Creation vs. Evolution

[BobK]

Typical, being that the videos 7-12 in the Mystery of Life series are completely science-based discussions, discussed by scientists themselves, presenting only observable data, and which provide several examples of evidence which you all have said for quite a while that I cannot produce... well, here it is, and now you're acting like this...

The first video I watched this morning was the one in the God thread. It was a video of a scientist having second thoughts on a theory of his based on further evidence. Well guess what. That's exactly how science works. The video was, as I already pointed out, totally irrelevant to the discussion in the thread, unless it was groundwork to trot out the tired old "well we don't know how it happened so it must have been God" argument. But that's a discussion for the God thread, I mention it here only to explain why I didn't bother with the last two.

The second video I watched, the first of the three you posted above, showed a rocket presumably containing one of the Voyager spacecraft taking off, some artists' conceptions (ie, made up) of the Voyagers in space, and a copy of the famous "pixel Earth" picture that Voyager took. Then it urged me to buy their DVD, and oh yes, here's a code to get a 15% discount on it. Again, nothing at all relevant to this thread.

Don't want to watch it? Fine, it only detracts from your farcically suggested position of objectivity even more.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. The first two I watched were pointless and irrelevant to the discussion. Given that, I saw no reason to waste my time on the other videos you posted.

 

[mister dog]

My opinion; creation and evolution go hand in hand.

God could have created the universe and at the same time let evolution run it's course.
Why should it be one or the other.

I see it as god's science project, you create something and watch it evolve.
Don't know if i'm rare with this opinion but i believe in God as a controlling entity and at the same time i believe i'm part of a species of monkeys.

 

[Touring Mars]

My opinion; creation and evolution go hand in hand.

God could have created the universe and at the same time let evolution run it's course.
Why should it be one or the other.

I see it as god's science project, you create something and watch it evolve.
Don't know if i'm rare with this opinion but i believe in God as a controlling entity and at the same time i believe i'm part of a species of monkeys.

It's definitely not a rare opinion - and you're in very good company in your views. Ken Miller, a very eloquent and effective science communicator and a world-leading expert on the C v E debate itself, is a prominent example of someone who champions science and the validity of evolution theory, and at the same time is a committed Christian.

His views on God and the possible role that God might have in the execution of evolution as a process are not shared with his atheist counterparts, but they fundamentally agree on the scientific reality of evolution and therefore there is no rancour between Miller and atheist champions of evolution, such as Dawkins.

For believers in God, believing that evolution is God's method of creation is a very good compromise that most (if not quite all) atheist evolutionists would likely not argue with.

 

[Sach]

The first video I watched this morning was the one in the God thread. It was a video of a scientist having second thoughts on a theory of his based on further evidence. Well guess what. That's exactly how science works. The video was, as I already pointed out, totally irrelevant to the discussion in the thread, unless it was groundwork to trot out the tired old "well we don't know how it happened so it must have been God" argument. But that's a discussion for the God thread, I mention it here only to explain why I didn't bother with the last two.

How is it not relevant? I guess if you didn't watch past the one video in the series you would have missed that they clearly say three things that point toward their theory of intelligent design:

1. amino acids could not have bonded chemically in a primordial ocean without the presence of genetic material (DNA - information), and as such, life could not have formed under that hypothetical scenario

2. the machines that function to carry out cellular processes are irreducibly complex, thus the theory of natural selection does not hold up when explaining their origin and design

3. these machines are logically created, intelligently created, operating by instructions alone (information), otherwise they are useless, and the only source of information we know of in the universe is intelligence



- And for all the people in this thread that use the excuse, "Well this is best and most likely scenario scientists can come up with, and that's why I don't believe in God...", well here is an example of scientists saying that this is where the evidence points, toward intelligent design.


