Natural selection cannot explain the origin of life (Darwin's epic failure re: comprehensive ToE)

CMI ^ | November 12, 2009 | David Catchpoole, Jonathan Sarfati and Don Batten

[GodGunsGuts]

While Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species has been described as “a grand narrative—a story of origins that would change the world”,1 ironically his book very pointedly avoided the question of the origin of life itself.

This ought not be surprising. Darwin’s theory of the origin of species “by means of natural selection”2 presupposes self-reproduction, so can’t explain the origin of self-reproduction.

Unfortunately, many proponents of evolution seem unaware of that. They don’t acknowledge that natural selection requires pre-existing life. As leading 20th century evolutionist Theodosius Dobzhansky lamented: ...

[Jewbacca]

Many species co-operate for long-term gain, at the expense of short-term gain. From ants to lions to wolves.

[Buck W.]

“Try reading what I said again and concentrate. I’m talking about the origins of the concepts of compassion and charity in any evolving species. “

It has evolved in species where it is if value. Are you questioning why it hasn’t evolved elsewhere?

And why so snotty today?

[mtg]

“Natural selection cannot explain the origin of life.” It doesn’t try to! Why is this so difficult for you?

I never said it did try to. But there are some people who would disagree with that. I could however, be wrong. I cannot provide any scientific evidence whether or not natural selection has anything to do with the origin of life. So maybe it is not fact. I guess we'll just have to wait and see. Science may someday prove us both wrong.