The Sunset of Darwinism

tfp ^ | 06.04.08 | Julio Loredo

[Coleus]

Praised until recently as dogma, Darwin’s theory of evolution is now fading away, discredited by the same science that bore its poisoned fruit. Instead, the Christian vision of a supernatural design is being increasingly affirmed. “Evolution is now a datum proven beyond any reasonable doubt and no longer a theory, it’s not even worth taking the trouble to discuss it.” This is what a spokesman proclaimed at the Festival of Science held in Genoa in November 2005, thereby neglecting a very important aspect of modern science—the need to be open to new perspectives. Instead, the truth is quite the opposite. Paradoxically, evolutionists are taking an ever greater distance from empirical science and are wrapping themselves up in a dogmatism that borders on ideological fanaticism.

Unprovable Hypothesis
“What is left, then, in evolutionism, that is valid according to the scientific method? Nothing, actually nothing!” This is the conclusion of journalist Marco Respinti in his recent book Processo a Darwin (Darwin on Trial, Piemme, 2007). He continues: "Not one of his postulates can be verified or certified based on the method proper to the physical sciences. His whole claim escapes verification. Based on what, therefore, other than on strong prejudices of an ideological nature, can anyone affirm or continue to affirm that the evolutionist hypothesis is true?"  Indeed, the consistency of a scientific theory is founded on its capacity to be verified empirically, be it through observation of the phenomenon in nature or by reproducing it in the laboratory. The evolutionist hypothesis fails on both counts. “Thus,” Respinti shows, “Darwinism remains simply an hypothesis devoid of empirical or demonstrable foundation, besides being unproven. . . . The evolutionist hypothesis is completely unfounded for it does not master the very domain in which it launches its challenge.”

Respinti reaches this “verdict” after a rigorous “trial of Darwin” in which he analyzes the main arguments that debunk the notorious theory, ranging from nonexistent fossil records to the conflict of Darwinism with genetic science and the flimsiness of the “synthetic theory” of neo-Darwinism, without forgetting the countless frauds that have stained notable evolutionists in their insane quest to fabricate the “proofs” that science tenaciously denied them.  Respinti concludes by denouncing the ideological drift of the evolutionist school: “To categorically affirm the absolute validity of the theories of Darwinian and neo-Darwinian evolution based on the claim that discussing them would be unscientific by definition, is the worst proof that human reason can give of itself.”

A Long Sunset
The sunset of the Darwinist hypothesis has picked up speed over the last two decades. For example, consider the work carried out by the Osaka Group for the Study of Dynamic Structures, founded in 1987, in the wake of an international interdisciplinary meeting convened “to present and discuss some opinions opposed to the dominant neo-Darwinist paradigm.” Scientists from all over the world participated, including the outstanding geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti, then a professor at the University of Perugia, Italy. In 1980, together with Roberto Fondi, now a professor at the University of Siena, Sermonti wrote Dopo Darwin—Critica all’evoluzionismo (After Darwin—A Critique of Evolutionism, Rusconi, 1980). “Biology,” Sermonti explains, “has no proof at all of the spontaneous origin of life, or rather biology has proved its impossibility. There is no such thing as a gradation of life from elementary to complex. From a bacterium to a butterfly to man the biochemical complexity is substantially the same.”   For his part, Fondi shows that from the first appearance of fossils to this day, the variety and riches of living beings have not increased. New groups have replaced older ones, but the intermediate forms that the evolutionists have so frantically searched for do not exist. “The theory of evolution,” Sermonti and Fondi conclude, “has been contradicted as have few other scientific theories in the past.”

In Le forme della vita (The Forms of Life, Armando, 1981), Sermonti unveils other obstacles to Darwinism. According to the renowned geneticist, the “random” origin of life and the gradual transformation of the species through “selective change” are no longer sustainable because the most elementary life is incredibly complex and because it is now proven that replacement of living groups takes place “by leaps” rather than “by degrees.”  Putting together forty years of experience, in 1999 he wrote Dimenticare Darwin—Ombre sull’evoluzione (Forgetting Darwin—Shadows on Evolution, Rusconi, 1999). With rigorous argumentation, the author demolishes the three pillars of Darwinism: natural selection, sexual mixing and genetic “change.” According to him, history will remember the theory of evolution as the “Big Joke.”