It's completely relevant. An intelligent being is not objective. It rationalizes, and produces things by logic (or not). There is evidence for intelligent design, which means that the lack of purely objective evidence to support God may be beside the point, something I've been saying since the beginning anyway, because God Himself may be subjective, and as God He is operating subjectively at the God-level, without restrictions, not at the rational-what-we-humans-can-observe-only level.

 

[BobK]

How is it not relevant?

I told you already. You even quoted it. A scientist discarding his theory on abiogenesis has nothing to do with whether or not God exists, given that God was neither in his theory nor in the evidence which weakened it.

I guess if you didn't watch past the one video in the series you would have missed that they clearly say three things that point toward their theory of intelligent design:

Give the man a gold star! Yes, given that I didn't watch the other two videos and I even said so, and furthermore I even explained why, it doesn't take much intelligence to conclude I missed any content which may have been in the videos I didn't watch.

 

[Dapper]

The amino acids mystery has be solved for a relative long time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cosMs5EtktY&feature=related

 

[TheDrummingKING]

How is it not relevant? I guess if you didn't watch past the one video in the series you would have missed that they clearly say three things that point toward their theory of intelligent design:

1. amino acids could not have bonded chemically in a primordial ocean without the presence of genetic material (DNA - information), and as such, life could not have formed under that hypothetical scenario

2. the machines that function to carry out cellular processes are irreducibly complex, thus the theory of natural selection does not hold up when explaining their origin and design

3. these machines are logically created, intelligently created, operating by instructions alone (information), otherwise they are useless, and the only source of information we know of in the universe is intelligence

Will you please look back at my post on the previous page? It is the last post on the page. I addressed this. All the videos are is scientists reaching their limits of understanding and saying therefore it was God. There is no evidence to back it up. Life being complex, combined with us not being able to presently understand it, is not evidence of God.

 

[Touring Mars]

All the videos are is scientists reaching their limits of understanding and saying therefore it was God.

It is alot worse than that. In the case of the argument regarding the concept of irreducible complexity, they're just plain wrong - the idea has been debunked so thoroughly, it's beyond a joke. Ken Miller destroyed the concept in the Kitzmiller v Dover trial - and he's a Christian! No wonder real scientists (and not dishonest fundamentalist hacks like Stephen Meyer) consider it a zombie hypothesis...

Life being complex, combined with us not being able to presently understand it, is not evidence of God.

This is true, but I would argue that science actually has a very very firm grasp on how evolution works - it is simply not the case that we don't understand how new species arise. That some wish to deliberately misinterpret the evidence, or ignore it altogether in favour of their own fanciful ideas about how present day species came to be here is a great pity - and those who deliberately misinform others in a pathetic attempt to discredit the real science ought to hang their heads in shame.

 

[Dapper]

- And for all the people in this thread that use the excuse, "Well this is best and most likely scenario scientists can come up with, and that's why I don't believe in God...", well here is an example of scientists saying that this is where the evidence points, toward intelligent design.

I'll reiterate from posted vids, 15% of the world's best scientist, and 40% of scientist in general believe in God.

It's completely relevant. An intelligent being is not objective. It rationalizes, and produces things by logic (or not). There is evidence for intelligent design, which means that the lack of purely objective evidence to support God may be beside the point, something I've been saying since the beginning anyway, because God Himself may be subjective, and as God He is operating subjectively at the God-level, without restrictions, not at the rational-what-we-humans-can-observe-only level.

Again, another reiteration, it has been shown throughout history that when a scientist, group of scientist, or a culture concedes to the intelligent design theory then their scientific advancement stops. Isaac Newton exemplified this as was pointed out.

So, everyone should agree that the beginning of life is unknown right now, but concluding it was God's work leaves one to ponder no further.

This is true, but I would argue that science actually has a very very firm grasp on how evolution works - it is simply not the case that we don't understand how new species arise. That some wish to deliberately misinterpret the evidence, or ignore it altogether in favour of their own fanciful ideas about how present day species came to be here is a great pity - and those who deliberately misinform others in a pathetic attempt to discredit the real science ought to hang their heads in shame.

