Evolution Is Biologically Impossible

www.irc.org ^ | Joseph Mastropaolo, Ph.D

[RonF]

"Maybe you can enlighten me. What do the evolutionists say came first, the cell, or the DNA/RNA code to CREATE that first cell?

If the cell came first, don't you need DNA to blueprint that cell? If the DNA coding came first, who wrote it?"

Evolution is about the origin of species, not the origin of life.

If I recall correctly, those who do study the origins of life believe that simple versions of DNA and proteins co-developed, and the mechanisms to protect and reproduce them were simple at first, and then became more complex. Remnants of such development, and the different directions it took, show up in the present 2 forms of cellular organization, (eukaryotes, prokaryotes).

[tortoise]

You should read my book.

I read part of it, but there were a number of glaring errors that made it obvious that it would be a waste of my time to read any further.

For example, you do not understand Occam's razor. Occam's razor isn't just a nice story, it is a proven theorem of mathematics that started out as a very smart observation. Mathematical proof of Occam's Razor as a correct method for hypothesis selection came centuries after it was originally posited. Since it is a rigorous mathematic construct, your use of it must also be rigorous to be meaningful.

In a nutshell, you egregiously misused the theorem to "prove" your point, but if you understood what the theorem actually says, you would find that it actually shows the opposite of what you were trying to assert. Hint: Occam's Razor has strict criteria for measuring degrees of freedom, which you took liberty to blithely ignore. This kind of weak scholarship is what discredits people in serious debate.

You can start by addressing this point, after which I might point out some other equally bad flaws.

[RonF]

Answers must be 3500 words or less and cannot contain any of the phrases "could have," "might have," or "is believed to have."

Oh, so only Creationists get to use those?

[RightFighter]

Once you do, you'll see how stupid these questions are. If you have a preacher who's spouting this stupidity, find another church! He's a damned moron.

Actually, my source is Michael Behe, a molecular biochemist at Lehigh University, and the author of Darwin's Black Box, a fascinating look at the concept of irreducible complexity. Hardly a moron...

[general_re]

How about a little peroxide, scarecrow? ;)

[tortoise]

��5{�������� my source is Michael Behe, a molecular biochemist at Lehigh University, and the author of Darwin's Black Box, a fascinating look at the concept of irreducible complexity. Hardly a moron...

Whether or not he is a moron is up for grabs, but his ideas on "irreducible complexity" and related mathematics are utterly devoid of competence or intelligence. He may make a good sale to the layman, but to a professional mathematician who specializes in fields relevant to what he is talking about it is third-rate garbage. He is neither a credible source nor a competent practitioner of the mathematics he is trying to dabble in.

[RonF]

"Also, why fruit's and vegetables? I mean, I know non-creationists say that plants somehow figured out that animals would eat the fruit and spread the seeds, but wouldn't that require rational thought?"

You know this? How interesting. I don't. But since you know this, you should have no problem quoting the source of this fascinating belief that plants have sentient powers to understand animal life and genetically redesign themselves. No one I know of has ever proposed that view.

On the other hand, I am familiar with these concepts. Say a given group of animals eat 100's of 1000's of seeds from a given plant, and 95% get digested, but 5% of them have thicker coats and pass though the animal's digestive tract and retain viability, they'll get scattered, and tend to themselves breed plants with thick-walled seeds. And if the animals eat plants with larger, sweeter, etc. fruits preferentially, and spread their seeds around (providing fertilizer at the point that they were spread, as well), then seeds from plants with more delicious fruits will tend to be propogated more.

There's no thought processes involved. Now that you've made a couple of statements like this, I'd like to know where you've seen anyone arguing the case for evolution use the argument that there's any conscious thought on the part of any of the entities involved. It's frankly a stupid thing to say, so if you're going to keep on doing so I'd at least like to see your source.

[tortoise]

Bloody hell those quotes got chewed. The first paragraph isn't mine...

[RonF]

Try studying comparative anatomy. Eye structures run the gamut from the mamallian eye (many of which are better than ours), down to simple single light-sensing cells. Follow the path for clues to the evolutionary trail. There's lots of light-sensitive structures that have nowhere near the features of human eyes, but still can sense light and give an evolutionary advantage to their owner.

[Doctor Stochastic]

I've attended a Behe lecture. He may not be a moron, but his examples were poor. Charlatan was a closer description. He spent most of the time attacking others for supposed claims the others didn't make.

[Doctor Stochastic]

I'll give the AgBr guy credit for even simpler stuff. Heavier but simpler.

[RightFighter]

Whether or not he is a moron is up for grabs, but his ideas on "irreducible complexity" and related mathematics are utterly devoid of competence or intelligence. He may make a good sale to the layman, but to a professional mathematician who specializes in fields relevant to what he is talking about it is third-rate garbage. He is neither a credible source nor a competent practitioner of the mathematics he is trying to dabble in.

I've read the entire book. There's not a lot of mathematics in it. He pretty much sticks to his field, which is molecular biochemistry. If you're arguing that your knowledge of mathematics makes you more qualified to talk about evolution than his knowledge of molecular biochemistry, then we can debate that issue separately.

Behe makes compelling arguments (I personally find the blood clotting argument MUCH more interesting than that of the eye, but they're both very powerful).

[ZDaphne]

"Note however, that strictly speaking, "Evolution" itself is not about how reproducing life was first created but about the methods by which genetic characteristics change over time."

