Evolutionists make truly wild assumptions to fill the gaps in their hypotheses. Check out Richard Dawkins’s thesis that DNA originated spontaneously in inorganic mud crystals.
Richard Dawkins is one of today’s most widely known defenders of Darwinian evolution. Professor Dawkins goes beyond defending evolution, using extravagant language to attack the personal qualifications of anyone who questions Darwinian evolution. Of such people, he opined, "It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet someone who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that)."
Needless to say, as a believer in evolution, professor Dawkins regards himself as not ignorant and not stupid. Yet, some of his speculations, to a non-believer in evolution, appear to be a few cards short of a full deck.
In Darwin’s evolutionary hypothesis, and in the many variants since 1859, the fundamental thrust, indeed the starting point for Darwin himself, was to disprove what he called the “damnable doctrine” of God as the Creator of the cosmos and of life on earth. All events, for the evolutionists, are attributable to material causes, without the intervention of a Creator existing before and outside the universe.
Because the minds of evolutionists cannot conceive of God as existence preceding essence, for them He cannot exist. Their only reality is the tangible, sensible world of processes with material causes that the human brain is capable of fathoming and presumptively controlling.
For evolution to stand on its own two feet, Darwinians must be able to explain how life was created by purely material factors. This they singularly fail to do. And without a materialistic beginning of life, there can be no purely materialistic, Darwinian evolution of life forms.
Darwinians therefore gloss over the origin of life and focus instead on the hypothetical mechanism of natural selection, through billions of tiny, random modifications over eons, which might plausibly have differentiated a single, original elemental life form into all known life forms of today. To date there have been only unsuccessful attempts in chemistry labs to create life from inorganic chemicals. Every theory attempting to explain the origin of life has collided with contradictory facts in chemistry and geology.
In The Blind Watchmaker, in the chapter titled "Origins and Miracles," professor Dawkins deals with the origin of life and of the presumed inception of the evolutionary process itself.
Most text books, he writes, favor the ‘primeval soup’ concept in which lots of chemicals got mixed up at the beginning of planet earth, and life just happened.
It seems probable that the atmosphere of Earth before the coming of life was like that of other planets which are still lifeless. There was no oxygen . . . Chemists know that oxygen-free climates like this tend to foster the spontaneous synthesis of organic chemicals.
However, this standard version, taught to students of biology today, appears to be erroneous in its postulation of an oxygen-free atmosphere before the creation of life. As noted in "Jesus vs. Darwin: Points 1 and 2:"
For example, the “primordial soup” hypothesis for the origin of life entirely by chance, proposed by the atheistic Soviet biochemist A. I. Oparin in 1924, requires that there be no free oxygen in the atmosphere, otherwise the postulated sequential combinations of chemicals would screech to a halt as oxygen, in effect, would “rust” the process. Geologists, unfortunately for the evolutionists, since then have found clear evidence in ancient rocks that there were significant amounts of oxygen in the atmosphere at the postulated time of the “primordial soup.”
Professor Dawkins’s preferred hypothesis, however, is not the ‘primeval soup’ one, but the ‘inorganic mineral’ theory of Glasgow chemist Graham Cairns-Smith.
Cairns-Smith’s view of the DNA/protein machinery is that it probably came into existence relatively recently, perhaps as recently as three billion years ago . . . Although the chemistry of modern Earth-bound life is all carbon-chemistry, this may not be true all over the universe, and it may not always have been true on this Earth. Cairns-Smith believes that the original life on this planet was based on self-replicating inorganic crystals such as silicates. If this is true, organic replicators, and eventually DNA, must later have taken over or usurped the role.
Cairns-Smith’s guess is that the original replicators were crystals of inorganic materials, such as those found in clays and muds . . . Since it is replication we are interested in, the first thing we must know is, can crystals replicate their structure? . . . Sometimes crystals spontaneously start to form in solution. At other times they have to be ‘seeded’, either by particles of dust or by small crystals dropped in from elsewhere . . . Flat crystals give rise to a population of flat crystals. Chunky crystals give rise to a population of chunky crystals. If there is a tendency for one type of crystal to grow and split more quickly than the other, we shall have a simple kind of natural selection. But the process still lacks a vital ingredient in order to give rise to evolutionary change. That ingredient is hereditary variation, or something equivalent to it. Instead of just two types of crystals, there must be a whole range of minor variants that form lineages of like shape, and that sometimes ‘mutate’ to produce new shapes.
