evolution, the facts that inform the theory'?

a reply to: Raggedyman

So you are not denying you are lying I see

I've posted all this evidence before. Read those replies.

There are other problems as well. Biologist Carl Woese holds that “the RNA world theory . . . is fatally flawed because it fails to explain where the energy came from to fuel the production of the first RNA molecules.” And researchers have never located a piece of RNA that can replicate itself from scratch. There is also the issue of where RNA came from in the first place. Though “the RNA world” theory appears in many textbooks, most of it, says researcher Gary Olsen, “is speculative optimism.”

originally posted by: Xenogears

Read the article completely. It says RNA with cofactors based catalysts are capable of generating some of the energy reactions required to power the system, and it is conceivable they may generate the whole chain of reactions.

Notice that biologist Carl Woese is talking about "the production of the first RNA molecules" (not that it's the main issue here). So before you have RNA enzymes catalyzing reactions with whatever the scientist who performs the experiment intelligently decides to put into the intelligently chosen* mixture of components of life that weren't around at the time abiogenesis or the chemical evolution of life is said to have occured, i.e. a prebiotic earth (*: for a specific purpose that involves chemical engineering by using components harvested from living organisms, who also aren't around in a prebiotic earth scenario or environment; however, what is around, is oxygen, which is conveniently left out of these experiments, for reasons already mentioned in the video in this comment that followed rnaa's promotion of the hydrothermal vent version of the abiogenesis storyline he used with CDK007's video).

Since you talked about "proof of concept", I'd like to remind you that if there is anything that can be classified as "proof of concept" in these types of experiments (including the one you referenced), it's proof of the concept of chemical engineering (in relation to the origin of life, i.e. the creation of life). But it's often more akin to reverse engineering and it's too far removed from creating life to seriously refer to it as "proof of concept". It's like claiming you've provided "proof of concept" for building a particular airplane by welding 2 pieces of metal together. And if someone were to say that the forces of nature on their own can weld the 2 pieces together (cause it's just chemistry and heat, conveniently ignoring the intelligent and purposeful input of the one doing the welding, or setting up some automated welding machine as in a factory) and therefore we supposedly have "proof of concept" that the forces of nature on their own can put that whole airplane together, who would take that person seriously?

Or to put it into the words of Phil Cohen and stay on the main issue here:

In the 1980’s, researchers discovered in their laboratory that RNA molecules could act as their own enzymes by snipping themselves in two and splicing themselves back together. So it was speculated that RNA might have been the first self-replicating molecule. It is theorized that in time, these RNA molecules learned to form cell membranes and that finally, the RNA organism gave rise to DNA. “The apostles of the RNA world,” writes Phil Cohen in New Scientist, “believe that their theory should be taken, if not as gospel, then as the nearest thing to truth.”

Not all scientists, though, accept this scenario. Skeptics, observes Cohen, “argued that it was too great a leap from showing that two RNA molecules partook in a bit of self mutilation in a test tube, to claiming that RNA was capable of running a cell single-handed and triggering the emergence of life on Earth.”

Too great a leap of faith for me as well. Just like my airplane and 2 pieces of metal example. And the more recent experiments change nothing about that situation. It's still intelligently hand-picked RNA molecules (harvested from living organisms, that's where the reverse engineering comes in) partaking in a bit of self mutilation (or conglomeration) in a test tube (in which the content and/or atmosphere is intelligently coordinated for the purpose of inducing specifically pre-planned, anticipated and desired reactions on rather fragile molecules that would not remain intact otherwise, a coordination of selective content and/or atmospheric conditions which the forces of nature on their own are not capable of selecting that way and which the evidence from the field of geology refutes as a realistic content and/or atmosphere because for example oxygen or water is left out from the test tube, or whatever other container is used).

“The combination of amino acids into larger peptide molecules, known as polymerization, was found to be impossible in the presence of water at any temperature,” notes The New York Times. Why won't rnaa's video that talks about polymerization not mention this as it depicts the whole process of the chemical evolution of life taking place in the water? From beginning till end, but especially when it's talking about this polymerization process? It just doesn't happen that way as it is depicted in that ridiculously cartoonish animation that won't even be honest about the most basic facts known in the field of chemistry, such as in this case hydrolysis.

originally posted by: peter vlar
...
A most interesting side note is that after Miller’s stroke, all of his research and materials related to the Miller-Urey experiments were donated. When examining some previously unknown vials of material from the original batch of tests regarding Abiogenesis that Miller and Urey ran from 1952- 1958. When Bada examined the material with newer and more precise instrumentation, he found that it was from unpublished work from ‘52-53 and ‘58. The 1952 samples showed the existence of 22 amino acids and 5 amines showing definitively that the original research produced MORE compounds than were originally recorded. ...