While I agree, if the origin of life is chess, the spawning of a new species from an existing one is like tic tac toe.

 

[mister dog]

It's definitely not a rare opinion - and you're in very good company in your views. Ken Miller, a very eloquent and effective science communicator and a world-leading expert on the C v E debate itself, is a prominent example of someone who champions science and the validity of evolution theory, and at the same time is a committed Christian.

His views on God and the possible role that God might have in the execution of evolution as a process are not shared with his atheist counterparts, but they fundamentally agree on the scientific reality of evolution and therefore there is no rancour between Miller and atheist champions of evolution, such as Dawkins.

For believers in God, believing that evolution is God's method of creation is a very good compromise that most (if not quite all) atheist evolutionists would likely not argue with.

Thanks for the tip. Fact of the matter at the end of the day, you can discuss this endlessly... we will only, maybe, have a oppurtunity to know the truth about it all when we die, as then we return to the unknown.

People have been debating this since the break of mankind, killing eachother over it in the meantime in many circumstances as one thinks he knows better than the other when it comes to the meaning of it all... but nobody knows the truth and as long as we live we will probably never will.

 

[TheDrummingKING]

It is alot worse than that. In the case of the argument regarding the concept of irreducible complexity, they're just plain wrong - the idea has been debunked so thoroughly, it's beyond a joke. Ken Miller destroyed the concept in the Kitzmiller v Dover trial - and he's a Christian! No wonder real scientists (and not dishonest fundamentalist hacks like Stephen Meyer) consider it a zombie hypothesis...

I was unaware of that. I suppose I don't have to bother to say anything about those videos then.

This is true, but I would argue that science actually has a very very firm grasp on how evolution works - it is simply not the case that we don't understand how new species arise. That some wish to deliberately misinterpret the evidence, or ignore it altogether in favour of their own fanciful ideas about how present day species came to be here is a great pity - and those who deliberately misinform others in a pathetic attempt to discredit the real science ought to hang their heads in shame.

I probably should have been more specific. I meant that there are certain aspects we are yet to understand (I don't actually have any examples, but I'm sure there are some things we don't know yet ). I agree with everything you've said though, just thought I should be a bit more specific in what I was saying.

 

[Sach]

Will you please look back at my post on the previous page? It is the last post on the page. I addressed this. All the videos are is scientists reaching their limits of understanding and saying therefore it was God. There is no evidence to back it up. Life being complex, combined with us not being able to presently understand it, is not evidence of God.

You are brushing this off, when in fact the situation is not as you describe. The situation is in fact that cellular machines are designed intelligently, this was their observation.


What they are saying is no different than attributing the strange goings on at the outermost parts of the universe to the effects of dark matter. They observe evidence and make a conclusion, which is "intelligence", just like "dark matter" is also a conclusion. Not once did the word "God" arise in those videos. Why is dark matter an 'answer', because it is the "best solution", the exact wording used in the Chapter 12 video.

​

 

[niky]

this was their observation

Their opinion. Saying "intelligent design" is merely saying "we-don't-know-how-it-happened-so-we-say-someone-did-it".

-

The difference with dark matter is that dark matter is a description of the possible shape and nature an unknown material should have to exert the effects it has on the structure of the Universe.

This is the same way we found Neptune and Pluto. We saw the effects first, described their possible causes, then went and looked for the causes.

 

[Sach]

Their opinion. Saying "intelligent design" is merely saying "we-don't-know-how-it-happened-so-we-say-someone-did-it".

No, they are saying that they observe that information is required in the processes that form life, and the only source of information in existence that we know of is intelligence. They are making an inference based on this objective data.

 

[niky]

Opinion, still. Based on insufficient data. TM has already refuted this quite well.

 

[Sach]

Opinion, still. Based on insufficient data. TM has already refuted this quite well.

This is a mere claim.