Crystals grow like rows of flowers . . . But – and here is the vital point – there are flaws . . . And once a flaw has appeared, it tends to be copied as subsequent layers of crystal encrust themselves on top of it . . .
What DNA has over normal crystals is a means by which its information can be read. Leaving aside the problem of read-out, you could easily devise an arbitrary code whereby flaws in the atomic structure of the crystal denote binary numbers . . .
The role of clay and other mineral crystals in the theory is to act as the original ‘low-tech’ replicators, the ones that were eventually replaced by high-tech DNA . . .
There is still the missing ingredient of ‘power:’ the nature of the replicators must somehow have influenced their own likelihood of being replicated . . . Whether the original low-tech replicators were mineral crystals or organic forerunners of DNA itself, we may guess that the ‘power’ they exercised was direct and elementary, like stickiness . . .
We aren’t suggesting that clays ‘want’ to go on existing . . . suppose that a variant of clay improves its own chances of being deposited, by damming up streams . . . A succession of such shallow pools proliferates along the length of any stream that happens to be ‘infected’ by seeding crystals of this kind of clay . . . The clay dries and cracks in the sun, and the top layers are blown off as dust. Each dust particle inherits the characteristic defect structure of the parent clay that did the damming, the structure that gave it its damming properties. By analogy with the genetic information raining down on the canal from my willow tree, we could say that the dust carries ‘instructions’ for how to dam streams and eventually make more dust . . . The crystalline structure of each particle of dust is copied from the clay in the parent stream. It passes on that crystalline structure to the daughter stream, where it grows and multiplies and finally sends ‘seeds’ out again . . .
Now if the alteration makes the crystal either less or more efficient in the damming/drying/erosion cycle, this will affect how many copies it has in subsequent ‘generations’ . . . There are many opportunities for successive ‘generations’ to become progressively ‘better’ at getting passed to subsequent generations. In other words, there are many opportunities for rudimentary cumulative selection to get going.
Now to move on to the next stage of the argument, some lineages of crystals might happen to catalyse the synthesis of new substances that assist in their passage down the ‘generations’ . . . Cairns-Smith believes that organic molecules were prominent among non-replicating ‘tools’ of his inorganic replicators.
Notice in the foregoing, and in most writings by evolutionists, the frequent use of words like “may,” “probably,” “could have been,” “we could imagine,” “we may guess,” “must somehow,” and “must have been.”
Notice also that professor Dawkins begins with a tangential glance at the ‘primeval soup’ thesis as the mechanism by which life just happened on earth, but then he slides into the origin of DNA as the information technology by which genetic information is created, accumulated, and passed along to later generations. He never specifically comes to grips with the origin of life itself, the all-important first step in evolutionary hypothesizing.
Again, in the quotations above he casually assumes that, after clay crystals ‘evolve,’ organic chemicals (the building blocks of living tissue, which evolutionists acknowledge did not exist when earth was formed) are handily, by chance, available to be catalyzed by his ‘evolved’ crystals. This is circular reasoning on the order of stating, “The weather is cold, because it is cold.” It explains nothing. If the appropriate organic chemicals essential for living tissues came into being, via an unexplained process, at the appropriate time to catalyze Dawkins’s mud crystals, why do we need mud crystals?
Finally, notice that professor Dawkins and his fellow evolutionists offer no proof at all for any of their speculations, for the simple reason that there is no way to prove them. One might as plausibly speculate that the sun was originally blue when the earth was formed; no one can disprove it. Because they are “scientists,” we are required to take their word for it.
In any case, there you have it: the “scientific” hypothesis that one of the world’s most prominent Darwinian evolutionists uses to counter the ignorance, stupidity, and insanity of people who don’t accept Darwinian atheism and materialism.
Because the established scientific organizations and journals control the dictionary of science, they can get away with decreeing what is science and what is not. It’s apparently scientific to construct a whole theoretical edifice on the foundation of sheer speculation, provided that the speculation affirms Darwinian evolution.
