Essays /
Creationism vs. Evolution Debate [25]
And no, an experiment that has produced life has not yet been carried out. Hence my use of the future tense in my original post. However, various experiments have been carried out that indicate that such an experiment will eventually be successful. For instance, this one recently showed that the basic chemicals present on early Earth could have given rise to the basic building blocks of RNA fairly easily:
The article that you provided says that it is impossible for ribonucleotides to form. Also the origin of life article says it shouldn't be confused with evolutionary models. The problem with several of the hypothesis's are many. Some of them have already been proven wrong, eg. Spontaneous Generation, Some, like the black smoker and the radioactive beach model, provide sugars for the amino acids and proteins to form, but the problem is once these are formed sugars are actually destructive to them. The chemical atmosphere contains positive and negative amino acids to make proteins, but only negative amino acids can be used to make them (if there are positive ones they will not form) all of these problems in all of these hypothesis's convince me that evolution is not true science.
To back up my point on Theory vs. Law there is a law that no evolutionist can say doesn't apply, The Law of Biogenesis. This scientific Law says that "Life can only come from life!" Evolution teaches that a bunch of random chemicals some how all connected in the right order to make a protein and then somehow made tons and tons of these and finally made a cell. Somewhere along the way evolution says that those chemicals came to life. This theory is in conflict with a Scientific Law and the Law always wins!
To back up my point on Theory vs. Law there is a law that no evolutionist can say doesn't apply, The Law of Biogenesis. This scientific Law says that "Life can only come from life!" Evolution teaches that a bunch of random chemicals some how all connected in the right order to make a protein and then somehow made tons and tons of these and finally made a cell. Somewhere along the way evolution says that those chemicals came to life. This theory is in conflict with a Scientific Law and the Law always wins!
Ok, you don't understand how mutation works. Mutation does not remove information, it simply alters it. The DNA code does not become shorter and shorter as species evolve. But, even if this point were true it would be irrelevant because it says nothing about the validity of the theory of evolution.
Mutation can never add information. Scientists like Dr. Lee Spetner and Dr. Werner Gitt agree that mutation has never added information to the genetic code. A business cannot make money by losing it a little at a time.
This still does not say anything about the validity of the theory of evolution. Also over time, selective breeding can lead to a change in reproductive compatability. This would lead to the creation of a new species.
So, in time, selective breeding would turn a dog into a snake... That seems absurd!
Only in 2 cases: 1) Where the fossils were planted as fakes, and 2) where natural geological processes have clearly shifted the layers out of the order in which they were originally laid.
In addition to my statement made before I just want to give some hard facts about the fossil record. 95% of it is marine organisms, coral, shellfish, etc... 95% of the remaining 5% are algae and plants... 95% of the remaining 0.25% are invertebrates, including insects,,, The remaining 0.0125% are vertebrates, mostly fish. Also man wouldn't have necessarily been fossilized. Early man would probably have decomposed or been eaten. Forces of nature can also remove bodies. The 2004 tsunami in southeast Asia was a reminder of the speed water can erase all trace of bodies. According to the United Nation's Office of the Special Envoy for Tsunami Recovery, almost 43,000 victims were never found. Another reminder, fossilization is a rare event and fossils are hard to find.
i.e. those that have evolved to have a resistance. That is, originally, only a handful of the original bacterial population had resistance, but the addition of the drug to the environment meant that only those survived, so the trait was selected for. This is evolution at its most basic.
There have been no mutations that provide new information but there have been, and these are very limited, beneficial mutations. But, again, mutations, even beneficial ones, go the wrong way for evolutionists. They are a loss of information.
P.S. What is the current popular model for the creation of the universe? (I know it changes often)