I read back through all of his comments, and the only thing he suggested is that one's opinion could be pointed in the direction that the origin of information has roots in the process of evolution.

That is not a refute of anything.

It's not really much at all, to be honest, because it's obvious that evolution is the mechanism behind the diversity of species, all of which operate based on information systems in their cellular design. Of course they would be related, but to say that evolution is the cause of the information is taking a step beyond the actual evidence which shows otherwise.

 

[BobK]

the only source of information in existence that we know of is intelligence.

Where on Earth did you come up with that ridiculous notion? That's one of the most absurd things I've seen in this thread. Somebody needs to study some very, very basic information theory.

 

[niky]

Basically that.

Saying that you need information from an intelligent source to cause life is merely a supposition based on incomplete information.

What they are saying is that existing cellular mechanisms and amino acids seem like they could not have been formed in the absence of DNA.

This doesn't preclude the possibility of those mechanisms and amino acids forming in some other manner from precursors that were then discarded.

"irreducible complexity" merely means "we don't understand how to do it yet." Again, "here there be dragons" on our map of knowledge... though I'm liking the term "The God of the Gaps."

 

[Dapper]

Saying there is definitely an answer to the origin of life is just as radical as confidently attributing it to God.

The difference being one belief fosters growth, the other stifles it.

 

[Sach]

Where on Earth did you come up with that ridiculous notion? That's one of the most absurd things I've seen in this thread. Somebody needs to study some very, very basic information theory.

In cells? I'm referencing the videos.

 

[Denur]

@Sach: I watched the first video (Unlocking the mystery of life, chapter 10/12). It is very well made and great to see how things work (I must assume here, that all presented in that video is biologically correct).

Until the end where the commentator stated about the video: "... the most compelling evidence for intelligent design". Now where did that come from? I didn't see any evidence of anything, just how things work in cells, not how they did get to work that way. But maybe I overlooked something in the video.

I will watch the other two videos later, but I must admit that the first one has made me a little sceptical.

 

[Touring Mars]

it's obvious that evolution is the mechanism behind the diversity of species, all of which operate based on information systems in their cellular design. Of course they would be related...

Good start... what is not obvious, though, is why any two species exhibit the precise degree of genetic similarity that they do, if it were not for the fact that they are related by descent. In other words, if chimpanzees and humans are not related by descent, why do their genomes compare so closely, for example? There is no reason why this should be the case. All species share common genes - genes which encode the same proteins/enzymes that are essential to the most fundamental of life processes - such as cytochrome C. But, these genes (and hence the proteins) are not identical - they are subtley different from species to species... although they actually do the same job.

Qualitatively, the information content and ultimate physical manifestion of these different genes is equivalent - the genes and proteins are different, but the outcome (the function of the protein and the information contained in the DNA in order to make that protein) is the same. So, this being the case, it shouldn't matter which species gets which version of the gene/protein - from a design perspective, there's no reason why cytochrome C proteins should be different at all. Furthermore, there's no reason why cytochrome c proteins should exhibit variable amounts of difference between species either. But they do.

Of all the infinite possible ways that species could have been assigned cytochrome C proteins (and many others besides), only an extremely tiny fraction supports the common descent hypothesis. In contrast, there are literally none that would not support the intelligent design hypothesis. This is a key point that simply has to be understood - the physical data is just one side of the story. It fits both hypotheses, so both hypotheses are equally good, right? Wrong. The other side of the story is whether or not your hypothesis has any explanatory power or is meaningful in any way. But if all possible observations fit your hypothesis, then the data becomes meaningless, and therefore so must be your hypothesis.

As I have said before in this thread, it is like opening a safe. The observed data is like knowing the combination to the safe - but the usefulness of the safe depends on the number of possible right answers that safe has. If any combination opens your safe, then the safe is lousy - it also doesn't matter what data you have either, since any possible combination will do. But, the predictions made by evolution theory are considerably more specific - that is, if the common descent hypothesis is not to be refuted, then the observed data must fall into that extremely tiny fraction of possible combinations that common descent could generate. In the analogy, this is equivalent to saying that the safe only has a very small number of possible answers that will satisfy it. If the observed data matches, then your hypothesis is good. If it doesn't match, however, then the hypothesis is incorrect.