“Brewton caught Dawkins in his typical rhetorical ploy of linking completely unsupported speculation (such as life originating from crystals) to something the public is familiar with (DNA) – it confers legitimacy by association and makes sliced baloney sound “scientific”. ”
Nonsense. Crystal seeding is one of many legitimate abiogenetic scenarios being examined by actual scientists. Is it speculative? Sure. Dawkins, in fact, says so. But is it unsupported speculation? No: it’s based off actual work done on crystal formation, chemical catalysis, and so forth, all aimed at figuring out a plausible scenario for further testing, and matching it up with what we know of the earliest life. If it turns out to be wrong, and it very well may, it will be based on solid evidence either discounting it as a possibility or showing that something else happened instead. Brewton didn’t “catch” Dawkins in anything: he just doesn’t know what he’s talking about, same as with his lie about what Darwin said about God.
I only barely recognize the actual history of evolutionary theory in your long ramble: anyone interested in what the actual matters of debate and dicussion are would be better served reading the real stuff instead of your mangled summary. But most directly damning of all, you seem to think that the central thing worth mentioning about DNA for evolution is that all living things have it (or RNA), as you demonstrated with your silly “water” argument. That’s not even close. What is stunning about DNA, from the perspective of common descent, is the particular _pattern_ in which DNA sequences are both similar AND disimilar from each other. You completely ignored my questions, which were probing in this direction, and it really seems like you don’t know the first thing about what this pattern is or why its so important, or even what it is.
“And, proving common descent was very important since it validated the claim that micro-evolution was merely a subset of macro-evolution.”
Again, this is fantasy history that you’ve concocted within your mind. Amongst biologists at least, there is no meaningful distinction or barrier between the plausibility of the two in the first place in the sense you mean it, so no need to find a special “validation” of it. Species that develop in different directions over time cease to be able to interbreed. While there are many different specific ways for this to occur morphologically or genetically or both, there’s no special mystery to this in the general case.
“we can assume with certainty multiple codes, if found, would have simply been incorporated within the theory, changing it not one bit.”
No, it would have changed things considerably in regards to the overall tree of life (just as symbiotes an viruses have already changed it). We might not be talking about a single tree of common descent, as we certainly won’t be if we ever discover a separate tree of life. Your implication, again, goes nowhere.
“But, one universal coding convention was simply too much an emotional affirmation of common descent to be considered a contradiction of evolution.”
You still haven’t explained how it would be, in any sense. Your description of Crick and Orgel’s surprise is yet another mangled presentation of a debate over various possibilities that I don’t think you even know the context of. Again, the fact that some things float and others sink doesn’t contradict fluid dynamics, nor does it mean that fluid dynamics is vague and consistent with anything. If you didn’t know anything about fluid dynamics, you could certainly make it SOUND loony, but that doesn’t make it an informed or accurate critique.
“Scientific American magazine, who assured its readers they would never repudiate evolution (so much for scientific detachment), was eventually forced to admit that the one gene, one protein, one function argument was nonsense. But, so what they said, science was wrong about that, but the biochemical basis for evolution was still true, it only needed more research (with help from the taxpayers).”
Again, this is just a silly misrepresention. The fact that the specifics of development and gene expression are far more complex than we thought when we barely knew anything about DNA is not even directly related to evolution. Variation is variation regardless of how circuitous the process is that expresses it. The actual specifics of embryonic development are even more complicated still, but you don’t see biologists stymied by this: you see them eagerly diving in and figuring it out. And surprise surprise, again and again they find more and more confirmation of common descent, down to the tiniest detail, none of which you or any other skeptic have ever been able to explain (most of the time, you just ignore it, just as you’ve ignored virtually everything on the talk.origins page that has been repeatedly pointed out to you).
“But, what if, instead, the random error was required to occur simultaneously in several genes, plus various ancillary processes (such as the polypeptide chains and within the molecular chaperones) for the new protein to emerge? Still conceivable, assuming anything is conceivable, but much less likely.”
Well sure, and we’d thus be far less likely to see such multi-facted changes. And, in fact, we DO see less of them. So what?
“However, in 1979, B.G. Barrell reported in Nature magazine that cells found in certain vertebrate mitochondria were using a different amino acid coding structure from all other known cells, so maybe we should be giving genes more credit for self-awareness.”
