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.

What is it about the Darwinian understanding of biological origins that is so fragile that it will not withstand scrutiny by schoolchildren?

Intricate biomolecules such as enzymes are so functionally complex that it's difficult to see how they could arise by random mutations.

Keli wrote:

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.

Isn't Darwinism the dogma and doctrine of secular humanists and Atheisolsticiysts all over the world?

SamCogar wrote:

What is it about the Darwinian understanding of biological origins that is so fragile that it will not withstand scrutiny by schoolchildren?

TH, what is it about pornography and/or the vivid graphics of human sexual acts that is so fragile that it will not withstand scrutiny by schoolchildren?

Or, what is it about an Election Ballot that is so fragile that it will not withstand scrutiny by schoolchildren?

Keli, do the children teach their interpretation of the contents/context of the Bible to the adults ........ and the adults believe what the children tell them?

GIMME A BREAK.

I think it is an act of absolute deviousness and dishonesty .... or ....... downright ignorance and stupidity for any good Christian to be citing the above tripe in an effort to provide justification for their Religious beliefs and/or to make "Religious believers" out of others.

If the Christian Claimers have to resort to such devious practices to make "believers" out of people, then for sure, that is proof positive that their Religion is as phony as a three dollar bill.

Intricate biomolecules such as enzymes are so functionally complex that it's difficult to see how they could arise by random mutations.

Why is it that Christian Creationists have no problem imagining how a giant oak tree could, over time, arise by random planting of an acorn, ……. but it bedazzles their thinking that a complex enzyme could, over time, evolve via normal chemical reactions from a wee small organic molecule?

.

1. Information
The instructions for how to build, operate, and repair living cells represent a vast amount of information (estimated at 12 billion bits). Information is a mental, non-material concept. It can never arise from a natural process and is always the result of an intelligence. Just as a newspaper story transcends the ink on the paper, life’s DNA itself (like the ink) is not the information, it is simply a physical representation or housing of the information (the story). Modifying the DNA via mutation can never produce new genetic information to drive upward evolution, just as spilling coffee on the newspaper, thereby modifying the distribution of the ink, will never improve the story.
Key references: Genetic Entropy (Sanford), In the Beginning was Information (Gitt).

2. Formation of Life
Non-living chemicals cannot become alive on their own. The cell is a miniature factory with many active processes, not a simple blob of “protoplasm” as believed in Darwin’s day. Lightening striking a mud puddle or some “warm little pond” will never produce life. This is another view of the core issue of information as the simplest living cell requires a vast amount of information to be present. The “Law of Biogenesis” states that life comes only from prior life. Spontaneous generation has long been shown to be impossible (by Louis Pasteur in 1859). Numerous efforts to bring life from non-life (including the famous Miller-Urey experiment) have not succeeded. The probability of life forming from non-life has been likened to the probability of a tornado going through a junkyard and spontaneously assembling a working 747 airplane. The idea that life on earth may have been seeded from outer space just moves the problem elsewhere.
Key reference: Why Abiogenesis is Impossible, Jerry Bergman, CRS Quarterly, Volume 36, March 2000

3. Design of Living Things
Design is apparent in the living world. Even Richard Dawkins in his anti-creation book The Blind Watchmaker admits “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” The amazing defense mechanism of the Bombardier Beetle is a classic example of design in nature, seemingly impossible to explain as the result of accumulating small beneficial changes over time, because if the mechanism doesn’t work perfectly, “boom” – no more beetle! This is also another view of the core issue of information, as the design of living things is the result of processing the information in the DNA (following the blueprint) to produce a working organism.
Key reference: The three-part video series Incredible Creatures that Defy Evolution describes many more examples like that of the Bombardier Beetle

4. Irreducible Complexity
The idea that “nothing works until everything works.” The classic example is a mousetrap, which is irreducibly complex in that if one of its several pieces is missing or not in the right place, it will not function as a mousetrap and no mice will be caught. The systems, features, and processes of life are irreducibly complex. What good is a circulatory system without a heart? An eye without a brain to interpret the signals? What good is a half-formed wing? Doesn’t matching male and female reproductive machinery need to exist at the same time, fully-functioning if any reproduction is to take place? Remember, natural selection has no foresight, and works to eliminate anything not providing an immediate benefit.
Key reference: Darwin’s Black Box (Behe)

5. Second Law of Thermodynamics
The Second Law of Thermodynamics refers to the universal tendency for things, on their own, to “mix” with their surrounding environment over time, becoming less ordered and eventually reaching a steady-state. A glass of hot water becomes room temperature, buildings decay into rubble, and the stars will eventually burn out leading to the “heat death” of the universe. However, the evolutionary scenario proposes that over time things, on their own, became more ordered and structured. Somehow the energy of a “Big Bang” structured itself into stars, galaxies, planets, and living things, contrary to the Second Law. It is sometimes said that the energy of the Sun was enough to overcome this tendency and allow for the formation of life on earth. However, application of energy alone is not enough to overcome this tendency; the energy must be channeled by a machine. A human must repair a building to keep it from decaying. Likewise, it is the machinery of photosynthesis which harnesses the energy of the Sun, allowing life to exist, and photosynthesis is itself a complex chemical process. The maturing of an acorn into a tree, or a zygote (the first cell resulting from fertilization) into a mature human being does not violate the Second Law as these processes are guided by the information already present in the acorn or zygote. Key reference: The Second Law of Thermodynamics (answersingenesis.org)