Squeezing the Last Life Out of the Miller Experiment (2014)

Can the dead live again? The Miller-Urey experiment of 1953, with its iconic spark-discharge flasks producing amino acids in a simulation of the early Earth, was pretty much dead by the turn of the millennium. Jonathan Wells wrote:

The Miller-Urey experiment is still featured prominently in textbooks, magazines, and television documentaries as an icon of evolution. Yet for more than a decade most geochemists have been convinced that the experiment failed to simulate conditions on the Earth, and thus has little or nothing to do with the origin of life. (Icons of Evolution, p. 10)

Now, rummaging through Stanley Miller’s vials, some of Miller’s followers say they’ve found enough unpublished evidence to resurrect the icon.

NASA’s Astrobiology Magazine was among 65,000 sites that echoed the report of "Stanley Miller’s Forgotten Experiments" around the Internet. Miller’s second graduate student, Jeffrey Bada, had inherited those vials after his mentor suffered a stroke in 1999. In some vials from 1958, more amino acids were found than those in the original 1953 experiment. The difference was caused by the addition of a new ingredient, cyanamide, to the flask.
...
We see right off the bat that Miller’s purpose in 1958 was to study the polymerization of amino acids. He didn’t really produce any new amino acids, except when he added hydrogen sulfide (H2S) to the flasks that same year (strangely, he never published those results either, so Parker and Bada repeated the experiment in 2011).
...
In the lab, the Frank-Caro process requires temperatures of 1,000 degree Celsius to produce cyanamide. Once you have it, you can use it as a dehydration agent to generate other organic molecules. Bada and Parker give it a role in the peptide condensation reaction, but their abstract only mentions dipeptides (two amino acids joined together). Proteins and enzymes are typically hundreds of amino acids long.

Hydrogen sulfide (H2S) is sometimes detected in volcanic gasses, although it is usually produced by biological sources. Bada and Parker can therefore expect this molecule to provide some of the reducing conditions for the origin of life.

That’s about the only good news astrobiologists can expect, though, because all the old criticisms of the Miller experiment by Jonathan Wells still apply:

""

(1) They still used the wrong gasses: methane, ammonia, and water vapor. For decades, geochemists have not considered it likely these gasses were abundant in the early Earth atmosphere.

(2) They still ignored the presence of oxygen, which destroys the desired products. Wells explained that oxygen was likely abundant due to photodissociation of water in the atmosphere. The oxygen would remain, while the hydrogen would quickly escape to space.

(3) Even if trace amounts of ammonia or methane and other reducing gasses were present, they would have been rapidly destroyed by ultraviolet radiation.

(4) No amino acids have been generated in spark-discharge experiments using a realistic atmosphere of nitrogen, carbon dioxide and water vapor, even in the absence of oxygen.

To this we could add more problems:

""

(5) The amino acids produced were racemic (mixtures of left- and right-handed forms). Except in rare exceptions, life uses only the left-handed form. Astrobiologists need to explain how the first replicator isolated one hand out of the mixture, or obtained function from mixed-form amino acids initially, then converted to single-handed forms later. Neither is plausible for unguided natural processes — especially when natural selection would be unavailable until accurate replication was achieved.

(6) Undesirable cross-reactions with other products would generate tar, destroying the amino acids. Only by isolating the desired products (a form of investigator interference — one might call it intelligent design) could they claim partial success.

(7) Amino acids tend to fall apart in water, not join. Under the best conditions with cyanamide, Bada and Parker only got dipeptides. Repeated cycles of wetting and drying would need to be imagined for polymerization, but many astrobiologists today think life originated at deep sea hydrothermal vents.

(8) The desired reagents would be extremely dilute in the oceans without plausible concentrating mechanisms. Even then, they would disperse without plausible vessels, like cell membranes, to keep them in proximity.

(9) Lifeless polypeptides would go nowhere without a genetic code to direct them.

(10) The Miller experiments cannot speak to the origin of other complex molecules needed by life: nucleic acids, sugars, and lipids. Some of these require vastly different conditions than pictured for amino acid synthesis: e.g., a desert environment with boron for the synthesis of ribose (essential for RNA).

NASA’s celebration of the iconic Miller experiments as "a piece of scientific history" is, therefore, much ado about nothing. But since it is such a valuable icon to Darwinists, there will be a lot of ado:

The study discovered a path from simple to complex compounds amid Earth’s prebiotic soup. More than 4 billion years ago, amino acids could have been attached together, forming peptides. These peptides ultimately may have led to the proteins and enzymes necessary for life’s biochemistry, as we know it.

It may be a beautiful theory to some, but as Thomas Huxley pointed out, many a beautiful theory was killed by an ugly fact. We just gave you ten ugly facts that kill the Miller icon. It’s not going to live again.

Nice way to circumnavigate the interdependency and retention issues though. Reminds me of Phantom423 circumnavigating the hydrolysis issue with his bacteria-experiment, a nice red herring ridiculing paintjob just a few comments before it on page 16.

And I beg to differ on the phrase "It’s not going to live again." Depends on how you interpret that. It's still not recognized for what it truly is evidence of when it comes to human behaviour as well as our origin.

Genetic mutations and natural selection are the 2 biggest facts that inform the theory.

Chapter 2: Disagreements About Evolution​—Why?