So, if chimp cytochrome C was as different to human cytochrome C and zebrafish cytochrome C, the hypothesis that chimps and humans are more closely related by descent than humans and zebrafish are would be refuted. Similarly, if chicken and turkey cytochrome C proteins were as different to each other as chicken and lemongrass cytochrome C proteins, again the hypothesis would be refuted. Now extend this argument across the entire living world, and you'll find that there are infinitely more ways for the common descent hypothesis to be refuted than there are for it to be not.

So what does the actual data say - well, it resoundingly endorses the common descent hypothesis. (Of course, the data doesn't say anything about the intelligent design hypothesis for the reason that I've just explained i.e. the hypothesis cannot be refuted, therefore the data is irrelevant - and when the data is irrelevant, you're not doing science). The fact is, human and chimp cytochrome C proteins are 100% identical, chicken and turkey cytochrome C proteins are also 100% identical to each other, but critically, they are not 100% identical to chimp/human cytochrome C's. The pattern of similarities and differences is not random, nor is it possible that it has occured by chance, therefore there must be a mechanism that is responsible for the observed result. That mechanism was proposed long before the data was available - infact, the mechanism (evolution) was proposed before the existence of genes was even known. Evolution theory not only predicted the existence of inheritable biomolecules (genes), but has also correctly predicted the existence of patterns of genetic similarity and difference between species.

This being the case, I refer back to the question I asked before - the same question that no creationist seems willing to answer. Why, with all the possible ways that life could have been designed, was it designed in a way that makes it look exactly like it evolved? In the context of my point above, why should it be so that the observed data falls into that incredibly unlikely subset that supports the common descent hypothesis, and not any one of a practically infinite number of possible subsets that would soundly refute it?

 

[Dotini]

FYI,
Here is science paper discussing genetic engineering to make future humans smaller and meat intolerant. http://www.smatthewliao.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/HEandClimateChange.htm

The justification for doing this is that it is easier than geo-engineering, behavior modification or market solutions to climate change.

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

 

[Sach]

TM, thanks for the response. However, some of this seems to suggest that you think I am arguing against the reality of evolution's existence, which I am not, just to be clear.

Good start... what is not obvious, though, is why any two species exhibit the precise degree of genetic similarity that they do, if it were not for the fact that they are related by descent. In other words, if chimpanzees and humans are not related by descent, why do their genomes compare so closely, for example? There is no reason why this should be the case. All species share common genes - genes which encode the same proteins/enzymes that are essential to the most fundamental of life processes - such as cytochrome C. But, these genes (and hence the proteins) are not identical - they are subtley different from species to species... although they actually do the same job.

Qualitatively, the information content and ultimate physical manifestion of these different genes is equivalent - the genes and proteins are different, but the outcome (the function of the protein and the information contained in the DNA in order to make that protein) is the same. So, this being the case, it shouldn't matter which species gets which version of the gene/protein - from a design perspective, there's no reason why cytochrome C proteins should be different at all. Furthermore, there's no reason why cytochrome c proteins should exhibit variable amounts of difference between species either. But they do.

Of all the infinite possible ways that species could have been assigned cytochrome C proteins (and many others besides), only an extremely tiny fraction supports the common descent hypothesis. In contrast, there are literally none that would not support the intelligent design hypothesis. This is a key point that simply has to be understood - the physical data is just one side of the story. It fits both hypotheses, so both hypotheses are equally good, right? Wrong. The other side of the story is whether or not your hypothesis has any explanatory power or is meaningful in any way. But if all possible observations fit your hypothesis, then the data becomes meaningless, and therefore so must be your hypothesis.