Not Just Creationists
Sermonti has been often accused of being a “creationist” or a “religious fundamentalist” even though he has always said he does not fit his scientific vision into a Christian perspective, and this yet one more aspect to note in the polemic against Darwinism, which many people other than Christians also contest it.  In this sense, it is interesting to note the recent editorial in Il Cerchio, “Seppellire Darwin? Dalla critica del darwinismo agli albori d’una scienza nuova,” ("Bury Darwin? From a Critique of Darwinism to the Dawn of a New Science") containing essays by seven specialists including Sermonti, Fondi and Giovanni Monastra, director of Italy’s National Institute for Food and Nutrition Research. The title refers to the famous phrase by Chandra Wickramasinghe, a professor of applied mathematics of the University College of Cardiff, “The probability that life was formed from inanimate matter is equal to 1 followed by 40,000 zeros . . . . It is large enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution.”

From Dimenticare Darwin—Ombre sull’evoluzione’s introduction: For the first time in Italy, a critique of Darwinism is presented in all its complexity thanks to the interdisciplinary contribution of scholars of several orientations—[b]eyond the polemic between neo-Darwinian fundamentalists and religious integralists, the essay demonstrates how the critique of the now old neo-Darwinist paradigm opens the doors to a new science.

A Crisis of the Positivist Paradigm
Francis Crick, who together with Watson discovered the structure of DNA, openly declared, “An honest man, armed only with the knowledge available to us, could affirm only that, in a certain sense, the origin of life at the moment appears to be rather a miracle,” In the same wavelength, Harold Hurey, a disciple of Stanley Miller who made history with his failed attempt to recreate life in the laboratory from a so-called primordial broth, said, “All of us who studied the origins of life uphold that the more we get into it, the more we feel it is too complex to have evolved in any way.” Indeed, a lot of faith is required to believe in evolutionism, and it is precisely that faith, of a clearly positivist^[1] mold, that is now beginning to weaken.

In Darwinismo: le ragioni di una crisi (Darwinism: The Reasons of a Crisis), Gianluca Marletta sticks his finger in the wound by observing that “The crisis of Darwinism is above all a crisis of the philosophical paradigms that allowed its success.”  “One cannot understand the origin of this doctrine,” Marletta explains, “without going back to the cultural climate of ‘triumphant positivism’ straddling the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.” According to Marletta, Darwinism constituted a wonderful occasion to strengthen the positivistic view of the world being affirmed at that time. Darwinism represented the perfect tool to transplant, into the biological field, the mechanic and materialist paradigms already imposed on the social sciences. This is the true motive of this theory’s success. A motive that now begins to subside with the crisis of the positivist paradigm. This explains the almost fanatical tenacity with which evolutionists are defending their convictions. “Many fear,” concludes Marletta, “that the fall of Darwinism can bring down with it the whole positivist vision of the world.”

God’s Comeback
The crumbling of positivism is bringing back to the limelight issues that a certain conventional wisdom thought to have definitively eliminated. Shaken from the sudden crumbling of old certainties, worried about the chaos that increasingly marks this postmodern age, many people are once again asking the fundamental questions: Does my life have a transcendental meaning? Is there an intelligent project in nature? In short, does God exist?   Sociologist Rosa Alberoni wrote about this in her book, Il Dio di Michelangelo e la barba di Darwin (The God of Michelangelo and Darwin’s Beard), published last November by Rizzoli with a preface by Cardinal Renato Martino, president of the Pontifical Council Justice and Peace. The onslaught of “Darwin’s worshippers,” Alberoni explains, is carried out by the “usual destructive atheists obsessed with the goal of stamping out Christ and destroying the Judeo-Christian civilization after having sucked its blood and essence.” This sullen assault, however, in the deeply changed ambience of post-modernity, risks being counterproductive: The monkey myth is what really shook ordinary people. Like soldiers woken up by an alarm in the middle of the night, Christian believers and [O]rthodox Jews prepared for the defense. Or rather for the war, because that is what it has become . . . [o]n the symbolic level, the bone of contention is the ancestor of man: God or a monkey? Should one believe in God or in Darwin? This is the substantial nature of the ongoing clash in our civilization.

In other words, a real war of religion looms in the dawn of the Third Millennium. Precisely that which secularists have tried to avoid at all cost.