When a special centennial edition of Darwin’s Origin of Species was to be published, W. R. Thompson, then director of the Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control, in Ottawa, Canada, was invited to write its introduction. In it he said: “As we know, there is a great divergence of opinion among biologists, not only about the causes of evolution but even about the actual process. This divergence exists because the evidence is unsatisfactory and does not permit any certain conclusion. It is therefore right and proper to draw the attention of the non-scientific public to the disagreements about evolution” [⁠a]

THOSE who support the theory of evolution feel that it is now an established fact. They believe that evolution is an “actual occurrence,” a “reality,” a “truth,” as one dictionary defines the word “fact.” But is it?

To illustrate: It was once believed that the earth was flat. Now it has been established for a certainty that it is spherical in shape. That is a fact. It was once believed that the earth was the center of the universe and that the heavens revolved around the earth. Now we know for sure that the earth revolves in an orbit around the sun. This, too, is a fact. Many things that were once only debated theories have been established by the evidence as solid fact, reality, truth.


...

a reply to: whereislogic

Fact or Theory?

Summarizing some of the unsolved problems confronting evolution, Francis Hitching observed: “In three crucial areas where [the modern evolution theory] can be tested, it has failed: The fossil record reveals a pattern of evolutionary leaps rather than gradual change. Genes are a powerful stabilizing mechanism whose main function is to prevent new forms evolving. Random step-by-step mutations at the molecular level cannot explain the organized and growing complexity of life.”​—Italics added.

Then Hitching concluded by making this observation: “To put it at its mildest, one may question an evolutionary theory so beset by doubts among even those who teach it. If Darwinism is truly the great unifying principle of biology, it encompasses extraordinarily large areas of ignorance. It fails to explain some of the most basic questions of all: how lifeless chemicals came alive, what rules of grammar lie behind the genetic code, how genes shape the form of living things.” In fact, Hitching stated that he considered the modern theory of evolution “so inadequate that it deserves to be treated as a matter of faith.”⁠19

However, many advocates of evolution feel that they do have sufficient reason to insist that evolution is a fact. They explain that they are just arguing over details. But if any other theory had such enormous remaining difficulties, and such major contradictions among those who advocate it, would it so readily be pronounced a fact? Merely repeating that something is a fact does not make it a fact. As John R. Durant, a biologist, wrote in The Guardian of London: “Many scientists succumb to the temptation to be dogmatic, . . . over and over again the question of the origin of the species has been presented as if it were finally settled. Nothing could be further from the truth. . . . But the tendency to be dogmatic persists, and it does no service to the cause of science.”⁠20

Chapter 3: What Does Genesis Say?

References Listed by Chapter

a reply to: whereislogic

Do you even know who these people are that you’re quoting or are you simply using confirmation bias to choose articles that you think give the appearance of being supported by some sort of science? Francis Hitching isn’t a scientist, has zero educational background in any biological science (or any science at all for they matter) and is a serial liar who has claimed to be a member of the Royal Archaeological Society which he is not, claimed that Stephen J Gould helped him write his Giraffe’s Nexk book (Gould had never heard of let alone met or collaborated with Hitching) and then claimed that his book was endorsed by Dawkins, who like Gould, had never heard of the man previously. He also stated unequivocally that Evolution is a nearly indisputable fact based on the mountain of evidence from geology, paleontology and genetics. He just thinks that the MES is incorrect about the mechanisms and that “Darwinism” or “Neo-Darwinism” don’t work because they exclude some mysterious cosmic force pulling the strings. But he still believes that evolution does indeed occur and is a factual biological process verified by 200 years of data.

This is the problem with selective quote mining and trying to erase context because doing so works the majority of the time because people are too lazy to bother with the most basic attempts at due diligence. People like you count on the inherent laziness of humans

We get it, you don’t believe in anything that conflicts with your religious dogma. It’s fine. Just admit that you’re floating by on nothing but confirmation bias when all of your source material is filtered through religious websites run and edited by people who couldn’t pass 10th grade biology let alone understand a Scientitific Theory that crosses the boundaries of multiple disciplines.

People dont seem to grasp the significance of the MES as it accomplishes in the biological and earth sciences what physicists would like to do by reconciling QM and GR under a Unified Field Theory. No amount of JW.org or Watchtower links are going to change the reality of biology. Organisms change over time. It’s a fact and it’s been tested,
and the results have been independently repeated and the corpus of evidence supporting this only continues to grow with each passing day.