Wow, 1979, really up on the latest research, aren’t you? This has nothing to do with “self-awareness” regardless.
“The evolutionists argue in a circular fashion. Evolution is a fact and adaptive changes occurred. The biochemical changes at the cellular level are the initial starting point for evolution, therefore the biochemical processes leading to adaptive changes must have occurred. Intuitively it makes sense and has a good beat you can dance to.”
You’re grossly misinformed. Anyone can open a biology journal and see that this is not the case: that it is in fact these processes of development and mutational change that are directly studied and sussed out: they aren’t simply inferred or assumed to be there.
“For skeptics, the number and intricacy of simultaneous undirected changes required in this process certainly do appear “miraculous”.”
Except that simply asserting that this or that change requires or couldn’t get to where it is without simultaneous changes isn’t an argument. You have to get down to brass tacks and prove this to be true. And so far, every time a creationist or ID theorist even bothers to try, they fail, generally miserably.
“Conceptually, imagine a third eye forms directly in the back of your skull. Might be a cool function for natural selection to accept or reject, but it glosses over what is needed in your brand new eye. Simultaneously with your new peeper, an undirected change set of muscles would also be needed to focus it. And, an undirected change optic nerve must also simultaneously appear so electro chemical signals could be transmitted to your brain.”
Wait, this is supposed to be an argument AGAINST evolution? Evolution via common descent argues for descent via modification of pre-existing structures. Nowhere does it suggest, or does any transition in the taxonomic system require, the sort of radical change you are describing. That’s the whole point. Modern eyes do not simply appear fully formed. That’s not the evolutionary position in the least.
The taxonomic tree of descent is, in fact, extremely conservative.
“While waiting around for the eye to form, would your brand new optic nerve be lost as natural selection tries to figure out what to do with it and then figuratively shrugs its shoulders?”
Yes, that’s almost certainly exactly what would happen (which is one reason why designs “hidden” in DNA for expression later, as some ID theorists have suggested, wouldn’t work). What you are describing: complex new functions emerging all at once, is an aspect of design, not evolution. And the fact that we DON’T see such things happening in nature is a point FOR evolution, not against it.
“The number of simultaneous undirected changes needed is indeed daunting, even when evolutionists invoke the standard rhetorical trump card of “eons of time.”
Again, simply asserting that some feature requires one huge leap to get to is not the same thing as proving it. If you could prove that some structure were really Irreducibly Complex, that would be one thing. But you can’t. And so your skepticism has nothing to grab onto other than empty rhetoric.
One other thing about Dawkins not brought out in Brewton’s essay is that science is not practiced by saints in white lab coats. In our world, science is no more than an idealized and beloved abstraction – the mundane reality is ordinary human beings engaged in various research activities, usually courtesy of the generosity of their fellow taxpayers. And, just like the rest of us, scientists have the full complement of human failings.
Dawkins is a case in point: an obscure zoologist, whose laboratory contribution to science could best be described as minimal, turns in his lab coat to preach how evolution theory confirms atheism. Like Cinderella, Dawkins goes on to fame and fortune; book royalties, talk shows, fee paid speaking engagements. Some scientists are embarrassed by Dawkins, others envious, but the scientific community circles the wagons around him and confers additional honors to prove a point to the general public, namely scientists are not to be judged by their intellectual inferiors.
Like Cassandra issuing unheeded warnings, men and women of science have occasionally reminded their colleagues that overconfidence and loyalty to a theory can lead to loss of objectivity. Nobel Prize recipient Richard Feynman said the first person the scientist must not fool is himself, but, also like Cassandra, this warning is often ignored. And the interpretation of the fossil record in evolution research is a perfect example of the problem.
Since evolution theory addresses historic biological development, the fossil record is the only tangible evidence of the historic subject matter. It both confirms the theory and demonstrates its primary aspects. There are other proofs of evolution, comparative anatomy, homology, etc., but the fossil record has the greatest public relations impact: Generations of children have stared at reconstructed dinosaurs and intuitively realized that animals that once roamed the earth have disappeared and evolution must explain why.
Charles Darwin, in 1859, knew the fossil record didn’t confirm his theory of gradual change, but he blamed the imperfection of the record, not the theory. Over the last 150 years, millions of fossils have been unearthed and word has slowly leaked out of the scientific community that the fossil record actually disputes Darwin and those evolutionists of the gradualist school.
