents, did not answer this problem, nor does the more modern version of the exchange of genetic information that occurs in procreation. Such methods do not add any information either, they just reshuffle the information which already exists in the species. Clearly this cannot be the source of increased complexity either. With the re-discovery of genetics in the 20th Century, the Darwinists finally accepted the incorrectness of the melding theory and proposed mutations as the agent of creation of new information. They ran into the problem that with individuals receiving half their genes from each parent and half the genes of each parent being passed on to the progeny, the chances of a new mutation, even one which might be favorable, had not only a very small chance of surviving more than a few generations, but also had an almost impossible chance of spreading throughout a species. They therefore proposed that most mutations were neutral ones and by gradual accumulation they would change the species. This explanation did not even solve the problem of how difficult it was for any mutation to survive, let alone spread throughout a species. The discovery of DNA made the above possibility, already quite unlikely and totally unproven, just about totally impossible. The high complexity of a gene and more importantly experiments showing that changing even one of the thousand DNA bases of a gene are likely to destroy functioning completely and are extremely unlikely to enhance it, presented another serious problem for evolution. This was 'solved' by proposing that gene duplication would create new functions without destroying necessary functioning. Of course, as before, this was only theory and no experimental proof of it was found to support it. The same problem of it being hard to change a gene favorably applied to such genes, the only explanatory gain was that incorrect mutations would not be deadly. Even then, this was insufficient explanation for the transformation of species. Similar genes, which are fairly common, only accomplish similar functions. The vast changes required for complete species transformation, are unexplainable without the creation of totally new genes. With the discovery that genes themselves are just factories and are controlled by other DNA in the organism, and that a single gene often produces many proteins, this explanation was rendered inadequate. Now a new function, which was already known to most likely require more than a single new gene, would require a whole complex of DNA outside the gene to make it work when and if needed. This makes the evolutionary explanation of random, non-directed species change totally untenable and indeed biologists are beginning to call the developmental process of an organism a program. Like all programs, those for life are not made at random.

[gore3000]

On an anti-freeper site(LF) there was an explanation...'racists' remarks on another FR thread!

Interesting! Uhmm an evolutionist kicked out for being a racist! Wonder who he got such ideas from????

[gore3000]

Martin Luther's dirty little book.:

While you constantly claim that evolution is science, you never like to discuss whether evolution is science or not. Instead you delight in Christian bashing. Methinks my statement that evolution is merely an excuse for legitimizing atheism and for trying to turn good Christians into atheists is perfectly correct.

[gore3000]

Here's an interesting quote from Chapter II:

With kine and horses, Kurnus! we proceed By reasonable rules, and choose a breed For profit and increase at any price: Of a sound stock, without defect or vice. But, in the daily matches that we make, The price is everything: for money's sake, Men marry: women are in marriage given The churl or ruffian, that in wealth has thriven, May match his offspring with the proudest race: Thus everything is mix'd, noble and base! If then in outward manner, form, and mind, You find us a degraded, motley kind, Wonder no more, my friend! the cause is plain, And to lament the consequence is vain.
(The Works of J. Hookham Frere, vol. ii., 1872, p. 334.)

Note the hypocrisy above. Darwin decries his own behavior of marrying for money.

[VadeRetro]

Anyone with a brain could see that that isn't Darwin's "voice" in that passage. In this case, I guess I'll have to explain it to you.

You seem to have missed the introduction to that paragraph:

The Grecian poet, Theognis, who lived 550 B. C., clearly saw how important selection, if carefully applied, would be for the improvement of mankind. He saw, likewise, that wealth often checks the proper action of sexual selection. He thus writes ...

He's describing who knew what about the effects of selection and when. As I told betty boop, I see a curious and observant mind of 131 years ago pondering the origin of mankind.

I also see typical cretinist quote-scholarship in your citation.

[Junior]

That's a pretty vague quote to "prove" he wasn't an evolutionist, isn't it? And, to top it off it's a 21-year-old vague quote. Do you have anything more recent? The biological sciences have advanced light years in the last two decades.

[PatrickHenry]

Do you have anything more recent? The biological sciences have advanced light years in the last two decades.

I think I see the problem with these "quote-mining" operations. Some of it, obviously, is pure dishonesty, by people who know better. But I suspect that most of it is done by people who are clueless that old texts become superseded by new information, and old opinions become superseded by revised opinions -- often by the same people who wrote the old opinions.

This "all quotes are equal" approach to scholarship could have its roots in bible study. After all, it's quite common to dig into the scriptures and pull out something that supports one's position. We all do this. All scripture quotes are good quotes, and religious folk routinely "quote mine" the bible. That makes sense -- with the bible -- because it's a closed work, and everything relevant to what it discusses is to be found within its covers.