It’s curious how little you actually have to offer to these discussions as you quite liberally quote from outside sources and seldom offer any thoughts of your own which is, quite honestly, against the T&C of this site. It’s little more than a written Gish Gallop throwing as much spaghetti at the wall as can be found and then walking away thinking you won a debate when you haven’t actually offered anything resembling a dialogue to debate against.

a reply to: whereislogic

Research Spiegelman's Monster, not so much in the fact that rna, if provided with and endless supply of resources, would continue to replicate itself (with the proper, patented, enzyme), but, that it evolved! It jettisoned alot of unnecessary baggage, to become a streamlined "replication machine". The same way bacteria gain and lose dna, for the fastest replicating bacteria wins the fight of limited resources! You are right in asking the question about energy-but what powers ALL cells on the planet? (Save for fermentors, who are relative new comers on the evolutionary scale)-chemiosmosis, proton gradients across a membrane! Oh, and hydrolysis reactions occur in every cell constantly because of ATP, simple precursors are not that difficult to find in chemistry. I understand the difficulty in the complexity of this subject, and, as a simple minded healthcare professional, it took years of research-but one might be beter off studying evolutionary biochemistry, instead of evolution on its own.

a reply to: HiddenWaters

I might add, that i meant precursors to ATPase are easy to find in chemistry, and, that Carl Woese was a huge boon to biochemical evolution, as his studies helped discover the third domain of life-the archaea-without which, we, as eukaryotes, would not exist! He also reminded us, that genetically, we are very related to prokaryotes through our ribosomes,

a reply to: peter vlar
Your words mean very little to me, who are you? What is your field of expertise? Do you have a PhD in anything? Those quoted are all teachers or fans of evolutionary philosophies who have written on the subject described in the title of that article which in turn provides information about the answer(s) to the question "why". The quote mining accusation is still as invalid as the first 100 times I've heard it on this forum. How about you discuss the facts and opinions discussed in my comment instead of doing the standard routine of discrediting everyone who says something that isn't tickling your ears and any other red herring you can come up with to distract from the points brought up in that article?

Also, how convenient that you pretend that just any change over time proves "evolution" (or is "evolution"). As if that's all what the word stands for or is used to refer to...

No, what is called "microevolution" isn't "evolution" when the word is used to refer to the philosophies and storylines involving common descent (a.k.a. macroevolution) or the so-called "chemical evolution theory of life" (a.k.a. abiogenesis or chemical evolution). Call it what it is, minor changes over time. Then try to have a look at what kind of changes we're talking about and the actual effect they have on generations of living organisms in the long run. It's been well researched and documented:

Is Evolution a Fact?

Can Mutations Produce New Species?

Many details of a plant or an animal are determined by the instructions contained in its genetic code, the blueprints that are wrapped up in the nucleus of each cell.* Researchers have discovered that mutations​—or random changes—​in the genetic code can produce alterations in the descendants of plants and animals. In 1946, Hermann J. Muller, Nobel Prize winner and founder of the study of mutation genetics, claimed: “Not only is this accumulation of many rare, mainly tiny changes the chief means of artificial animal and plant improvement, but it is, even more, the way in which natural evolution has occurred, under the guidance of natural selection.”

Indeed, the teaching of macroevolution is built upon the claim that mutations can produce not only new species but also entirely new families of plants and animals. Is there any way to test this bold claim? Well, consider what some 100 years of study in the field of genetic research has revealed.

In the late 1930’s, scientists enthusiastically embraced the idea that if natural selection could produce new species of plants from random mutations, then artificial, or human-guided, selection of mutations should be able to do so more efficiently. “Euphoria spread among biologists in general and geneticists and breeders in particular,” said Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, a scientist from the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research in Germany, who was interviewed by Awake! Why the euphoria? Lönnig, who has spent some 28 years studying mutation genetics in plants, said: “These researchers thought the time had come to revolutionize the traditional method of breeding plants and animals. They thought that by inducing and selecting favorable mutations, they could produce new and better plants and animals.”*

Scientists in the United States, Asia, and Europe launched well-funded research programs, using methods that promised to speed up evolution. After more than 40 years of intensive research, what were the results? “In spite of an enormous financial expenditure,” says researcher Peter von Sengbusch, “the attempt to cultivate increasingly productive varieties by irradiation, widely proved to be a failure.” Lönnig said: “By the 1980’s, the hopes and euphoria among scientists had ended in worldwide failure. Mutation breeding as a separate branch of research was abandoned in Western countries. Almost all the mutants exhibited ‘negative selection values,’ that is, they died or were weaker than wild varieties.”*

Even so, the data now gathered from some 100 years of mutation research in general and 70 years of mutation breeding in particular enable scientists to draw conclusions regarding the ability of mutations to produce new species. After examining the evidence, Lönnig concluded: “Mutations cannot transform an original species [of plant or animal] into an entirely new one. This conclusion agrees with all the experiences and results of mutation research of the 20th century taken together as well as with the laws of probability. Thus, the law of recurrent variation implies that genetically properly defined species have real boundaries that cannot be abolished or transgressed by accidental mutations.”

Consider the implications of the above facts. If highly trained scientists are unable to produce new species by artificially inducing and selecting favorable mutations, is it likely that an unintelligent process would do a better job? If research shows that mutations cannot transform an original species into an entirely new one, then how, exactly, was macroevolution supposed to have taken place?

Does Natural Selection Lead to the Creation of New Species?

Darwin believed that what he called natural selection would favor those life-forms best suited to the environment, while less suitable life-forms would eventually die off. Modern evolutionists teach that as species spread and became isolated, natural selection chose those whose gene mutations made them most fit for their new environment. As a result, evolutionists postulate, these isolated groups eventually developed into totally new species.