Footnote:

1. Positivism is the philosophical system created by August Comte (1798–1857), which only accepts the truths that we can reach by direct observation or by experimentation. Thus it denies classical philosophy, theology and all supernatural religion.

[Jim W N]

Do you propose your fossils prove the migration of species one to another, Coyoteman? If so, you should have been published by now because you’re proposing something no one has yet has been able to support with valid (not fraudulent) evidence.

[Jim W N]

And you still have not presented any evidence for ID that could not also apply to evolution.

If you're going to allow yourself to believe that DNA, the design of the ear, the intricacies of the eye, the brain, etc, etc, etc, are explainable by mindless evolution, then I can't help you PugetSoundSoldier. That is truly blind faith.

[narses]

+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.

[valkyry1]

WOW

That Berkeley website “From soup to cells – the origin of life” and “evolution 101” demonstrates that a person can get advanced degrees in pure junk.

Coyoteman, wake up and chart a new course.

[Fichori]

"Coyoteman, wake up and chart a new course." [excerpt]

With a 'little bird' at the controls, it can be hard:

[Non-Sequitur]

ID has innumerable pieces of evidence while Darwinists have not one shred of evidence of species migrating to another species.

That would be incorrect. Science has identified hundreds of fossils which indicate a transition between one class and another. ID, on the other hand, offers no evidence. It tries to discount evolution and then says it must be the only alternative.

[Electro]

So you like quotes and sources, eh. Okay, here you go:

“Why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory.”
Charles Darwin, Origin of Species, 6th edition, 1872, p. 413.

The Cambrian/Precambrian time period does not support Darwinian evolution. There are no intermediate transitional forms) found during this period.
“There is no question that such gaps exist. A big gap appears at the beginning of the Cambrian explosion, over 500 million years ago, when great numbers of new species suddenly appeared in the fossil record.”
David Berlinski (evolutionist), A Tour of the Calculus, 1995.

“The Cambrian explosion is not just a case of all the major animal phyla appearing at about the same place in the geologic column. It is also a situation of no ancestors to suggest how they might have evolved.”
Ariel Roth (Ph.D. Zoology), Origins,1998, p. 184.

“However, we have virtually no evidence in the fossil record or elsewhere for any of the changes proposed during this ‘immensity of time’; but the public hears nothing of this problem.”
Aerial Roth (Ph.D. Zoology), Origins, p. 189.

“Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an
earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it’s not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of ‘paleobabble’ is going to change that.”
Alan Feduccia (World authority on birds), Science, “Archaeopteryx: Early Bird Catches a Can of Worms”, 1993.

“The imprint they left in the rock, clear and sharp, makes it evident that the feathers of Archaeopteryx were already in Jurassic time exactly like those of birds flying today.”
Barbara Stahl, Vertebrate History: Problems in Evolution

“Birds are so different from other creatures that there would have been hundreds of thousands of intermediate forms between birds and land animals if birds had evolved.”
Stuart Burgess (Ph.D. Engineering Design, Professor of Combustion
Theory, extensive study in the area of design in nature),
Hallmarks of Design, 2002, p. 47.

“This creates a new problem for those who insist that dinosaurs were ancestors of modern birds. How can a bird hand, for example, with digits two, three and four evolve from a dinosaur hand that has only digits one, two and three? That would be almost impossible.”
Alan Feduccia, (professor and former chair of biology at UNC), The Origin and Evolution of Birds, Yale University Press, 1999, p. 81.

“If one views a chicken skeleton and a dinosaur skeleton through binoculars they appear similar, but close and detailed examination reveals many differences. Theropod dinosaurs, for example, had curved, serrated teeth, but the earliest birds had straight, unserrated peg-like teeth. They also had a different method of tooth implantation and replacement.”
Dr. Alan Feduccia, “Scientist Says Ostrich Study Confirms Bird ‘Hands’ Unlike Those Of Dinosaurs”, EurekAlert, 14-Aug-2002.

“It’s biophysically impossible to evolve flight from such bipeds with foreshortened forelimbs and heavy, balancing tails, Exactly the wrong anatomy for flight.”
A. Gibbons, Science, “New Feathered Fossil Brings Dinosaurs and Birds Closer,” 1996.