Dr. Henry Gee, a senior editor of Science magazine, saw fossils as “an infinitesimal dot, lost in a fathomless sea of time, whose relationships with other fossils and organisms living in the present day is obscure/” (Gee would later state this quote, though public, must not be used without permission and the words, though accurate, don’t represent his true thinking on evolution.)
Niles Eldredge, a highly respected research paleontologist, blatantly let the cat out of the bag. His motivation may have been the defense of a new theory of evolutionary change (punctuated equilibrium) he co-developed with the late Stephen Jay Gould.
I apologize for the length of the following quote, but a quote fragment for the sake of brevity always brings the charge that skeptics quoted out of context, or don’t understand how science works, or didn’t really understand what the scientist actually meant. In an earlier monograph regarding fossils, Eldredge said:
“Standard evolutionary theory focuses on anatomical change through time by picturing natural selection as the agent that preserves the best of the designs available for coping with the environment. This generation by generation process, working on small amounts of variation, is thought to change, slowly but inexorably, the genetic and anatomical makeup of a population.
If this theory were correct, then I should have found evidence of this smooth progression in the vast numbers of Bolivian fossil trilobites I studied. I should have found species gradually changing through time, with smoothly intermediate forms connecting descendent species to their ancestors.
Instead I found most of the various kinds, including some unique and advanced ones, present in the earliest known fossil beds. Species persisted for long periods of time without change. When they were replaced by similar, related (presumably descendent) species, I saw no gradual change in the older species that would have allowed me to predict the anatomical features of its younger relative.
The story of anatomical changes through time that I read in the Devonian trilobites of Gondwana is similar to the picture emerging elsewhere in the fossil record: long periods of little or no change, followed by the appearance of anatomically modified descendents, usually with no smoothly intergradational forms in evidence.
If the evidence conflicts with theoretical predictions, something must be wrong with the theory. But for years the apparent lack of progressive change within fossils has been ignored or else the evidence – not the theory – has been attacked. Attempts to salvage evolutionary theory have been made by claiming that the pattern of stepwise change usually seen in fossils reflects a poor, spotty record. Were the record sufficiently complete, goes the claim, we would see the expected pattern of gradational change. But there are too many examples of this pattern of stepwise change to ignore it any longer. It is time to reexamine evolutionary theory itself.
There is probably little wrong with the notion of natural selection as a means of modifying the genetics of a species through time, although it is difficult to put it to the test. But the predicted gradual accumulation of change is seldom (if ever) encountered in our practical experience with the fossil record.”
The foregoing quote reveals interesting psychological aspects of scientists, or at least evolutionists. Scientists fall in love with a theory and will deny evidence that disputes the theory for decades rather than question the theory itself. Rationalizations take over and “ a poor, spotty record” is offered as an excuse not to challenge what is obvious to any honest person.
Even Eldredge is unable to deny natural selection (his last paragraph) despite his own admission that it can’t be tested and the fossil evidence doesn’t support it.
Subsequently, Eldredge recanted some of his heresy; he probably wanted to keep his job. And almost 20 years later, in 1998, the National Academy of Sciences was still peddling the same old rationalizations to the public when they published a booklet defending the “tree of life”. The tree of life is a sacred icon in evolution’s liturgy and, in simple terms, means that life started eons ago with a single cell and through the ages progressed upward with new species constantly branching off the main trunk. If the fossil record doesn’t support the “tree of life”, well then there’s something wrong with the fossil record (what part of Eldredge didn’t they understand?).
Despite critic’s complaints (a minor dissident sect called “cladists”) that the tree is more like a non-hierarchical node diagram or “periodic table of elements” based on shared characteristics (homologies), the mystical “tree of life” concept persists. Other scientists have introduced the notion of “saltation” to explain the fossil record which is the startling concept of abrupt evolutionary changes, like the first mammal hatching from a reptile egg. Since saltation smacks of the miraculous, it has been loudly and persistently denied as having any validity.