As previously noted, the evidence from research strongly indicates that mutations cannot produce entirely new kinds of plants or animals. Nevertheless, what proof do evolutionists provide to support the claim that natural selection chooses beneficial mutations to produce new species? A brochure published in 1999 by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) in the United States says: “A particularly compelling example of speciation [the evolution of new species] involves the 13 species of finches studied by Darwin on the Galápagos Islands, now known as Darwin’s finches.”
...
However, the NAS brochure neglects to mention some significant but awkward facts. ... “the population, subjected to natural selection, is oscillating back and forth” each time the climate changes. The researchers also noticed that some of the different “species” of finches were interbreeding ... Peter and Rosemary Grant concluded that if the interbreeding continued, it could result in the fusion of two “species” into just one within 200 years.

Back in 1966, evolutionary biologist George Christopher Williams wrote: “I regard it as unfortunate that the theory of natural selection was first developed as an explanation for evolutionary change. It is much more important as an explanation for the maintenance of adaptation.” Evolutionary theorist Jeffrey Schwartz wrote in 1999 that if Williams’ conclusions are correct, natural selection may be helping species to adapt to the changing demands of existence, but “it is not creating anything new.”

Indeed, Darwin’s finches are not becoming “anything new.” They are still finches. And the fact that they are interbreeding casts doubt on the methods some evolutionists use to define a species. In addition, they expose the fact that even prestigious scientific academies are not above reporting evidence in a biased manner.
...

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: peter vlar
Your words mean very little to me, who are you? What is your field of expertise? Do you have a PhD in anything?

Kind of like your words mean to everyone else on the website? You are essentially a spam bot, preaching your agenda. Peter is one of the most knowledgeable people on this website. But yeah, you don't care about science, only your silly cult. Where is your PHD? LMAO!

a reply to: whereislogic

So do you have any actual points of your own? OR are you just posting large blocks of someones text?

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: peter vlar

Then try to have a look at what kind of changes we're talking about and the actual effect they have on generations of living organisms in the long run. It's been well researched and documented:
...

More info and related evidence (the relevant facts, including concerning plant and animal breeding) in my comment in the thread about creation.

Since I have some space for the stuff I skipped now:

Is Evolution a Fact?

“EVOLUTION is as much a fact as the heat of the sun,” asserts Professor Richard Dawkins, a prominent evolutionary scientist. Of course, experiments and direct observations prove that the sun is hot. But do experiments and direct observations provide the teaching of evolution with the same undisputed support?

Before we answer that question, something needs to be cleared up. Many scientists have noted that over time, the descendants of living things may change slightly. Charles Darwin called this process “descent with subsequent modification.” Such changes have been observed directly, recorded in experiments, and used ingeniously by plant and animal breeders.* These changes can be considered facts. However, scientists attach to such slight changes the term “microevolution.” Even the name implies what many scientists assert​—that these minute changes furnish the proof for an altogether different phenomenon, one that no one has observed, which they call macroevolution.

You see, Darwin went far beyond such observable changes. He wrote in his famous book The Origin of Species: “I view all beings not as special creations, but as the lineal descendants of some few beings.” Darwin said that over vast periods of time, these original “few beings,” or so-called simple life-forms, slowly evolved​—by means of “extremely slight modifications”—​into the millions of different forms of life on earth. Evolutionists teach that these small changes accumulated and produced the big changes needed to make fish into amphibians and apes into men. These proposed big changes are referred to as macroevolution. To many, this second claim sounds reasonable. They wonder, ‘If small changes can occur within a species, why should not evolution produce big changes over long periods of time?’* [footnote: While the word “species” is used frequently in this article, it should be noted that this term is not found in the Bible book of Genesis, which uses the much more inclusive term “kind.” Often, what scientists choose to call the evolution of a new species is simply a matter of variation within a “kind,” as the word is used in the Genesis account.]

The teaching of macroevolution rests on three main assumptions:

1. Mutations provide the raw materials needed to create new species.*

2. Natural selection leads to the production of new species.

3. The fossil record documents macroevolutionary changes in plants and animals.

Is the evidence for macroevolution so strong that it should be considered a fact?

Can Mutations Produce New Species?

..

Does Natural Selection Lead to the Creation of New Species?

...Darwin’s finches.”

In the 1970’s, a research group led by Peter and Rosemary Grant began studying these finches and discovered that after a year of drought, finches that had slightly bigger beaks survived more readily than those with smaller beaks. Since the size and shape of the beaks is one of the primary ways of determining the 13 species of finches, these findings were assumed to be significant. “The Grants have estimated,” continues the brochure, “that if droughts occur about once every 10 years on the islands, a new species of finch might arise in only about 200 years.”