But the study of science is entirely different. Science-minded people understand that new information is constantly piling up, which often renders even recent books obsolete. I suspect that many creationists simply don't grasp the situation.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

This is how they were designed by their creator.

But if species were designed at random by the creator, where are the 3 billion year-old human fossils? Where are the flying primates? Where are the underwater ant colonies? Where are the ground dwelling fish?

If species are created at random, why don't these exist? Don't tell me you're waiting for evidence of these to be discovered? That's what evolutionists do.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Twin brothers, fetuses in their mother's womb, enjoy their carefree life. Their world is dark and warm and protected.

Thanks. I like that story. I haven't heard it in a long time.

But I feel like I've come full circle. About a year and a half ago when I registered on FR, I kept trying to say that this argument seems to keep cycling because Creationist/ID'ers want to talk about theology, whereas evos want to talk about science, which in my mind is a lower level knowledge.

When evos talk about species they want to talk about what things look like and the current guesses about them. Creationist/ID'ers want to start from a faith-based world view and work back. While science can be informed by faith (many big time scientists were), the knowledge involved still needs to proceed from what can be observed and/or demonstrated.

A perfect example of what goes wrong when science is narrowly based on scripture is the Arab world. While they were able to briefly make use of knowledge absorbed from conquered civilizations, they never really went anywhere with it. They are now almost completely dependent on others for technology.

Given the tendency of religious factions to splinter (250 Christian churches in the US alone), its makes sense to me to allow science to be the low level exercise it is and allow people of faith to participate in it. We are already at a point where embryos can be designed in vitro and implanted into a woman to be grown. Within the next 50 to 100 years, there will be a lot of very strange possibilities for what can be done with people and its imperative that people of faith participate in this process, otherwise anything can happen. Most of it bad.

By opting out of the scientific process, people of faith will be unemployable in many areas of science and be isolated from a decision making role.

[gore3000]

Anyone with a brain could see that that isn't Darwin's "voice" in that passage.

You don't need a brain in fact, you just need to read that he is quoting someone else - to support his viewpoint. So yes, he agrees with the statement and used it as part of his theory. Darwin's racism, eugenics and other despicable traits are to be found everywhere in his works.

It is absolutely ridiculous for evolutionists to constantly assert that people write stuff in their books which they do not mean. No one put a gun on their heads and force them to write it.

[balrog666]

We'll be interested to learn of your fate as you try to colonize Jupiter or a magnetic star some day.

Changing the playing field? How like a gore3k. Why not just suggest the Earth was in orbit around Saturn?

In one direction or another, perhaps.

No "perhaps" about it, no mystery about it, no "miracle", it's happened a hundred times before.

[Phaedrus]

Well, Johnson is a lawyer and not a biologist, so anything he has to say on evolution should be taken in that light.

And, as was shown by Gertrude Himmelfarb, Darwin was not a scienctist. In any event, specialists do not dominate my world. They have their own agenda.

[AndrewC]

Of course you wouldn't mention his quotes actually came from Mein Kampf, would you, as that might destroy what little credibility you could salvage from your position.

Ummm... Are you blind or is it that you have difficulty reading?

From my post followed by PH's reference.

Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler

Volume One - A Reckoning
Chapter XI: Nation and Race

---

"For God's will gave men their form, their essence and their abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the Lord's creation, the divine will." Mein Kampf, by Adolf Hitler, Volume 2, Chapter 10.

Where is your credibility?

[AndrewC]

By opting out of the scientific process, people of faith will be unemployable in many areas of science and be isolated from a decision making role.

Well, there is your problem. You like the Darwininians consider anything, I repeat anything, outside of the Darwinian conception as non-science. Read Dr. James Shapiro, and/or you might actually read some of the links that Gore3000 has provided. Such as this one

UGA STUDY OF CELL ELEMENTS CALLED RETROVIRUSES SHOWS THAT HUMAN-SPECIFIC VARIETY DEVELOPED WHEN HUMANS, CHIMPS DIVERGED

The discovery that human-specific retroviruses emerged at the same time other researchers believe humans and chimps diverged was startling. Equally interesting, however was the discovery that the oldest subfamily of HERV elements is closely related and gave rise to the youngest and most recently active group of these elements. This suggests, the authors say, that "ancient families of HERVs may be capable of retaining the potential for biological activity over long spans of evolutionary time."

Interest in retroelements, which McDonald has been studying for more than a decade, has been growing recently. In a paper published last December in Nature Genetics, two researchers from Tufts University, Jennifer Hughes and John Coffin, identified 23 new members of the HERV-K group — the assemblage thought to contain the most recently active members. They found that at least 16 percent of those elements had undergone rearrangements that resulted in large-scale "deletions, duplications, and chromosome reshuffling during the evolution of the human genome."

The widespread presence of these viral elements led Coffin to tell one science magazine that humans probably have "more viruses in our genes than genes in our genes."