As I have said before in this thread, it is like opening a safe. The observed data is like knowing the combination to the safe - but the usefulness of the safe depends on the number of possible right answers that safe has. If any combination opens your safe, then the safe is lousy - it also doesn't matter what data you have either, since any possible combination will do. But, the predictions made by evolution theory are considerably more specific - that is, if the common descent hypothesis is not to be refuted, then the observed data must fall into that extremely tiny fraction of possible combinations that common descent could generate. In the analogy, this is equivalent to saying that the safe only has a very small number of possible answers that will satisfy it. If the observed data matches, then your hypothesis is good. If it doesn't match, however, then the hypothesis is incorrect.

So, if chimp cytochrome C was as different to human cytochrome C and zebrafish cytochrome C, the hypothesis that chimps and humans are more closely related by descent than humans and zebrafish are would be refuted. Similarly, if chicken and turkey cytochrome C proteins were as different to each other as chicken and lemongrass cytochrome C proteins, again the hypothesis would be refuted. Now extend this argument across the entire living world, and you'll find that there are infinitely more ways for the common descent hypothesis to be refuted than there are for it to be not.

So what does the actual data say - well, it resoundingly endorses the common descent hypothesis. (Of course, the data doesn't say anything about the intelligent design hypothesis for the reason that I've just explained i.e. the hypothesis cannot be refuted, therefore the data is irrelevant - and when the data is irrelevant, you're not doing science). The fact is, human and chimp cytochrome C proteins are 100% identical, chicken and turkey cytochrome C proteins are also 100% identical to each other, but critically, they are not 100% identical to chimp/human cytochrome C's. The pattern of similarities and differences is not random, nor is it possible that it has occured by chance, therefore there must be a mechanism that is responsible for the observed result. That mechanism was proposed long before the data was available - infact, the mechanism (evolution) was proposed before the existence of genes was even known. Evolution theory not only predicted the existence of inheritable biomolecules (genes), but has also correctly predicted the existence of patterns of genetic similarity and difference between species.

This being the case, I refer back to the question I asked before - the same question that no creationist seems willing to answer. Why, with all the possible ways that life could have been designed, was it designed in a way that makes it look exactly like it evolved? In the context of my point above, why should it be so that the observed data falls into that incredibly unlikely subset that supports the common descent hypothesis, and not any one of a practically infinite number of possible subsets that would soundly refute it?

I would like to address these statements in reverse order so -


1. I have no problems with evolution as a theory to explain diversity of life. I believe life has evolved.

2. Just because you can use the theory to predict how species would have evolved, doesn't mean that it can account for the origin of the first life, or how genetic instructions (information) came about. Yes, evolution exists. Yes, we can even make predictions concerning it, but it still does not account for irreducible complexity.

3. You said that chickens are similar to turkeys, and humans are similar to chimps, which I agree points toward a common descent theory for those species. However, you also said that humans/chims are fundamentally different to chickens/turkeys... then you said that this points toward a common descent theory for all of life. That reasoning doesn't make sense.




And lastly, and importantly, I understand that more than a few Intelligent Design theorists are biased with their observations. I believe what the information presented tells me to be true, not some of these people's opinions. I think for myself.

 

[Dotini]

It would be highly amusing to have this discussion a few hundred or thousand years into the future. Perhaps scientist-gods will have engineered fungi or tardigrades or arsenic into the human genome such that human life will then appear to have been intelligently designed as opposed to evolved?

Respectfully speculated,
Steve

 

[Dapper]

A link between worms and humans is better than chickens to chimps.


And this shows how humans are currently evolving.

 

[Touring Mars]

TM, thanks for the response. However, some of this seems to suggest that you think I am arguing against the reality of evolution's existence, which I am not, just to be clear.

👍 Thanks for taking the time to read and response to my post as well. (I'm off sick today, can you tell? )

1. I have no problems with evolution as a theory to explain diversity of life. I believe life has evolved.

In that case, we don't have much to disagree about, which is good.

