Posted on 03/05/2018 8:28:40 AM PST by fishtank
The Impossibility of Life's Evolutionary Beginnings
BY JEFFREY P. TOMKINS, PH.D. * |
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2018
The hypothetical naturalistic origin of life and its most basic biomolecules from non-living matter is called abiogenesis. This paradigm lies at the very foundation of biological evolution, but the immensity of its naturalistic improbability is often brushed aside by evolutionists, who prefer to focus on other facets of evolution that seem less daunting.
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
First let's notice that you've shifted the discussion away from abiogenesis and to Darwinian evolution, a separate subject.
Unlike the abiogenesis hypothesis, basic evolution is a confirmed theory based on two observed facts: 1) descent with modifications and 2) natural selection.
Evolution theory simply says: carried on long enough those two processes will result in new breeds, varieties, sub-species, species, genera, etc.
So let's consider your objections:
Basic evolution is observed every day when we notice offspring born with modifications their ancestors didn't have and we see that natural selection, in effect, weeds out the less well adapted individuals.
Human directed evolution is what turned wolves into dogs, the great Aurochs into dairy cows and Near Eastern Wild Cats into house cats.
Natural evolution on the "micro" scale can be observed in many species and evidence for "macro" scale evolution found for virtually every species know.
So there's no serious reason to doubt that it did & does happen.
But of course it can and is measured, that's how biological classifications are determined -- whether breeds, sub-species, species or genera, etc., are based on careful measurements of the degrees of differences among different populations of similar individuals.
In fact, evolution theory provided many predictions later confirmed.
For a very partial listing, see here.
But of course evolution theory could be falsified.
For a discussion & listing of ways, see here.
I expect that's because you've redefined "scientific method" to exclude theories you dislike, especially "historical science".
But in fact the science of evolution is equivalent to any other, for example forensic science used to solve crimes.
In forensics you don't see what happened but can often prove it to a jury's satisfaction.
So with evolution.
Words like "faith", "belief" and even "truth" in a larger sense are misapplied to science.
Instead, science is about going where the evidence leads and finding explanations which stand up to rigorous tests.
Ideas which fail the tests get replaced with better ideas and indeed, evolution theory today is quite different in details from Darwin's original understanding.
But his basic idea of 1) descent with modifications and 2) natural selection resulting long-term in new species is as well accepted today as ever.
No, strictly speaking, abiogenesis is neither fact, theory nor scientific law, but is rather a very general term covering a large number of discrete unconfirmed hypotheses.
For a discussion & listing of various origin models, see here.
jonno: "So then, if abiogenesis - a wildly improbable theory - is accepted over the more probable answer - that a Creator was involved, how is this “acceptance” of abiogenesis different than faith?"
Nothing in the term "abiogenesis" excludes the Hand of our Creator at any or every step, if that was His plan.
But I am not in the least offended by the idea that God may have designed the Universe so that it would create life by its own natural processes, without needing His direct supernatural intervention.
I'm OK with it either way.
Are you?
jonno: "Unless there is an agenda in play."
I think we must distinguish between natural-science, strictly defined, and the misuse of science by politicians with their own non-scientific goals in mind.
In response to these glaring and obvious issues, some evolutionists have proposed that precursor molecules required for cell life came from extraterrestrial sources such as some type of planetary meteoritic bombardment or even the alleged “seeding” of Earth by space aliens! However, even these creative imaginations only push back the overall problem to how those things originated.
...
Let’s apply the same logic to the Biblical God, which would be much more complicated than the first life on Earth.
Correct, our time does not equal God's time. What a day is to us is likely a fraction of a blink of an eye to our Lord.
No, that is not evolution in any way shape or form. That's just recessive genes which already exist coming to the fore. How do you know "what their ancestors had" or didn't have. Same with the breeding of animals. This is not an example of some form of supposed beneficial mutation providing a survival advantage. We've tried to witness evolution by bombarding fruit flies with radiation to produce an advantageous mutation - after billions of fruit flies it's never happened. All we got were mutated dysfunctional, harmful mutations. No new beneficial genetic information has ever been created
Again, no it cant be measured by engaging in selective breeding of animals using genetic material which already exists and we have no reason to believe those genes have not existed since the beginning of time.
None of those predictions are based on evolution at all and could be predicted easily apart from evolution - especially the fossil record. That's why Harvard evolutionist Stephen Gould had to come up with the theory of punctuated equilibrium. Another elegant construct there is no evidence to support.
"In forensics you don't see what happened but can often prove it to a jury's satisfaction.
