Posted on 11/12/2009 8:53:24 AM PST by 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: ...
(Excerpt) Read more at creation.com ...
Sorry, not buying it. And I done a lot more research than you’ll ever know.
Extinctions are often caused by deleterious mutations.
Although rare, fatal mutations can be copied into the offspring [obviously they are not immediately fatal].
Furthermore, for all mutations, the beneficial mutations number approx 1 in a million.
I’ve not made that claim therefore I’m not the one to ask to defend it.
I will say that the majority [theistic evolutionists] seem to want to ‘have their cake and eat it too’ so that they can allow for millions / billions of years yet also reflect the design so obvious in DNA.
More unsubstantiated lies. If posting this the first 5,000 times didn't work why bother posting it 5,001 times. In Darwin's Origin of Species he deliberately avoided the topic of the "origin of life" but did acknowledge the Creator. The scientific accuracy of his "EPIC FAILURE" continues to gain corroboration 150 years after it was first published in spite of the hallelujah crowd's continuous ad hominem and fallacious assault on it. It underscores John Adam's quote; "Facts are stubborn things."
Only because it’s the central issue that would blow the ToE out of the water.
At what point did the first clump of chemicals become life in order to pass down its genetic information?
Did the first cell just pop into existence?
Are viruses alive? Are they the precursors to whole cells?
If not, then what was?
How far back does one go in the chemical structures to determine life?
What is life?
If you really want, you can always find a "gotcha" when subjects that can fill whole books are reduced (for the purpose of creating a web page) to two sentences.
You doubt? So write them, ask what "natural selection" has to do with "the origin of the first self-replicating organism".
Maybe you simply have no freakin’ clue what you’re talking about but need to claim other people to be challenged, even when they show you’re full of shi’ite.
Question my scientific credentials again.
Question my math skills again.
Next step is to call me a liberal.
Your link, 3 pages forward. So, perhaps they see, after all, the distinction between "origins" and SUBSEQUENT "natural selection"?
Sigh. And once again I'll point out that Berkeley's Origins of Life page is reached by a "Take a Side Trip" link from the main sequence of pages about evolution. Other "Take a Side Trip" links include radiographic dating and the geologic timeline. Are you going to argue that geology is part of evolution too?
Is there a new Hare Christian chant this week?
The charge is posting abuse, nothing more.
I'd LOVE to hear about an extinction of an entire species because of a deleterious mutation....or even a string of deleterious mutations. Ever taken population biology/genetics? Rhetorical question.
Wow....fatal mutations can be "copied" into offspring? Must be a computer programming term, as we like to say that mutations would be "passed on to" or "inherited by" offspring. ...but ya don't say...must be some sort of genetics master to come up with a brainchild like mutations, even bad ones being passed on to offspring. Whoduthunkit!!!
Furthermore, for all mutations, the beneficial mutations number approx 1 in a million.
LOVE to see where this number comes from.....but say that's right. Take one trillion years from now.....that's 5 million beneficial mutations.......but that's with ONE individual having ONE offspring per generation and then dying.
....and I don't really care what you "buy" when in the world of Man walking with meat eating dinosaurs. "Research" indeed....
To all
Never refer to this book by its partial name. Call it by it’s full name, The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.
That way it’s much easier to see how it led to eugenics, abortion, sterilization, population control and master races.
It’s not a science book, it’s a recipe, like The Twilight Zone’s How To Serve Man.
I didn’t know UC Berkeley was infested with insane biologists and biochemists (Marxists/Socialists, surely, but not insane biochemists and biologists, or even Christians). However, it must be the case, if we are to believe the Berkeley website “From soup to cells – the origin of life”, under the general heading “evolution 101” and further billed as “your one-stop source for information on evolution.” (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/origsoflife_01).
Clearly, a significant portion of the Science Community perceives a distinct connection between Evolution (the ToE) and the origin of life, and the connection seems to be that the details of Evolution itself point the way to how the origin of life occurred. You need to get in touch with those folks and get their minds right. As things are now, they are undercutting what you’re trying to accomplish.
If the origin of life is not part of natural selection theory it is certainly germane thus it was not to elucidate natural selection or evolution that Miller cooked up a goo but rather to search for life's origin.
No life, no selection. No life, no evolution. Without dealing with the origin life there's point to either theory
anymore than a historian can study how a building was built and remodeled without considering how it started to be built.
read “no point”
Please draw no conclusions regarding the intelligence, creativity, or reasoning capability of Christians from the content of this post and others like it on this thread. We are not all this stupid.
Refer to #68.
Sure, to avoid confusing two separate matters. Natural selection (of existing live organisms) is one thing, the origin of life is another. Now, what do you want to discuss, the mechanism of evolution, or the origins of life?
One need not be confused...only the liberal evolutionists seem to get confused. Are you seriously suggesting you're not intelligent enough to discuss a connection between the two?
GMTA.
Looks like the FRevos need to set some in the scientific community straight on all this evolution stuff.
Sheesh, you’d think at Berkeley they’d have their act together a little bit better than that.
You’d almost think that they’re frequenting those creationist websites posting misinformation like that..../s
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.