Is evolution a logical impossibility?

Most Americans find the idea of evolution absurd.
Do you have any source for that? If you actually understand the theory of evolution, it does make quite a bit of sense. It is not taking any two species at random and saying they turn into each other.

For example, evolutionists state that mankind just came about by itself from non-living materials such as rocks.
No, it they don't. Mankind shares a common ancestor with the great apes, not rocks.

Evolutionists often make the claim that one kind of life form can transform over time into another.
Define what you mean by kind. If you mean a frog spontaneously morphing into a cow, that is not evolution. If you mean a series of mutations that end up as a different species, that is correct.

The notion that a cat can turn into a frog has been so widely debunked that it hardly merits any further discussion.

The notion that a cat can turn into a frog is neither true nor evolution. If you're criticizing something, it's a good idea to know how it works first.

But let me settle this matter once and for all. Not only has evolution been proved false

I've seen many people claim that, but you'd think if something as important to modern biology as Evolution was debunked, it would be in the paper or something.

Ask any evolutionist what the components of evolution are, and quick as a person who has been brainwashed by a false-religion they will list out: Natural Selection, Genetic Inheritance and Genetic Mutation He will explain that all three of these are required to make up evolution, and without each of these evolution could not possibly happen. So that means that evolution itself is irreducibly complex. The evolutionists have actually confessed that evolution could not possibly have evolved!

This paragraph does not make the slightest bit of sense. Evolution did not evolve, because it is not a living creature. It's a theory. It is not a sentient being that chooses what mutates, what lives, and what dies. It is a series of random changes.

We at OverwhelmingEvidence.com call upon evolutionists to either justify their beliefs in the harsh light of these truths or give up their racket as soon as possible. These matters are far to important to be entrusted to credulous fools who believe everything they read in a 200 year old science-book.

As opposed to the credulous fools who believe everything they read in a 2000 year old religious text?

I would enjoy intelligent debate/discussion on this topic if anyone cares to reply.

Tom Ingram wrote:
"No, it they don't. Mankind shares a common ancestor with the great apes, not rocks."

Ultimately, according to the most absurd versions of evolutionary theory, yes… we are descended from non-living matter. Rocks, if you will. Just a chance assemblage of molecules that arose one day in a swamp as a single-celled organism.

So, if you really believe the totality of evolutionary theory, you cannot stop at the "great apes." You cannot say we were descended from apes but that we are not also descended from a one-celled organism or non-living matter. You have to go all the way back, and if you do, you end up with non-living matter.

Tom wrote:
"If you actually understand the theory of evolution, it does make quite a bit of sense."

I should point out that ID proponents, and even creationists, do not reject evolution generally, nor do they reject natural selection. So, depending on what you mean by "evolution", you might be right. Micro-evolution is entirely uncontroversial. No one, not even young-Earth creationists, reject micro-evolution. For that, there is indeed overwhelming evidence, and we don't argue with that.

However, if by evolution you mean "macro-evolution," then you are badly mistaken. Nothing about macro-evolution makes sense at all. Macro-evolution requires an increase in genetic information, but the processes we have available (random mutation and natural selection) can only manage to degrade or decrease information content. Those processes cannot produce new information. They require information to exist already. That is a huge problem.

Tom wrote:
"Evolution did not evolve, because it is not a living creature. It's a theory. It is not a sentient being that chooses what mutates, what lives, and what dies. It is a series of random changes."

Agreed. But how do you square that with Orgel's Second Rule, which reads:

"Evolution is cleverer than you are."

Tom wrote:
"The notion that a cat can turn into a frog is neither true nor evolution."

I believe the person you were responding to was making a generalization, they weren't literally claiming that cats turn into frogs according to evolutionary theory. And, I dare say you know that. This is an example of trying to have it both ways. There's nothing about the idea of cats turning into frogs that's in any way more ridiculous than, for example, the idea of one-celled organisms turning into apes. So you see, it doesn't make any difference… you pick whatever two organisms you want… we'll let you pick 'em.

TRoutMac
Intelligent (Graphic) Designer

...we are descended from non-living matter. Rocks, if you will.

Just to be clear, some scientists are investigating whether organic precursors to DNA could have self-assembled into the DNA we know and love today. No one I'm aware of claims that life literally came from rocks (which are composed of minerals and other inorganic materials), though there is a hypothesis that some of these precursors may have been brought to Earth embedded in asteroids early in the life of the solar system.

Also, this particular investigation is into the origin of life on Earth, which isn't really within the scope of Darwin's theory. Darwin (RM + NS) picks up after the first living organism came into being - from that first organism, Darwin claims, the rest of life is descended. Nothing can descend from a rock, because a rock does not contain any genetic material.

None of this, even if demonstrated to be correct, can claim to deny the existence of God. If, for example, it could eventually be demonstrated that DNA could reasonably have self-assembled from matter present during the earliest periods following Earth's formation, there is the very fundamental question of why is there matter and energy at all in the first place?

Some people argue that it is an insult to the majesty of God to suggest that, after setting the universe into motion, it would be necessary for God to have to twiddle about with molecules on Earth in order to give rise to life. As though the initial creation was insufficient.

For a perspective on the consonance of all scientific knowledge with a belief in God, check out this blog.

Fandango wrote:
"Nothing can descend from a rock, because a rock does not contain any genetic material."

Of course, I agree entirely with you on this point. Indeed there is no way to get from non-living matter to living matter. The gap between the first single-celled organism and that non-living matter which materialists will claim that the organism rose out of cannot be bridged by any Darwinian process.