You can say the same of religion. There is no evidence to contradict the assertion that all the fundamental species defining genetic information which exists, ever existed or ever will exist was there from the beginning just waiting for environmental stress to bring it forward as a process of natural selection. In fact, modern information theory commands this conclusion as well as the second law of thermodynamics. Natural selection works quite well with existing genetic information and you don't need to posit random genetic mutations creating complex new genetic information to support it. Evolution is just another attempt to get around the laws of probability by speculating an infinite number of variables. Multi-verse theory does the same thing.
Sorry, no, I'm not talking about recessive genes here, perhaps should have made that clearer.
I am saying: careful study has shown that every individual, without known exception, is born with a small number of mostly harmless genetic mutations.
They are mostly harmless because most come in non-coding regions, sometimes incorrectly called "junk DNA".
These mutations can be passed down to your children and used by geneticists to find distant relatives with common ancestors.
Most mutations are harmless and some are harmful, but a very small percentage may help individuals survive a difficult environment.
Several examples could be cited, but I'll just mention one here: people living at very high altitudes in the Himalayas of Nepal and Andes of South America have relatively recent mutations which allow them to better survive in thin air.
That is interesting enough, but what's even more is that the two different populations have a different set of mutations accomplishing the same purpose, survival at high altitudes.
circlecity: "How do you know 'what their ancestors had' or didn't have."
Careful analysis of DNA matches between parents and children will show any new mutations the children have which were not present in their parents -- it has nothing to do with "recessive genes."
circlecity: "We've tried to witness evolution by bombarding fruit flies with radiation to produce an advantageous mutation - after billions of fruit flies it's never happened.
All we got were mutated dysfunctional, harmful mutations. No new beneficial genetic information has ever been created."
And yet the example I cited of mutations for high-altitude living are real and different for the two populations.
Of course, if you wish to say that God had a Hand in creating those mutations, I have no problem with that at all, it's what I believe.
But science, by definition, can't say that and must say, in effect: it was random even if highly fortuitous for those people.
circlecity: "Again, no it cant be measured by engaging in selective breeding of animals using genetic material which already exists... "
What you don't seem to "get" is that DNA analysis can precisely compare different individuals to see exactly where the changes are, and which are just recessive genes versus which result from new mutations.
I'm beginning to wonder if you understand that genetic mutations can & do happen naturally, and indeed that all of us have a small number of new ones?
circlecity: "None of those predictions are based on evolution at all and could be predicted easily apart from evolution - especially the fossil record. "
Sorry, but there is no alternate scientific hypothesis which could make any of those predictions.
circlecity: "That's why Harvard evolutionist Stephen Gould had to come up with the theory of punctuated equilibrium.
Another elegant construct there is no evidence to support."
"Punctuated equilibrium" is just a term used to describe what the fossil evidence shows: that life forms don't change much while their environment remains the same -- "equilibrium".
But when environments change (i.e., hotter, colder, wetter, dryer, etc.) then species can adapt relatively rapidly -- "punctuated".
And of course, there's tons of evidence to support it.
circlecity: "There is no evidence to contradict the assertion that all the fundamental species defining genetic information which exists, ever existed or ever will exist was there from the beginning just waiting for environmental stress to bring it forward as a process of natural selection. "
Oh, my goodness, there's literal mountains of evidence.
All the evidence, the fossil evidence, the DNA evidence, the geological evidence all shows that life on Earth began in it's simplest possible forms and over billions of years slowly "complexified" to what we see today.
So nothing in the DNA of the simplest life predicts what it could much later become, but everything in the DNA of complex life shows us the route back to its beginnings.
circlecity: "In fact, modern information theory commands this conclusion as well as the second law of thermodynamics.
Natural selection works quite well with existing genetic information and you don't need to posit random genetic mutations creating complex new genetic information to support it."
Nothing in "information theory" "commands this conclusion" for anybody not already committed to it.
And "random" genetic mutations are not a "posit", they are an observed fact.
Mutations are not "theory", they are reality.
And mutations accumulate from one generation to the next, if they are helpful in survival.
It's how life "complexifies".
circlecity: "Evolution is just another attempt to get around the laws of probability by speculating an infinite number of variables."
Sorry, but you're misapplying the so-called "laws of probability" to suit your pre-ordained conclusions.
In fact, no man-made "probability" prevents actual evolution from operating just the way the fossil records and DNA analyses show it did.
So you can cry "probability" all day long, if you wish, and yet, and yet, there it is.
Naturally? Maybe.
According to God's plan? Certainly.
bkmk
I want to thank you for your long and thoughtful response. Most responses are a sentence or few words condemning my post or supporting it. I would welcome discussing this further with you either on the open forum or privately if you prefer.
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.