“Given the fact of evolution, one would expect the fossils to document a gradual steady change from ancestral forms to the descendants. But this is not what the paleontologists finds. Instead, he or she finds gaps in just about every phyletic series.”
Ernst Mayr (Professor Emeritus in the Museum of Comparative
Zoology at Harvard University, Hailed as the Darwin of the 20th century), What Evolution Is, 2001, p. 14.

“Natural selection can act only on those biological properties that already exist; it cannot create properties in order to meet adaptational needs.”
Elmer Noble, Ph.D. Zoology, Glenn Nobel, Ph.D. Biology, Gerhard Schad, Ph.D. Biology, Austin MacInnes, Ph.D. Biology, Parasitology: The Biology of Animal Parasites, 1989, p. 516.

“I would therefore argue that the very concept of natural
selection as defined by the neo-Darwinist is fundamentally
flawed….”
Neil Broom, How Blind Is the Watchmaker, 2001, p. 165. (Ph.D. Chemical and Materials Engineering)

“But there is no evidence that DNA mutations can provide the sorts of variation needed for evolution…
There is no evidence for beneficial mutations at the level of macroevolution, but there is also no evidence at the level of what is commonly regarded as microevolution.”
Jonathan Wells, Ph.D. Molecular Biology

One could think, for instance, that by constantly changing amino acids one by one, it will eventually be possible to change the entire sequence substantially…
These minor changes, however, are bound to eventually result in a situation in which the enzyme has ceased to perform its previous function but has not yet begun its ‘new duties’. It is at this point it will be destroyed – along with the organism carrying it.”
Maxim D. Frank-Kamenetski, Unraveling DNA, 1997, p. 72.
(Professor at Brown U. Center for Advanced Biotechnology and Biomedical Engineering)

“But in all the reading I’ve done in the life-sciences literature, I’ve never found a mutation that added information…
All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not increase it.”
Lee Spetner (Ph.D. Physics – MIT, taught information and
communications at Johns Hopkins University), Not By Chance, 1997, pp. 131, 138.

“…that the development and survival of the fittest is entirely a consequence of chance mutations, or even that nature carries out experiments by trial and error through mutations in order to create living systems better fitted to survive, seems to be a hypothesis based on no evidence….”
Ernst Chain (Biochemist and Nobel Prize winner), Responsibility and the Scientist in Modern Western Society, London: Council of Christians and Jews, 1970, p.25.

[LeGrande]

DNA is like computer code. (The sequences are far from simple)

Its not simply a 'naturally occurring acid'.

DNA is a naturally occurring acid and genes can be assembled in complex patterns by using DNA. You are confusing what is done with the chemical and the chemical itself.

I suggest you do further research on this subject before asserting this type of thing without sources to back up your claims.

I am very familiar with DNA, RNA, transpose genes, etc. Did you know that apx. 60% of the material in your genes come from viruses? The more interesting question that you should be asking is, what controls the RNA to transcribe selected portions of the gene sequences. That is where the cutting edge research is.

[LeGrande]

The primary issue is that there is evident design and evident intelligence in the design. What the purpose is, is a different question and depends on what specifically you're looking at and how the purpose might be interpreted.

LOL Hoisted by your own petard :)

The issue again is evident design with evident intelligence behind the design. Perfection or lack thereof is a different issue.

Circular reasoning at it finest : ) A snow flake has a definite design, are you claiming that because it has a design that there was a designer behind the design? It is self evident that there isn't, it is an emergent property.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

Au contraire, my friend... Darwin most certainly struggled with ID up until his death.

Indeed he did, he struggled to get rid of it, and to get rid of final causes, despite the fact (as revealed in the quote to Argyll that you supplied) that design and teleology came upon him with 'overwhelming force' at times, as it does to anyone who isn't completely mad.

A very interesting book on Darwin's attitude toward design is the old anti-Darwin classic Evolution Old and New by Samuel Butler. Also, from a Darwinian perspective, it is worth reading Mayr's article The Philosophical Foundations of Darwinism and Dewey's Influence of Darwinism. Both of these celebrate Darwin's achievement, which was to eliminate teleology from nature. You can get these two from my FR page.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

Well, if it's good enough for ID, it should be good enough for evolution, right?