Just how these retroviral elements have moved around in the human genome and possibly changed organisms at the morphological level remains speculative. But there is increasing evidence that they may have been — and may still be — a driving force between evolution at the cellular and organismal levels.

[Junior]

You were going on about StarDestroyer.net, as if that source impeached anything relevant to the discussion.

[AndrewC]

You were going on about StarDestroyer.net, as if that source impeached anything relevant to the discussion.

I was returning the favor for someone's attack on me when I posted something from either AIG or ICR which had the genome size on it. I also posted a link from GENE-something or other as corroboration. I was pilloried for daring to post the truth from the "religious" site. What goes around comes around. Learn to read.

[VadeRetro]

The full English-translated text of Mein Kampf is on the web in a couple of sites. But then the web is such an impeachable source ...

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Read Dr. James Shapiro, and/or you might actually read some of the links that Gore3000 has provided.

I don't see anything non-Darwinian here.

I've read some of gore3000's links, but I don't see anything non-Darwinian there amidst some of the other stuff either. RNA and DNA viruses, prions and other DNA transfer mechanisms have been recognized as having a role in mutations for several years. That's why we built manufacturing processes utilizing them.

[AndrewC]

You were going on about StarDestroyer.net, as if that source impeached anything relevant to the discussion.

In any case, both quotes of Herr Schickelgruber were from "My Struggle/Battle/Tiff/Hissyfit" and therefore the source is of no consequence. However, two things are evident. The first is that PH's quote of the "Gruber" relates to the "creation" of life not how it changes.
("For God's will gave men their form, their essence and their abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the Lord's creation, the divine will." )
It mentions nothing of the mechanism. Which my quote does.
(In both cases, Nature looks on calmly, with satisfaction, in fact. In the struggle for daily bread all those who are weak and sickly or less determined succumb, while the struggle of the males for the female grants the right or opportunity to propagate only to the healthiest. And struggle is always a means for improving a species' health and power of resistance and, therefore, a cause of its higher development. It also has Darwin written all over it.)
Thus if it is relevant to the evolution debate then so is abiogenisis.

Secondly, if both views of "Herr Schick" are melded into one view nearly named previously on this forum, it would designate a "Theistic Darwinian Evolutionist", a dangerously close position to yours. But I think you can safely relate that Herr Schickelgruber's shadow rarely if ever wended its way into the holy places for purpose of worship. And the mouthings of this beast relating to the wishes of God were the ramblings of a non-believer whose purpose was the imposition of Master Race Darwinian ideal on the world making him purely a "Darwinian Evolutionist".

[AndrewC]

I don't see anything non-Darwinian here.

Well then Dr James Shapiro is huffing and puffing about nothing.

A Third Way

What significance does an emerging interface between biology and information science hold for thinking about evolution? It opens up the possibility of addressing scientifically rather than ideologically the central issue so hotly contested by fundamentalists on both sides of the Creationist-Darwinist debate: Is there any guiding intelligence at work in the origin of species displaying exquisite adaptations that range from lambda prophage repression and the Krebs cycle through the mitotic apparatus and the eye to the immune system, mimicry, and social organization? Borrowing concepts from information science, new schools of evolutionists can begin to rephrase virtually intractable global questions in terms amenable to computer modelling and experimentation. We can speculate what some of these more manageable questions might be: How can molecular control circuits be combined to direct the expression of novel traits? Do genomes display characteristic system architectures that allow us to predict phenotypic consequences when we rearrange DNA sequence components? Do signal transduction networks contribute functional information as they regulate the action of natural genetic engineering hardware?

Questions like those above will certainly prove to be naive because we are just on the threshold of a new way of thinking about living organisms and their variations. Nonetheless, these questions serve to illustrate the potential for addressing the deep issues of evolution from a radically different scientific perspective. Novel ways of looking at longstanding problems have historically been the chief motors of scientific progress. However, the potential for new science is hard to find in the Creationist-Darwinist debate. Both sides appear to have a common interest in presenting a static view of the scientific enterprise. This is to be expected from the Creationists, who naturally refuse to recognize science's remarkable record of making more and more seemingly miraculous aspects of our world comprehensible to our understanding and accessible to our technology. But the neo-Darwinian advocates claim to be scientists, and we can legitimately expect of them a more open spirit of inquiry. Instead, they assume a defensive posture of outraged orthodoxy and assert an unassailable claim to truth, which only serves to validate the Creationists' criticism that Darwinism has become more of a faith than a science.

[AndrewC]

But I think you can safely relate that Herr Schickelgruber's shadow rarely, if ever, wended its way into the holy places for purpose of worship. And the mouthings of this beast, relating to the wishes of God, were the ramblings of a non-believer whose purpose was the imposition of Master Race Darwinian ideal on the world, making him purely a "Darwinian Evolutionist".

I apologize for the "lost" commas.