However, the NAS brochure neglects to mention some significant but awkward facts. In the years following the drought, finches with smaller beaks again dominated the population. Thus, Peter Grant and graduate student Lisle Gibbs wrote in the science journal Nature in 1987 that they had seen “a reversal in the direction of selection.” In 1991, Grant wrote that “the population, subjected to natural selection, is oscillating back and forth” each time the climate changes. The researchers also noticed that some of the different “species” of finches were interbreeding and producing offspring that survived better than the parents. Peter and Rosemary Grant concluded that if the interbreeding continued, it could result in the fusion of two “species” into just one within 200 years.

Back in 1966, evolutionary biologist George Christopher Williams wrote: “I regard it as unfortunate that the theory of natural selection was first developed as an explanation for evolutionary change. It is much more important as an explanation for the maintenance of adaptation.” Evolutionary theorist Jeffrey Schwartz wrote in 1999 that if Williams’ conclusions are correct, natural selection may be helping species to adapt to the changing demands of existence, but “it is not creating anything new.”

Indeed, Darwin’s finches are not becoming “anything new.” They are still finches. And the fact that they are interbreeding casts doubt on the methods some evolutionists use to define a species. In addition, they expose the fact that even prestigious scientific academies are not above reporting evidence in a biased manner.

Does the Fossil Record Document Macroevolutionary Changes?

The previously mentioned NAS brochure leaves the reader with the impression that the fossils found by scientists more than adequately document macroevolution. It declares: “So many intermediate forms have been discovered between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and mammals, and along the primate lines of descent that it often is difficult to identify categorically when the transition occurs from one to another particular species.”

This confident statement is quite surprising. Why? In 2004, National Geographic described the fossil record as being like “a film of evolution from which 999 of every 1,000 frames have been lost on the cutting-room floor.” Do the remaining one-in-a-thousand “frames” really document the process of macroevolution? What does the fossil record actually show? Niles Eldredge, a staunch evolutionist, admits that the record shows that for long periods of time, “little or no evolutionary change accumulates in most species.”

To date, scientists worldwide have unearthed and cataloged some 200 million large fossils and billions of microfossils. Many researchers agree that this vast and detailed record shows that all the major groups of animals appeared suddenly and remained virtually unchanged, with many species disappearing as suddenly as they arrived. After reviewing the evidence of the fossil record, biologist Jonathan Wells writes: “At the level of kingdoms, phyla, and classes, descent with modification from common ancestors is obviously not an observed fact. To judge from the fossil and molecular evidence, it’s not even a well-supported theory.”
...

a reply to: whereislogic
What conclusions can one draw from the facts discussed in the previous article that are inconvenient to some people? Facts and details* that will probably be edited out by a moderator (I'm out of edit time) yet that won't make them go away either, or be any less significant or important to address and not circumnavigate with appeals to the rulebook and those only occasionally enforcing it to the letter, possible only when someone points it out to them or perhaps when someone is pushing the limits a bit too much.

Evolution​—Fact or Myth?

Why do many prominent evolutionists insist that macroevolution is a fact? After criticizing some of Richard Dawkins’ reasoning, influential evolutionist Richard Lewontin wrote that many scientists are willing to accept scientific claims that are against common sense “because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.”* Many scientists refuse even to consider the possibility of an intelligent Designer because, as Lewontin writes, “we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”

In this regard, sociologist Rodney Stark is quoted in Scientific American as saying: “There’s been 200 years of marketing that if you want to be a scientific person you’ve got to keep your mind free of the fetters of religion.” He further notes that in research universities “the religious people keep their mouths shut,” while “irreligious people discriminate.” According to Stark, “there’s a reward system to being irreligious in the upper echelons [of the scientific community].”

If you are to accept the teaching of macroevolution as true, you must believe that agnostic or atheistic scientists will not let their personal beliefs influence their interpretations of scientific findings. You must believe that mutations and natural selection produced all complex life-forms, despite the fact that a century of research, the study of billions of mutations, shows that mutations have not transformed even one properly defined species into something entirely new. You must believe that all creatures gradually evolved from a common ancestor, despite the fact that the fossil record strongly indicates that the major kinds of plants and animals appeared abruptly and did not evolve into other kinds, even over aeons of time. Does that type of belief sound as though it is based on fact or on a myth?

Source: Is Evolution a Fact? Awake!—2006

An earlier footnote also mentions:

Mutation experiments repeatedly found that the number of new mutants steadily declined, while the same type of mutants regularly appeared. Lönnig deduced from this phenomenon the “law of recurrent variation.” In addition, less than 1 percent of plant mutations were chosen for further research, and less than 1 percent of this group were found suitable for commercial use. The results of mutation breeding in animals were even worse than for plants, and the method was abandoned entirely.

And another note says: Genesis chapter 1 states that plants and animals would reproduce “according to their kinds.” (Genesis 1:12, 21, 24, 25) However, the Biblical term “kind” is not a scientific term and should not be confused with the scientific designation “species.”

*: details...

The “understanding heart is one that searches for knowledge”; it is not satisfied with a mere superficial view but seeks to get the full picture. (Pr 15:14) Knowledge must become ‘pleasant to one’s very soul’ if discernment is to safeguard one from perversion and deception.​—Pr 2:10, 11; 18:15; see KNOWLEDGE.

