Neither dishonesty nor conflating taking place, only discomfiture on your part in proving Ben Stein`s point.So you agree that they were talking about amino acids not proteins?Now that we`ve conclusivley proven that you neo-darwinists dare not debate how life could evolve without the first protein let us now disassemble the simplistic theory using their own words.
According to Darwin`s own theory, millions and millions of transitional fossils should have been discovered, yet there is none. As Darwin himself admitted, The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on Earth must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.
If continual morphing were occuring EVERY fossil would demonstrate change with many more showing bizarre useless growths leading to nothing since mutations in animal and plant germ cells are neutral, harmful, or fatal.
Natural selection process being random trial and error, without direction,cannot be 100% neutral.
Where are all the failed mutated fossils?
So you agree that they were talking about amino acids not proteins?
So far most of your assumptions have been false. The line from Bozell`s column:
One theorizes that life began somehow on the backs of crystals. Another states electric sparks from a lightning storm created organic matter (out of nothing). Another declares that life was brought to Earth by aliens
Natural selection process being random trial and error, without direction, cannot be 100% neutral.
Where are all the failed mutated fossils?