6. Existence of the Universe
By definition, something must be eternal (as we have “something” today and something cannot come from “nothing”, so there was never a time when there was “nothing”). Either the universe itself is eternal, or something/someone outside of and greater than the universe is eternal. We know that the universe is not eternal, it had a beginning (as evidenced by its expansion). Therefore, God (the something/someone outside of the universe) must exist and must have created the universe. Einstein showed that space and time are related. If there is no space there is no time. Before the universe was created there was no space and therefore no concept of time. This is hard for us to understand as we are space-time creatures, but it allows for God to be an eternal being, completely consistent with scientific laws. The question “who created God” is therefore an improper/invalid question, as it is a time-based question (concerning the point in time at which God came into existence) but God exists outside of time as the un-caused first cause.

7. Fine-tuning of Earth for Life
Dozens of parameters are “just right” for life to exist on this planet. For example, if the Earth were just a little closer to the Sun it would be too hot and the ocean’s water would boil away, much further and it would be covered continually in ice. Earth’s circular orbit (to maintain a roughly constant temperature year-round), its rotation speed (to provide days and nights not too long or short), its tilt (to provide seasons), and the presence of the moon (to provide tides to cleanse the oceans) are just some of many other examples.

The presence of large amounts of water, with its amazing special properties, is also required. Water is a rare compound in that it is lighter in a solid state than in a liquid state. This allows ponds to freeze with the ice on the surface allowing the life beneath to survive. Otherwise bodies of water would freeze from the bottom up and become solid ice. Water is also the most universal “solvent” known, allowing for dissolving/mixing with the many different chemicals of life. In fact, our bodies are 75-85% comprised of water.
Key reference: The Privileged Planet (Gonzalez/Richards)

8. Fine-tuning of Physics
The fine-tuning of the physical constants that control the physics of the universe - the settings of the basic forces (strong nuclear force constant, weak nuclear force constant, gravitational force constant, and electromagnetic force constant) are on a knife’s edge. A minor change in these or any of dozens of other universal parameters would make life impossible.

The “multiverse” idea that there may be many universes and ours “just happened” to have these proper values is outside of science and could never be proven. Even then we would have to ask “what was the cause of all these universes?”
Key reference: Hugh Ross lists about 100 parameters on the Reasons To Believe web site. See also Design and the Anthropic Principle

9. Abrupt Appearance in the Fossil Record
The oldest fossils for any creature are already fully-formed and don’t change much over time (“stasis”). The “Cambrian Explosion” in the “primordial strata” documents the geologically rapid appearance of most major groups of complex animals. There is no evidence of evolution from simpler forms. Birds are said to have evolved from reptiles but no fossil has ever been found having a “half-scale/half-wing”. A reptile breathes using an “in and out” lung (like humans have), but a bird has a “flow-through” lung suitable for moving through the air. Can you even imagine how such a transition of the lung could have taken place? Abrupt appearance and stasis are consistent with the biblical concept of creation “according to its kind”, and a world-wide flood that scoured the earth down to its basement rocks, depositing the “geologic column” and giving the appearance of a “Cambrian Explosion”. Smarter, more mobile creatures would escape the flood waters longer, becoming buried in higher-level strata, leading to a burial order progressing from “simpler” forms to more complex/higher-level forms, which people now wrongly interpret as an evolutionary progression.
Key reference: Fossils Q&A (answersingenesis.org)

10. Human Consciousness
A person is a unity of body + mind/soul, the mind/soul being the immaterial part of you that is the real inner you. Chemicals alone cannot explain self-awareness, creativity, reasoning, emotions of love and hate, sensations of pleasure and pain, possessing and remembering experiences, and free will. Reason itself cannot be relied upon if it is based only on blind neurological events.
Key reference: The Origin of the Brain and Mind, Brad Harrub and Bert Thompson, CRS Quarterly, Volume 41, June 2004
11. Human Language
Language separates man from the animals. No animal is capable of achieving anything like human speech, and all attempts to teach chimpanzees to talk have failed. Evolutionists have no explanation for the origin of human language. However, the Bible does. It says that the first man, Adam, was created able to speak. The Bible also explains why we have different human languages, as God had to "confuse" the common language being used in Babel after the flood, in order to force people to spread out around the world as He wanted. This was only a "surface" confusion though, as all languages express the same underlying basic ideas and concepts, enabling other languages to be learned and understood.
Key reference: The Mystery of Human Language (Morris, icr.org)

12. Sexual Reproduction
Many creatures reproduce asexually. Why would animals abandon simpler asexual reproduction in favor of more costly and inefficient sexual reproduction? Sexual reproduction is a very complex process that is only useful if fully in place. For sexual reproduction to have evolved complimentary male and female sex organs, sperm and eggs, and all the associated machinery in tandem defies the imagination.

13. The Bible's Witness
The Bible is true. The history of the Bible is true. The words of the Bible concerning our origins were given to men to write down, by God, who was the only living being present. We were not there! God said He created the universe. God said He created all living things. We know that life is much more than chemicals. God put His life into Adam and that life has been transferred from generation to generation all the way down to us!
Key reference: The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict (McDowell)

SamCogar wrote:TH, did you copy that from Dr. Dino's website or from a pamplet you picked up on your visit to the Creation Museum?

Keli wrote: No. However, if I had, would that change the facts?