Not really. You see, if the hand supposedly evolved by natural selection, then it did so with a view to purposes which would not become apparent for a very long time. The full scope of the purposiveness of the hand begins to be seen when it is put to use writing, playing piano, or preforming brain surgery. Something monkeys and ape-men had no need for. This observation is, of itself, sufficiently fatal to Darwinian explanations of the hand, but such explanations become even more preposterous when we consider that the abilities of the hand not only arise from the form of the hand itself, but on much of the rest of the human body, which needs to be tuned in such a way as to give the hand these future purposes--musculature, senses, nerves, and so on.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

Your whole incomprehensible screed

Actually I was quoting someone. Is there some way that it could have been made more explicit, so that you would have noticed that David Stove was the author?

Second, the "olden days" you cite, are not so old, since those same conditions can be observed in substantial parts of Africa, South America and the middle east.

So, in your view, Darwinism is not true in, say, Norway, but Darwinism is still going on in parts of, say, South America. What city in South America would you say we can find Dariwinism going on?

Let's have another little reading from David Stove.

Huxley naturally realized that, as examples of Darwinian competition for life among humans, hypothetical ancient fights between Hobbesian bachelors were not nearly good enough. What was desperately needed was some reed examples, drawn from contemporary or at least recent history. Nothing less would be sufficient to reconcile Darwinism with the obvious facts of human life. Accordingly, Huxley made several attempts to supply such an example. But the result in every case was merely embarrassing.

One attempt was as follows. Huxley draws attention to the fierce competition for colonies and markets which was going on, at the time he wrote, among the major western nations. He says, in effect, 'There! That's pretty Darwinian, you must admit.' The reader, for his part, scarcely knows where to look, and wonders, very excusably, what species of organism it can possibly be, of which Britain, France, and Germany are members.

A second attempt at a real and contemporary example was the following. Huxley says that there is, after all, still a little bit of Darwinian struggle for life in Britain around 1890. It exists among the poorest five per cent of the nation. And the reason, he says, (remembering his Darwin and Malthus), is that in those lower depths of British society, the pressure of population on food supply is still maximal.

Yet Huxley knew perfectly well, (and in other writings showed that he knew), that the denizens of 'darkest England' were absorbed around 1890, not in a competition for life, but (whatever they may have thought) in a competition for early death through alcohol. Was that Darwinian? But even supposing he had been right, what a pitiable harvest of examples, to support a theory about the whole species Homo sapiens. Five per cent of Britons around 1890, indeed! Such a 'confirmation' is more likely to strengthen doubts about Darwinism than to weaken them.

David Stove, Darwinian Fairytales

[tacticalogic]

Wouldn’t it have been a lot easier to just declare that the Biblical account of Creation in Genesis is true, and anyone who doesn’t think so is a godless infidel?

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

I posit that it is consistent - and in fact representative - of the theory of evolution... I would submit that such behavior is, by its own existence, evidence of an evolutionary path.

What you have done is give numerous examples of the existence cooperative behavior, something which nobody but a hard-core Darwinians, or madman, would deny anyway. You conclude this with a solemn profession of faith that, no matter what, they are consistent with some theory of "evolution", whatever you mean by that. But are they consistent with the 'struggle for life' and 'natural selection' as described in chapters 3 and 4 of Origin and in the equivalent chapters of Alfred Wallace's Darwinism, and with the thousand other such accounts given by evolutionary biologists which amount to basically the same thing?

Darwin used to handle problems the same way. He would merely describe things and then end it with a profession of faith that the things which he describes are in no way contradictory to what he wrote earlier about the Malthusian struggle for life, like so: 'I have no reason to doubt that natural selection, which always preserves favorable variations and rigidly destroys injurious ones, could not have done all the above... etc.' A good example was when he asserted that the character of the American people is due to natural selection. A mere profession of faith is enough. It is hoped that a skeptic would not look too closely at what Darwin had written about "natural selection" and notice that his profession of faith is completely at variance with the facts of American history, and human life.

David Stove calls your approach the "Soft Man" way out.

What I call the Soft Man way out can be quickly dealt with. Strictly speaking, it is not so much an attempt to resolve the inconsistency between Darwinism and human life, as a mere failure to notice that there is any inconsistency to be resolved.