2. Just because you can use the theory to predict how species would have evolved, doesn't mean that it can account for the origin of the first life, or how genetic instructions (information) came about. Yes, evolution exists. Yes, we can even make predictions concerning it, but it still does not account for irreducible complexity.

Evolution theory doesn't explain how first life arose, but it's very existence means that there is no reason why the same processes that govern life today did not also apply to the prebiotic world. As for irreducible complexity, it's a concept that doesn't hold up to scrutiny on its own merit - the existence or otherwise of evolution doesn't really affect that.

3. You said that chickens are similar to turkeys, and humans are similar to chimps, which I agree points toward a common descent theory for those species. However, you also said that humans/chims are fundamentally different to chickens/turkeys... then you said that this points toward a common descent theory for all of life. That reasoning doesn't make sense.

It should have if I had made it a bit clearer. Bear in mind that, while chimp/human cytochrome C proteins are identical to each other, and chicken/turkey cytochrome C are identical to each other but different to human/chimp, they are all still very similar - ~88% the same infact - which is still way too much to be remotely possible by chance. What this means is that chickens and turkeys are more closely related to each other than they are to humans and chimps, but humans and chimps are still related to chickens and turkeys, just far more distantly (in time) than humans and chimps are to each other. In general, the degree of genetic similarity between any two species is an indication of the recency of divergence from a common ancestor by those two species. Multiple lines of physical evidence, including but not limited to genetics, point to the divergence of chimps and humans at ~ 5 million years ago (mya). Humans, chimps and all great apes diverged from chickens alot longer ago, estimated at something like 300-310 mya. Because we diverged from chimps and other great apes more recently, differences in our genomes have had alot less time to manifest themselves, hence why apes and humans exhibit such a high extent of genetic similarity.

And lastly, and importantly, I understand that more than a few Intelligent Design theorists are biased with their observations. I believe what the information presented tells me to be true, not some of these people's opinions. I think for myself.

A wise strategy. 👍

 

[Sach]

Evolution theory doesn't explain how first life arose, but it's very existence means that there is no reason why the same processes that govern life today did not also apply to the prebiotic world. As for irreducible complexity, it's a concept that doesn't hold up to scrutiny on its own merit - the existence or otherwise of evolution doesn't really affect that.

The problem I have with this is that the building blocks of proteins do not assemble by chemical means alone, and I have yet to hear an explanation that can account for this during primordial stages. I agree that your model for divergence is a logically proposed theory, but in my mind this still does not make up for the fact that there is a discrepancy between the prebiotic and the genetic that is immense. Even a single strand of DNA is evidence of this.


On a related note - you mention that there are theists who are okay with evolution. In my mind there is no reason for a theist to have a problem with evolution. If species were to remain fixed, they would lose their true beauty, which is displayed in free will. In my mind evolution is an extension of free will at the genetic level, however harsh it may seem as a weeding-out system. All things eventually perish, and death is not a bad thing for a believer. It's not really a bad thing at all, just part of the natural order of things. Though natural selection is an objective process, I see the genetic system it is reliant upon as a choice that makes sense.

 

[Dapper]

The problem I have with this is that the building blocks of proteins do not assemble by chemical means alone, and I have yet to hear an explanation that can account for this during primordial stages.

You gotta watch the youtube vid about abiogenesis I posted on the last page. That is part 2 in the set that describes the development of amino acids and how it's been tested. In part 3 everyone agrees that they don't know how the amino acids started self replicating, though.

 

[BobK]

Yes, evolution exists. Yes, we can even make predictions concerning it, but it still does not account for irreducible complexity.

That's because there's no need to explain irreducible complexity, since there is no such thing (in biology). Every example of "irreducible complexity" I know of, including immune systems, eyes and flagella, have all had explanations of how their component parts could have evolved separately.