Discontinuity of Life proves evolution to be false

Biological classification (sometimes known as "Linnaean taxonomy") is still generally the best known form of taxonomy. It uses taxonomic ranks, including, among others, (in order) Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species (various mnemonic devices have been used to help people remember the list of "Linnaean" taxonomic ranks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxonomy

SamCogar wrote:.

The Discontinuity of Life, …… otherwise known as …..

Taxonomy - the science of classifying living things

Biological classification (sometimes known as "Linnaean taxonomy") is still generally the best known form of taxonomy. It uses taxonomic ranks, including, among others, (in order) Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species (various mnemonic devices have been used to help people remember the list of "Linnaean" taxonomic ranks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxonomy

.

TerryRC wrote:Damn you, Keli.

I am a stupider person for reading that.

How does that AIG blurb disprove evolution?

Please use your own words... if you can.

TerryRC wrote:Why was the theory of punctuated equilibrium necessary to help explain the theory of evolution? Please use your own words and thoughts. (Also, please type slowly so that I will be able to understand.) Thank you.

Easy. It isn't necessary at all.

So how does the AIG blurb disprove evolution?

I can't wait.

Stephanie wrote:Ah, and I must be the anti-faith! lol

TerryRC wrote:however, whatever position is taken--evolution or creation, it is just a matter of one's faith.

Right. Except your faith is based on a myths thousands of years old, assembled by a bunch of Jew goatherders.

My "faith", is based on scientific observation and experimentation that hasn't been proven wrong, not through any lack of trying.

Keli, if you could produce observable evidence that evolution is not real, I would abandon it.

The bible has been shown to be incorrect in many ways. You refuse to acknowledge that.

That is the difference between science and religion. Faith isn't required by me. You can't live without it.

Keli wrote:I don't really have anything more that I need to say about this topic. We, Sam, Terry RC and I, are all three men of faith. We each have the right to believe what we want--however, whatever position is taken--evolution or creation, it is just a matter of one's faith.

ziggy wrote:

Keli wrote:I don't really have anything more that I need to say about this topic. We, Sam, Terry RC and I, are all three men of faith. We each have the right to believe what we want--however, whatever position is taken--evolution or creation, it is just a matter of one's faith.

If all one has is his or her faith in someone's else's doctrine or dogma, then he or she ain't got much.

I am a professor of neurosurgery and a medical scientist. As an undergraduate biochemistry major, I was uncomfortable with Darwinian explanations for biological complexity. Living things certainly appeared to be designed. Yet evolutionary biologists asserted that the scientific evidence was clear: All biology could be explained by random variation and natural selection.

So I accepted the Darwinian explanation. I considered religious explanations for biology unscientific at best, dogma at worst. But Darwin's explanation, too, was a matter of faith because I did not know the evidence.

Several years ago, I came across Michael Denton's book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. Denton's argument--that the biological evidence for Darwin's theory was much weaker than evolutionary biologists claimed--rekindled my doubts. Just how strong was the evidence that all biological complexity arose by chance and natural selection?

I read all that I could find. Johnson. Dawkins. Wells. Berra. Behe. Dennett. Dembski. What I found is this: The claims of evolutionary biologists go wildly beyond the evidence.

The fossil record shows sharp discontinuity between species, not the gradual transitions that Darwinism inherently predicts. Darwin's theory offers no coherent, evidence-based explanation for the evolution of even a single molecular pathway from primordial components. The origin of the genetic code belies random causation. All codes with which we have experience arise from intelligent agency. Intricate biomolecules such as enzymes are so functionally complex that it's difficult to see how they could arise by random mutations.

I saw that Darwinism was a Potemkin village. But it wasn't clear to me why evolutionary biologists were so passionately devoted to such pallid science. The evidence that the Darwinian understanding of biological origins was inadequate has been in hand for quite a while.

Why, when the genetic code was unraveled, didn't scientists question Darwin's assumption of randomness? Why didn't Darwinists ask the difficult questions that are posed for their theory by the astonishing complexity of intracellular molecular machinery? Why do Darwinists claim that intelligent design is untestable, and simultaneously claim that it is wrong?
Comment On This Story

Why do Darwinists claim that intelligent design theory isn't scientific, when both intelligent design and Darwinism are merely the affirmative and negative answers to the same scientific question: Is there evidence for teleology in biology? Why do Darwinists--scientists--seek recourse in federal courts to silence criticism of their theory in public schools? What is it about the Darwinian understanding of biological origins that is so fragile that it will not withstand scrutiny by schoolchildren?

When I read about the ostracism of Dr. Richard Sternberg, a biologist and editor of a biology journal at the Smithsonian Institution who dared to approve the publication of a paper that was sympathetic to intelligent design, I contacted Sternberg and expressed my sympathy and support. He introduced me to the Discovery Institute, which is a think tank devoted to raising the important questions about biological origins, and I began blogging for them.

I came to learn why evolutionary biologists are so fiercely devoted to Darwinism. I was vilified on the Internet. Calls came to my office demanding that I be fired.

And much of the venom was ideological. The vast majority of evolutionary biologists are atheists. I'm Catholic, and my religious faith was mocked by my fellow scientists. Many Darwinists openly express their hatred for Christianity--atheist biologist P.Z. Myers desecrated a Eucharistic host on his Web site.

In 1989, Oxford evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins wrote in the New York Times book review section that people who don't accept evolution are "ignorant, stupid, insane … or wicked." He has described the religious upbringing of children as "child abuse."

In his book, Darwin's Dangerous Idea, atheist philosopher and Darwinist Daniel Dennett has written that "[s]afety demands that religions be put in cages too--when absolutely necessary." The fight against the design inference in biology is motivated by fundamentalist atheism. Darwinists detest intelligent design theory because it is compatible with belief in God.

But the evidence is unassailable. The most reasonable scientific explanation for functional biological complexity--the genetic code and the intricate nanotechnology inside living cells--is that they were designed by intelligent agency. There is no scientific evidence that unintelligent processes can create substantial new biological structures and function. There is no unintelligent process known to science that can generate codes and machines.

I still consider religious explanations for biology to be unscientific at best, dogma at worst. But I understand now that Darwinism itself is a religious creed that masquerades as science. Darwin's theory of biological origins is atheism's creation myth, and atheists defend their dogma with religious fervor.