So what are we to make of this “fact” of evolution? Eldredge denies the fossil evidence supports it and claims natural selection can’t be tested. Yet, he still believes. Obviously, evolution theory itself is also evolving with constant tweaking required from “punctuated equilibrium” to Lynn Margulis’ “symbiogenetics”, to Motoo Kimura’s “neutral theory” to horizontal gene transfer (hgt). Science claims this constant revision is a healthy process, but a psychologist might claim it’s a self-delusional fixation and an understandable reluctance to give up a cherished theory.
And maybe it is – evolutionists are obstinately claiming to have described and explained the historical development of 3.5 billion years of life with all its incredible diversity, contradictions and delightful mysteries. So, are we to believe this “fact” of evolution as it was in Darwin’s day, as it was 50 years ago or as it is today – which “fact” of evolution is the fact?
“Nonsense.” “Doesn’t know what he’s talking about.” “Fantasy.” “Silly.” “Mangled.” “Grossly misinformed.”
This the distilled sum total of Deane’s presentation. Deane makes no effort at all to actually explain things, preferring snide comments and condescension.
And why is this? Well, the primary problem in Deane’s mind is simply that there are people out there who actually question the evolution dogma. They are too stupid to realize how stupid they are. They are uniformly uninformed, preferring to believe fairy tales while real science stands courageously, beating back ignorance and myth.
Another poster wrote, “If evolution is going to be disproven it will be scientists that disprove it.” In other words, just shut up. If you don’t have an advanced degree in biology, by golly, you are not qualified to even venture an opinion on the matter.
Science has become a religion. Doubters are castigated and marginalized. Scientists are the high priests of Truth. The rank and file are like sheep who have to be led to the faith because they are not schooled enough to think for themselves.
MountainMan,
“This the distilled sum total of Deane’s presentation. Deane makes no effort at all to actually explain things, preferring snide comments and condescension.”
Actually, I did plenty of explaining, all of which you have dodged, avoided, and now simply denied. Saying those words are the “distilled sum” of my posts is about as honest as me claiming that your post consists of “if, are, stupid, and mind.”
I’m not making accusations of being misinformed lightly, or simply assuming them. I have pointed out precisely several times what statements belie misinformation, confusion, and outright falsehoods. What else am I supposed to do when you make such statements? NOT call you on them? Are we supposed to have a debate premised on mistakes and ignorance of what we are talking about?
Because THAT is the ethic you are advocating.
“If you don’t have an advanced degree in biology, by golly, you are not qualified to even venture an opinion on the matter.”
Not at all. However, if you haven’t actually studied the issue at least a little, you should be much more _cautious_ in making grand conclusions and pronouncements about the subject, because chances are there are lots of facts and caveats and subtleties that you are missing. This isn’t advice specific to science either. It’s good advice in general.
However, you don’t seem to care whether or not you understand biology or evolution or physics or any field. You already have an opinion on these matters, and what the ACTUAL specific claims and ideas in these fields are don’t matter to you. That is, I suspect, why you have so little concern for representing them accurately. Any old straw man is good enough.
“Science has become a religion. Doubters are castigated and marginalized. Scientists are the high priests of Truth. The rank and file are like sheep who have to be led to the faith because they are not schooled enough to think for themselves.”
I’m sure it’s very comforting and gratifying to believe this. It relieves you of any responsibility to be accurate or informed about what you are criticizing, or from ever having to deal with substantive issues. You can just scream “religion”! and then not have to actually deal with any of the actual evidence or arguments.
You’ve simply dodged this debate at every turn. Now you’ve found another weak, unconvincing accusation to justify doing so.
Pat, I’ll respond to you, if you ever bother to get around responding to me. Posting essays unrelated to anything I’ve said, that do not address my points (and even repeat the same claims I’ve already attacked without any acknowledgment of or rebuttal to my responses), just doesn’t cut it. I could continue to pick apart the misrepresentations of each essay you post, but to what end if you are not going to bother to respond?
You’re just pushing the same goofy interpretation of the debate over PE that creationists can’t seem to get over, even though most of the core claims are wrong, and the scientists you quote have specifically pointed out how you’ve misrepresented what they’ve said.
Science is a debate, and yes it’s by humans with failings, not by saints (note that I brought up this point in _defense_ of science as a process long before you brought it up as if it were some attack: more evidence that you haven’t even _read_ what I wrote). But the debate can’t be premised on willful misinformation.