Thank you for pointing out that distinction. I see this discrepancy overlooked time and again on this subject. There is no question about evolution. Creation is the issue.

[cinFLA]

My Bible says "two of every sort" and every animal after "his kind".

Actually, if you were to read more carefully:

"Take with you seven of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, 3. and also seven of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth."

[DaGman]

More junk science from the anti-evolution crowd. Just keep this crap away from my kids. I'll be damned if this pseudo-science pseudo-"christian" b.s. gets shoved down my kids throats as an "alternative" theory to evolution.

Its BS.

[Doctor Stochastic]

So, how many herring gulls were on the ark?

[doryfunk]

The debate is moot. What we call science (nor the mathematics on which it is founded) is meant to explain the ultimate source of life. To place ultimate trust in science or even mathematics, is to make the mistake of the Pythagoreans, the last great cult of the Western World.

Science and mathematics require you to assume that certain things are true. Their are different varieties of mathematics that assume different truths. Take for example Euclidean geometry vs. spherical geometry or some other noneuclidean system. You get different results for what is mathematically true based on the assumptions that you make. The same is true of science. Einstein made one of his assumptions(postulates) that the speed of light is constant in any reference frame. This radically changed the accepted scientific view of the universe. Now, certainly Einstein didn not make this assumption arbitrarily and experiment has tended to confirm this assumption within our relatively small sphere of measurement. That does not mean its true everywhere or at all time. That Einstein conveniently takes care of by making another assumption(postulate) that the laws of nature are the same in all uniformly moving reference frames. It may or may not be true.

More importantly, both science and mathematics assume that once they have 'correct' assumption[that is to assume that they could find such a thing] that logic will lead to other correct conclusion based on those original assumptions. In the field of logic, their is what is called the paradox. That is to say, that logic can lead to contradictory conclusions. A classical example has to do with the doctrine of sets, on which mathematics is based. Say you let a set be composed of all dogs. This set is not itself a dog, so it is not a member of its own set. Now say you take a set that is composed of all sets. It is itself a set, therefore, it is a member of itself. The contradiction arises when you look at a third set. The set of all sets that are not self members. If this set is a self member, it would not be a member of itself. If this set were a self member, it would not be a member of itself. That is a contradiction, and a logical one. A paradox. Now, many of you will say, that this is just a clever semantic argument, and it is. Then again, all science and mathematics are just clever semantic arguments and not a source of ultimate truth. Philosophers over the years since this paradox was first put forth have put forth explanations as to why it is not valid, all of which are long tedious, explanations of nonsense in my opinion.

I find Darwins theory of evolution of species by natural selection to be infinitely more speculative than Einstein's theory of relativity. However, we should keep what we call science in the proper frame of reference as a useful tool. I dont deny that a population can and does change over time whether it be from selective breeding of dogs or natural selection. The question is that will this selective breeding lead to a new species over time? Darwin and many maninstream scientists say yes. However, the term species itself is arbitrary. Why are things classified as species? Wolves are completely able to interbreed with domestic dogs and produce viable offspring. Why are they classified as different species. Buffalo(American bison) can do the same with domestic cattle. Why are they classified as different species. Certainly the two examples above the animals cited have dramatic physical differences in appearance, but so do Irish Wolfhounds and pugs, but they are classified as the same species.

In short, dont look to 'science' falsely so called to find truth. Their is no truth in 'science.' Truth comes from God. 'Science' comes from man.

[Texaggie79]

yup, it all just perfectly works out to a symbiotic relationship, just out of chance....

[pariah]

You should read my book.

I have read your book (just the firsts couple of chapters, actually), and I am highly impressed! I got into a debate with some atheist/materialists on another thread recently ("Atheists Improve Society"), and I wish I had been as articulate as you are in defending the rationality of belief in God.

One main defense atheists and agnostics fall back on is that no matter how deficient, improbable or convoluted their theories become, any attempt to add simplicity and elegance to their world view by talking about Mind (aka 'God') is vehemently rejected by them as 'irrational'. Thus, it is not the viability of their self-constructed theories nor the potency of any set of facts which serves as the chief 'refutation' for them, it is the presumptive arrogance that anything beyond their self-imposed limitations in thinking (again, 'God') is an affront to reason itself, and hence merely the foolish idol of lazy and uncritical minds. Yet, by what presumption is it 'logical' for man, a creature (of God or evolution, take your choice) to assume that he can contain all the mysteries of the universe within the boundaries of his own thoughts? Does DNA contain, in addition to its other subleties, the code to create a human brain capable of comprehending not only the biological processes of life, but the origins of that life, the origins of the universe and the ability to judge with finality that we are indeed Alone in the universe? Could a more intelligent creature than Man ever evolve someday? Obviously so, and it should be self-evident that Man does not represent the ultimate in possible Higher Intelligence. Yet the dogmatic materialists will more readily believe in a super-intelligent race of aliens, for which there is no evidence, than in a supremely intelligent Designer, for which there is plenty of evidence. That evidence being the incredible complexity of life, the sublime nature of human consciousness, and the inability of materialistic science to give a satisfactory account of the origin and purpose of same. But scientists always demand 'positive' proof, and jealously guard their right to remain skeptical, nay to be downright derisive and abusive, when anyone suggests the possibility of Intelligence (of the Divine sort, at least) which just might lie outside the apprehensive grasp of their purely logical cause-and-effect reasoning abilities.