The Soft Man is intellectually at ease. Having been to college, he believes all the right things: that Darwin was basically right, that Darwin bridged the gap between man and animals, etc., etc. He also believes, since he is not a lunatic, that there are such things as hospitals, welfare programmes, priesthoods, and so on. But the mutual inconsistency of these two sets of beliefs never bothers him, or even occurs to him. He does not think that his Darwinism imposes any unpleasant intellectual demands on him. So he is not drawn to postulate, for example, as a concession to Darwinism, a period even in the remote past of all-out competition among people. He leaves that kind of thing to some of the television cartoons that five-year-olds watch. Still less does he think that his Darwinism requires him to advocate eugenics, or to oppose welfare programmes, as the Hard Men do. In fact the politics of Darwinian Hard Men fill Soft Man with horror. They do, at any rate, until the suburb where he lives is taken over by blacks, or Shi'ite Moslems, or Croats, or Sikhs, or whatever.

The Soft Man is certainly the most appealing of the three ways out of Darwinism's dilemma, if we agree to call it such a way at all. Utter helplessness almost always has something very appealing about it, and intellectual helplessness is no exception to this rule; while Soft Man is an extreme instance of such helplessness, or (in Samuel Johnson's phrase) of 'unresisting imbecility'.

David Stove, Darwinian Fairytales

[Fichori]

Correction:

Equating [degenerative] micro-evolution variations which has been observed to [information increasing] macro-evolution which has NOT been observed is simply a cheap slight of hand.

Evolution where by which information increases has never been observed on any scale.

However, degenerative evolution has been observed.

[Coyoteman]

“Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it’s not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of ‘paleobabble’ is going to change that.”

Alan Feduccia (World authority on birds), Science, “Archaeopteryx: Early Bird Catches a Can of Worms”, 1993.

Palaeontology: Inside the oldest bird brain, by Lawrence M. Witmer

Did Archaeopteryx, the most primitive known bird, have 'the right stuff'? Looking into its skull with advanced technology provides insight into the dinosaurian transition to birds, and the evolution of flight.

Archaeopteryx may not be a global star of the calibre of, say, Tyrannosaurus rex, but it undoubtedly has iconic status. Combining the feathered wings and wishbone of birds with the toothed jaws and long bony tail of reptiles... [subscription required to read more]

Nature 430, 619-620 (5 August 2004) | doi:10.1038/430619a; Published online 4 August 2004

---

Summary (Source): Study of Archaeopteryx brain and inner ear confirm they are transitional between dinosaurs and modern birds.

In Nature 430, 666 - 669, (2004), Alonso et al) study the brain and inner ear of Archaeopteryx. They find that the brain and ear lie midway between that of dinosaurs and birds. They report that : 'birds with the same body mass as Archaeopteryx have from one third to five times bigger brains. However, the brain of Archaeopteryx is about three times the volume of those of non-avian reptiles of equivalent size.'

Also data is presented in graphic form that shows that Archaeopteryx semicircular canals have a form that is midway between dinosaurs and birds.

[Fichori]

Coyoteman: Get your barf sack!
(Link from creationist site warning)

Archaeopteryx (unlike Archaeoraptor) is NOT a hoax—it is a true bird, not a “missing link”

[Coyoteman]

Coyoteman: Get your barf sack!
(Link from creationist site warning)

Archaeopteryx (unlike Archaeoraptor) is NOT a hoax—it is a true bird, not a “missing link”

I do not rely on creationist websites for information on science. When it comes to science they lie.

They have to lie, as science does not support their narrow beliefs, and they can't admit science is correct -- so they lie about what science says.

[Fichori]

"I am very familiar with DNA, RNA, transpose genes, etc. Did you know that apx. 60% of the material in your genes come from viruses? The more interesting question that you should be asking is, what controls the RNA to transcribe selected portions of the gene sequences. That is where the cutting edge research is"

Then why did you say: "DNA is simply a naturally occurring acid, and as such has not increased in complexity." [excerpt]

Naturally occurring?
Were you knowingly trying to deceive people?

While DNA may be a nucleic acid, it ALSO has an extremely large amount of 'data' encoded into it.

Where do you get the idea that DNA is naturally occurring?

[Fichori]

I do not rely on creationist websites for information on science. When it comes to science they lie.

They have to lie, as science does not support their narrow beliefs, and they can't admit science is correct -- so they lie about what science says.

And your best argument is that they lie!

I would be willing to bet that you do not rely on ANYONE who disagrees with Evolution for information.

I would also wager that you think anyone who disagrees with Evolution is also a lier.

The instant you have to resort to calling people liars to defend Evolution is the instant Evolution looses all scientific credibility and becomes religious dogma.