It's interesting to note that some Darwinists agree with this and stop Darwinism at that first cell, claiming Darwinism doesn't even address the origin-of-life question. Perhaps that's true… in fact, it ought to be true.

But to the extent that Darwinists are materialists, they must look for some way to fill that gap with a material explanation. And even if that explanation fall under the umbrella of Darwinism, the result is the same… we are descended ultimately from non-living matter. (according to materialists, at any rate)

The only other option is to assert that life has always existed and that the universe itself is eternal, but that idea cannot be defended on any scientific basis, so they're well and truly stuck.

TRoutMac
Intelligent (Graphic) Designer

Of course, I agree entirely with you on this point. Indeed there is no way to get from non-living matter to living matter. The gap between the first single-celled organism and that non-living matter which materialists will claim that the organism rose out of cannot be bridged by any Darwinian process.

I could cite the whole post if I felt like it, but this will do.

Also, this particular investigation is into the origin of life on Earth, which isn't really within the scope of Darwin's theory. Darwin (RM + NS) picks up after the first living organism came into being - from that first organism, Darwin claims, the rest of life is descended. Nothing can descend from a rock, because a rock does not contain any genetic material.

Now that was what you were replying to. Notice how he specifically states that the theory of evolution is not the theory of the origin of life. Yet you still post the same rubbish.

we are descended ultimately from non-living matter.

Well done. Im sure that will destroy the theory of evolution with its total irrelevance.

tml wrote:
"I could cite the whole post if I felt like it, but this will do."

And perhaps you should have. Maybe then you would have actually read all of what I wrote. I wrote:

"It's interesting to note that some Darwinists agree with this and stop Darwinism at that first cell, claiming Darwinism doesn't even address the origin-of-life question. Perhaps that's true… in fact, it ought to be true."

So you see, I'm agreeing with you that, regardless of whether people claim (and some do) that Darwinism is a theory that addresses the origin-of-life question, it cannot be an answer to origin-of-life because there's no way to get from non-living matter to a functional organism via Darwinian processes.

Really, this discussion has to be expanded at this point to address naturalism or materialism. The question would have to be this:

"Could there be ANY purely natural processes which can create life from non-life?"

If the answer is "Yes", even if that process is not a Darwinian process, then you're stuck with the reality that we arose from non-living matter via some natural process. In other words, we're descended from rocks.

If the answer is "No", then you're invoking the supernatural.

By virtue of the fact that you seem to want to deny that humans could be ultimately descended from non-living matter (and of course I would agree enthusiastically with that denial) I would say that you've got quite a dilemma in front of you now… at least if you're a committed naturalist.

TRoutMac
Intelligent (Graphic) Designer

If the answer is "Yes", even if that process is not a Darwinian process, then you're stuck with the reality that we arose from non-living matter via some natural process. In other words, we're descended from rocks.

TroutMac, I believe the phrase "descended from rocks" is not a reasonable representation of any current theory of abiogeneis. I see what you are trying to say, however I think it's a straw man that makes those of us who believe in ID sound like we simply misunderstand the distinction between Darwinian evolution and abiogenesis.

I often debate evolutionists, and one of the keys to winning these arguments is knowing which talking-points to avoid.

Phrases like that "Evolutionists think that life is descended from rocks" creates the impression amongst mainstream scientists that we do not fully understand that which we are criticizing. Somebody responding to this phrase merely has to show the distinction between evolutionary theory and abiogenesis theory and then show that you have mis-represented abiogenesis. It's not a good way for us to win because by using this kind of talking-point we loose the moral high-ground.

Most secular people who bother to consider these things probably suspect that life began in some kind of chance combination of complex inorganic and organic chemistry. Some suspect that the chemistry of "rocks" may have contributed in some way, e.g. by providing a surface upon which some proto-life chemistry reacted, I do not think there is any researcher into abiogenesis who would place a rock or a pebble at the top of their hypothetical tree of life.

I think we can safely say that proponents of abiogenesis believe that all known life today has a common ancestor and that common ancestor was a very simple form of proto-life which emerged in a non-miraculous way. Some abiogenesis proponents believe that many abiogenesis events may have occurred and may still be occurring however the establishment of life on earth prevents any new kind of life from gaining any foothold. Any new protolife would quickly be consumed by bacteria and then extinguished.

Evolution theory does not concern itself with how that 1st life began, however it attempts to say a great deal about what happened between then and now.

When we confuse these two theories we expose ourselves to ridicule by the mainstream media who are just itching to associate ID Scientists with irrational science-deniers and bible-believing YECs. They want to be able to state that our arguments are merely based on a misunderstanding of the current theories.

Please do not give them a chance, this kind of poor rhetoric only weakens our position.

Peace

Quizzlestick

quizzlestick wrote:
"TroutMac, I believe the phrase "descended from rocks" is not a reasonable representation of any current theory of abiogeneis."

I would agree that perhaps "rocks" is a bit hyperbolic. And as a Christian who believes that God created matter and energy and then created humans out of those elements, it is only fair that I admit that I also believe, in one sense, that humans are "related" to rocks. That is, both consist of tangible, material, non-living elements. Matter. You might even say "the dust of the ground." The cells within our bodies may exhibit "life" but the components of those cells… the amino acids, the proteins, are themselves lifeless.

My comments are designed merely to emphasize the huge gap between non-living matter and living organism when viewed through a naturalist prism. Those who are not bound by naturalism see no such gap.

Please see my other blog post about whether or not Darwinism explains the "origin of life" and I would welcome your further comments and even criticism.

TRoutMac
Intelligent (Graphic) Designer