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: ...

[GodGunsGuts]

Ping!

[Flightdeck]

Alfred Wallace, who co-founded the theory of evolution with Charles Darwin, was a pioneer in pychic research. Just wanted to throw that out there...

[sickoflibs]

RE :”Unfortunately, many proponents of evolution seem unaware of that. They don’t acknowledge that natural selection requires pre-existing life..”

Then the article goes on to quote all the ‘evolutionists’ that DO acknowledge that natural selection requires pre-existing life. So what is the got-ya?? Where's the evos that say that natural selection works on non-life (the dead) as this title says? Another imaginary straw man to beat up?

[Vaquero]

has been described as “a grand narrative—a story of origins that would change the world”,.

written by a 19th century scientist and though his basic principles are sound there is so much more to it than Darwin's original treatise...and an infinite number of facts that need to be uncovered...it will never be a complete picture as we are limited to what can be wrested from the earth...but there is no reason to lose ones faith in God and his creation...to believe in evolution ...neither are mutually exclusive of each other.

[GodGunsGuts]

Apparently you missed this one:

‘I think it is disingenuous to argue that the origin of life is irrelevant to evolution’

—evolutionist Gordy Slack, The Scientist, June 2008.

[Behemoth the Cat]

Natural selection isn't supposed to have anything to do with the origin of life. The fact that your electric razor is not capable of fueling your car does not mean that the idea behind the razor is bad.

[cripplecreek]

When dealing with people who need to lie to find an argument, its probably best to laugh at them and walk away.

[babble-on]

right on

[Misterioso]

Such a gnat you are.

[GodGunsGuts]

Copout. The only viable explanation for the origin of life is Creation/Intelligent design. Darwin’s so-called “theory” = EPIC FAIL.

[Buck W.]

“Natural selection cannot explain the origin of life...”

You finally got it right!

[KeepUSfree]

One of the stupidest headlines ever..

That’s like saying that “Medical experts say LAsik surgery will NOT allow x-ray vision”...

Lasik surgery does not attempt to create X-ray vision.

Evolutionary theory does not attempt to explain the origins of life.

Plain dumb.

[11th Commandment]

I have follow Evolution and Creation debates on Free Republic. Most Freepers that agree with Evolution understand the Darwinism does not address the Origin of Life issue.

[GodGunsGuts]

Typical evo with zero ammunition but plenty of frustration. Don't blame me that that the argument from Creation/Design is continually strengthening while Darwin's unscientific creation myth is being falsified on all sides...I'm just the messenger.

[Behemoth the Cat]

Natural selection explains why changes in EXISTING organisms lead to better adjustment of future generations of these organisms to the environment. The concept of natural selection DOES NOT raise the issue of origins of life AT ALL - this is an entirely different matter.

Now, I know that science education in the United States sucks big time, but I am not convinced that it sucks enough for someone to confuse such elementary concepts. So, I start suspecting that our YE creationists here are actually Leftist provocateurs. The cui bono rule of thumb certainly suggests such possibility, because painting the conservative movement as ignorant benefits the Left. By, for example, depriving us of the credibility to challenge (using rational arguments) their global warming religion, their beliefs in successful socialist economy, etc.

[sickoflibs]

RE :”I think it is disingenuous to argue that the origin of life is irrelevant to evolution”( evolutionist Gordy Slack)

That’s it? Is that even his complete sentence? You got the source text so we can see what he is talking about? For all I know from this text he was arguing for Creation.

[Old Professer]

Mutant CO2.

[metmom]

The first living cell got selected from where?

Somehow it assembled/got assembled from something and because of it’s suitability for survival, survived to reproduce.

But evos constantly dodge the question of where the first one came from.

[rsobin]

Let’s see. A lightning spark or a volcano fart on an isolated blob of goo resulted in a form that all at once could intake nutrients, expel waste, preform respiration, reproduce, repair DNA and other systems. Give me a break. The people who believe this have great faith in a belief system or are stupid.