Source: Understanding: Insight, Volume 2

a reply to: whereislogic

You've heard of hyperlinking right? Again do you have any points of your own?

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: peter vlar
Your words mean very little to me, who are you? What is your field of expertise? Do you have a PhD in anything?

Kind of like your words mean to everyone else on the website?

Probably yes, which is why I prefer to get straight to the relevant facts and what the researchers who leave out these inconvenient facts on some occasions* have said about them. *: for example when their audience has not yet been sufficiently indoctrinated with evolutionary philosophies, but they acknowledge and discuss them on other occasions, for example when their audience is sufficiently biased in favor of evolutionary philosophies, and sometimes in the context of pretending they do not present an issue for their overarching evolutionary storylines.

Rather than get involved with all the bickering and defending against personal attacks on anything I might say myself about it. Which is just going to be cherry-picked out of my commentary for those purposes* anyway the more I use them. Standard routine here. *: personal attacks and trying to get someone to bicker about them so it nicely distracts from the facts and thinking about those or even acknowledging them or their relevance or what they mean for the plausibility of evolutionary philosophies and storylines (or how reasonable those are).

a reply to: whereislogic

Relevant facts? All you do is copy Jehovah's Witness propaganda that has already been debunked many times. You aren't contributing to any discussions at all, you just have your set group of JW articles that you repeatedly post in every thread, even ones that it's not relevant to the discussion. Sorry, but you are entirely incapable of discussing any science at all. You just spam these threads incessantly as if your propaganda magically becomes true if you repeat it enough. You aren't tricking anybody, sorry.

originally posted by: whereislogic

There are other problems as well. Biologist Carl Woese holds that “the RNA world theory . . . is fatally flawed because it fails to explain where the energy came from to fuel the production of the first RNA molecules.” And researchers have never located a piece of RNA that can replicate itself from scratch. There is also the issue of where RNA came from in the first place. Though “the RNA world” theory appears in many textbooks, most of it, says researcher Gary Olsen, “is speculative optimism.”

originally posted by: Xenogears

Read the article completely. It says RNA with cofactors based catalysts are capable of generating some of the energy reactions required to power the system, and it is conceivable they may generate the whole chain of reactions.

Notice that biologist Carl Woese is talking about "the production of the first RNA molecules" (not that it's the main issue here). So before you have RNA enzymes catalyzing reactions with whatever the scientist who performs the experiment intelligently decides to put into the intelligently chosen* mixture of components of life that weren't around at the time abiogenesis or the chemical evolution of life is said to have occured, i.e. a prebiotic earth (*: for a specific purpose that involves chemical engineering by using components harvested from living organisms, who also aren't around in a prebiotic earth scenario or environment; however, what is around, is oxygen, which is conveniently left out of these experiments, for reasons already mentioned in the video in this comment that followed rnaa's promotion of the hydrothermal vent version of the abiogenesis storyline he used with CDK007's video).

Since you talked about "proof of concept", I'd like to remind you that if there is anything that can be classified as "proof of concept" in these types of experiments (including the one you referenced), it's proof of the concept of chemical engineering (in relation to the origin of life, i.e. the creation of life). But it's often more akin to reverse engineering and it's too far removed from creating life to seriously refer to it as "proof of concept". It's like claiming you've provided "proof of concept" for building a particular airplane by welding 2 pieces of metal together. And if someone were to say that the forces of nature on their own can weld the 2 pieces together (cause it's just chemistry and heat, conveniently ignoring the intelligent and purposeful input of the one doing the welding, or setting up some automated welding machine as in a factory) and therefore we supposedly have "proof of concept" that the forces of nature on their own can put that whole airplane together, who would take that person seriously?

Or to put it into the words of Phil Cohen and stay on the main issue here:

In the 1980’s, researchers discovered in their laboratory that RNA molecules could act as their own enzymes by snipping themselves in two and splicing themselves back together. So it was speculated that RNA might have been the first self-replicating molecule. It is theorized that in time, these RNA molecules learned to form cell membranes and that finally, the RNA organism gave rise to DNA. “The apostles of the RNA world,” writes Phil Cohen in New Scientist, “believe that their theory should be taken, if not as gospel, then as the nearest thing to truth.”

Not all scientists, though, accept this scenario. Skeptics, observes Cohen, “argued that it was too great a leap from showing that two RNA molecules partook in a bit of self mutilation in a test tube, to claiming that RNA was capable of running a cell single-handed and triggering the emergence of life on Earth.”

Too great a leap of faith for me as well. Just like my airplane and 2 pieces of metal example. And the more recent experiments change nothing about that situation. It's still intelligently hand-picked RNA molecules (harvested from living organisms, that's where the reverse engineering comes in) partaking in a bit of self mutilation (or conglomeration) in a test tube (in which the content and/or atmosphere is intelligently coordinated for the purpose of inducing specifically pre-planned, anticipated and desired reactions on rather fragile molecules that would not remain intact otherwise, a coordination of selective content and/or atmospheric conditions which the forces of nature on their own are not capable of selecting that way and which the evidence from the field of geology refutes as a realistic content and/or atmosphere because for example oxygen or water is left out from the test tube, or whatever other container is used).

