Replies

Not what I suggested. In this case, first they have to build the molecule. From nothing. From whatever they theorize existed before the Big Bang, First Event, the moment of singularity, or whatever they choose to call the pre-born Universe.

Evolutionists have assumptions. They take many necessary steps for granted in the molecules-to-man model. Evolutionists assume that non-living chemicals gave rise to that first living cell which, in turn, evolved into ever and ever more complex forms of life. There are no scientific experiments to prove the molecules-to-man scenario.

Writing as an evolutionist, G. A. Kerkut lists the major assumptions of evolution. These are the basic theories an evolutionist takes for granted or “supposes” to be true. All of the “molecules-to-man science” is built upon these assumptions, but you rarely, if ever, see them listed in a high school or college textbook.

There are seven basic assumptions that are often not mentioned during discussions of evolution. Many evolutionists ignore the first six assumptions and only consider the seventh. The assumptions are as follows:

1. The first assumption is that non-living things gave rise to living material, i.e., spontaneous generation occurred.

2. The second assumption is that spontaneous generation occurred only once.

3. The third assumption is that viruses, bacteria, plants and animals are all related.

4. The fourth assumption is that protozoa (single-celled life forms) gave rise to metazoa (multiple-celled life forms).

5. The fifth assumption is that various invertebrate phyla are interrelated.

6. The sixth assumption is that the invertebrates gave rise to the vertebrates.

7. The seventh assumption is that within the vertebrates the fish gave rise to amphibia, the amphibia to reptiles and the reptiles to birds and mammals.

MOLECULES-TO-MAN IS ASSUMED

What Dr. Kerkut has listed as “assumptions” is the whole of evolutionary teaching. In other words, there is no factual (experimentally testable and reproducible) science which supports evolution. The process of moving from non-living things to the first living, reproducing cell to man and giant Redwood trees is all an assumption.

Grasshopper.

Not what I suggested. In this case, first they have to build the molecule. From nothing. From whatever they theorize existed before the Big Bang, First Event, the moment of singularity, or whatever they choose to call the pre-born Universe.

I was trying to put a reasonable spin on what you wrote. You're asking for scientists to create a new universe, it would seem. If they could, the act would quite probably destroy our present one, which isn't a pleasant prospect. They're under no obligation to do any such thing anyway. The proof that life (as opposed to, say, the entire cosmos, which evolution doesn't discuss) is not the result of some sort of divine intervention will, in my view, be forthcoming from the labs of the sort of very smart folks mentioned in the article I linked to earlier. Once they've managed to construct an artificial organism by assembling chemical units, only the most obstinate will continue to argue against the possibility. (Of course, there will be some such...there are always Flat-Earthers.)

There are seven basic assumptions that are often not mentioned during discussions of evolution. Many evolutionists ignore the first six assumptions and only consider the seventh. The assumptions are as follows:

1. The first assumption is that non-living things gave rise to living material, i.e., spontaneous generation occurred.

2. The second assumption is that spontaneous generation occurred only once.

3. The third assumption is that viruses, bacteria, plants and animals are all related.

4. The fourth assumption is that protozoa (single-celled life forms) gave rise to metazoa (multiple-celled life forms).

5. The fifth assumption is that various invertebrate phyla are interrelated.

6. The sixth assumption is that the invertebrates gave rise to the vertebrates.

7. The seventh assumption is that within the vertebrates the fish gave rise to amphibia, the amphibia to reptiles and the reptiles to birds and mammals.

In the first place, all sciences make certain assumptions, so to say that evolutionists make assumptions, as if this were a flaw, is to betray some degree of misunderstanding of how empirical science is carried out.

In the second place, let's look at your list of 'assumptions of evolution'.

1. The first assumption is that non-living things gave rise to living material, i.e., spontaneous generation occurred.

Comment: This probably is a working hypothesis of most biologists, but it's part and parcel of the materialistic assumption that all empirical science makes. Empirical science tries to explain the phenomena of nature without appealing to extra-natural forces or principles.

2. The second assumption is that spontaneous generation occurred only once.

Comment: Ridiculous. Spontaneous generation might have occurred any number of times on Earth, and any number of times elsewhere. The early Earth was bombarded over millions of years by comets and asteroids. It's perfectly possible that during that time, early versions of living things came to be and then were completely wiped out, and that this occurred over and over again. The living things we see today happen to occur from the most recent successful spontaneously generated version of life.

3. The third assumption is that viruses, bacteria, plants and animals are all related.

Comment: This is not an assumption, it's an observation. All of these organisms are made up of cells whose activities are controlled by DNA and related chemicals. If that doesn't show that they're related, I don't know what does.

4. The fourth assumption is that protozoa (single-celled life forms) gave rise to metazoa (multiple-celled life forms).

Comment: Again, that's the most likely scenario, but I'm sure that no evolutionist would be totally surprised if somebody could show that it happened otherwise.

5. The fifth assumption is that various invertebrate phyla are interrelated.

Comment: See the comment on #3.

6. The sixth assumption is that the invertebrates gave rise to the vertebrates.

Comment: See the comment on #4.

7. The seventh assumption is that within the vertebrates the fish gave rise to amphibia, the amphibia to reptiles and the reptiles to birds and mammals.

Comment: The tree of life on Earth is not nearly so linear: