Replies

Since Darwin never even tried to explain the origin or life, and was quite up front about the fact that his theory assumes life already exists, I can hardly see how you can say he "failed miserably."

OK, I accept the stipulation that Darwinism does not claim to explain the origin of life. Does it claim to explain the origin of DNA?
I'm new to this debate.
I keep seeing the ID people saying the evolutionist are claiming that evolution does not explain the origin of the species. As I understood it, "The Origin of the Species" was the title of Darwin's book. I keep seeing the evolution people saying that ID should not be taught as a possible origin of life, i.e. the species, so I (perhaps incorrectly) inferred that the evolutionist HAD an explanation as to the origin, since they seemed to be so sure the ID folks were wrong.

The evolutionists say that the ID people have it all wrong, when the ID people say there is a creator behind the design, and the design of DNA is what makes the whole evolution/adaptation thing work. So, again I thought they had an explanation.

In fact, the origin seemed to be the most contentious issue in the whole debate, as far as I could see. Admittedly, the signal to noise ratio is quite low in most of the threads, and there are folks who have spent a LOT more time looking at this than I have. This isn't my day job, and I'm just a simple mind looking for truth where I can find it, just because I find this life and universe fascinating.

Where are all these intermediate transition species that failed?

In the fossil record.

Ok, fair enough. Could you please point me to a link? I've missed it, and the subject seemed to keep coming up in the debate. Again I, perhaps incorrectly, thought that to be an unsettled part of the debate since it kept cropping up.

OK, I accept the stipulation that Darwinism does not claim to explain the origin of life. Does it claim to explain the origin of DNA?

Nope. Darwin did not even know DNA existed.

I keep seeing the ID people saying the evolutionist are claiming that evolution does not explain the origin of the species. As I understood it, "The Origin of the Species" was the title of Darwin's book.

It was The Origin of Species,

and it refers to the formation of new speices from older, pre-existing ones.

so I (perhaps incorrectly) inferred that the evolutionist HAD an explanation as to the origin, since they seemed to be so sure the ID folks were wrong.

You are incorrect as to both what evolution and ID say. The IDers claim that certain biological organs and organalles are too complex to have evolved through natural selection from older, simpler life. From this they say one must conclude that these things must have been designed.

Evoltionists dispute the IDers claim that certain things are to complex to have evolved in a Darwinian fashion. They also point out that the IDers' claim that these things were designed is unscientific, for it is not exmpirically testable.

Oh, one last thing. Let me post from Darwin the last paragraph of the Origin, so you can see that Darwin was making no bones about the fact that he was NOT attampting to explain the origin of life:

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved. "