“The combination of amino acids into larger peptide molecules, known as polymerization, was found to be impossible in the presence of water at any temperature,” notes The New York Times. Why won't rnaa's video that talks about polymerization not mention this as it depicts the whole process of the chemical evolution of life taking place in the water? From beginning till end, but especially when it's talking about this polymerization process? It just doesn't happen that way as it is depicted in that ridiculously cartoonish animation that won't even be honest about the most basic facts known in the field of chemistry, such as in this case hydrolysis.

IIRC, one of the things that was talked in the article was how in the presence of clay, SPONTANEOUS LONG CHAIN RNA FORMED, from activated single nucleotides.

a reply to: Xenogears
Haven't you said that before already? (Perhaps I read it in the article already and by thinking you were going to bring it up I actually registered it as already having been brought up by you)

Don't you think it's a bit of a leap from showing that intelligently modified nucleotides (using chemical engineering techniques to 'tack on an extra bit', a catalyst of which the intelligently desired* chemical effect it will have is known in advance and is carefully planned and guided for achieving what is described below, not spontaneous, by chance or by accident) partook in a bit of conglomeration "in a test tube, to claiming that RNA was capable of running a cell single-handed and triggering the emergence of life on Earth”?

Lifeless RNA chains would go nowhere without a genetic code to direct them.

*: desired for the purpose of chemically engineering a chain of modified nucleotides by means of planning to induce reactions by intelligently picking the right ingredients for both the "extra bit" as well as the testing environment that the scientist performing the experiment knows will be conducive for generating chains of modified nucleotides, having that foresight and expertise in chemistry and having the ability and will or desire to select and pick those ingredients while leaving out any unwanted ingredients that might disrupt the desired result and the purpose of picking exactly those ingredients (namely to engineer or create chains of modified nucleotides by using chemical engineering techniques and making use of known reactions of specifically handpicked chemical substances and molecules harvested from living organisms for accomplishing this task)

Anyway, what justifies the word "spontaneous" in all these chemical engineering tricks playing around with molecules harvested from living organisms that aren't around on a prebiotic earth? In some of the experiments listed in the article you are referring to, complete machines are 'borrowed' (reverse engineered) from living organisms to catalyse the desired and pre-planned reactions (and in at least one case I noticed such a complete machine deceptively being referred to as "a simple molecule"; the "tC19Z" ribozyme, the quotation is even bolded and enlarged in the article as if it's significant).

Regarding the "extra bit" tacked on to the nucleotides, it's a bit unclear from the article whether this is a catalyst, reagent or reactant, I chose to call it a catalyst above.

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: Xenogears
Haven't you said that before already? (Perhaps I read it in the article already and by thinking you were going to bring it up I actually registered it as already having been brought up by you)

Don't you think it's a bit of a leap from showing that intelligently modified nucleotides (using chemical engineering techniques to 'tack on an extra bit', a catalyst of which the intelligently desired* chemical effect it will have is known in advance and is carefully planned and guided for achieving what is described below, not spontaneous, by chance or by accident) partook in a bit of conglomeration "in a test tube, to claiming that RNA was capable of running a cell single-handed and triggering the emergence of life on Earth”?

Lifeless RNA chains would go nowhere without a genetic code to direct them.

*: desired for the purpose of chemically engineering a chain of modified nucleotides by means of planning to induce reactions by intelligently picking the right ingredients for both the "extra bit" as well as the testing environment that the scientist performing the experiment knows will be conducive for generating chains of modified nucleotides, having that foresight and expertise in chemistry and having the ability and will or desire to select and pick those ingredients while leaving out any unwanted ingredients that might disrupt the desired result and the purpose of picking exactly those ingredients (namely to engineer or create chains of modified nucleotides by using chemical engineering techniques and making use of known reactions of specifically handpicked chemical substances and molecules harvested from living organisms for accomplishing this task)

Anyway, what justifies the word "spontaneous" in all these chemical engineering tricks playing around with molecules harvested from living organisms that aren't around on a prebiotic earth? In some of the experiments listed in the article you are referring to, complete machines are 'borrowed' (reverse engineered) from living organisms to catalyse the desired and pre-planned reactions (and in at least one case I noticed such a complete machine deceptively being referred to as "a simple molecule"; the "tC19Z" ribozyme, the quotation is even bolded and enlarged in the article as if it's significant).

Regarding the "extra bit" tacked on to the nucleotides, it's a bit unclear from the article whether this is a catalyst, reagent or reactant, I chose to call it a catalyst above.

By activated I believe they mean with a phosphate group attached. This isn't some elaborate specially made ultracomplex catalyst. What they found was in the presence of volcanic clay very long RNA spontaneously forms from such activated nucleotides.

And again RNA is just one candidate. All that is necessary for it or similar molecules to occur in long random chains spontaneously, and some collection may be able to perpetuate themselves better, leading to replication and evolution via errors in replication and mutation.