The View From 1776
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Reply To A Darwinian Assertion
A reader posted the following comment to a post on this website entitled A Big Hurdle For Darwinian Evolutionary Hypotheses.
The papers cited delve into mutation rates and posit that too much time would be required (according to their mathematical assumptions) for certain kinds of developments to occur to explain the evolution observed.
What is interesting in this analysis, Tom, is that the basics of evolution (mutation, adaptation, selection pressure) are all confirmed. It is just that, according to the analysis presented, that the time scale does not seem to be adequate for the changes to occur.
Such papers do not deny the reality of evolution (as you may), but they try to attack a particular mechanism of how they believe evolution would occur based on a probability argument.
The fact that the cited papers addressed only a single aspect of Darwinian doctrine in no way implies acceptance of other elements of Darwinism.
Darwinian doctrine cannot explain two elements that are absolutely essential to its validity: the origin of life itself and the appearance of highly complex information stored and replicated in DNA and RNA, even in the simplest known life forms.
As is true in the case of the irreducible complexity and interdependence of mechanisms within even the simplest single-cell life forms, DNA and RNA are so complexly inter-related and store such vast amounts of information (far greater than the capacities of any supercomputer) that they have to have been based upon information that pre-existed life on earth, in other words, upon the Mind of God.
Every one of the many efforts of Darwinian biologists to produce purely materialistic explanations for the origin of life has crashed and burned. All Darwinian computer models supposedly proving the possibility of random origins of DNA and RNA depend upon starting with some elements of DNA or RNA already in existence. All of these computer models embed “steering” mechanisms to direct the program toward predetermined ends. None of them therefore remotely supports the contention that DNA or RNA could have evolved randomly, or even at all, as propounded by Darwinists.
In other words, Darwinians are cheating in a desperate attempt to find some way to counter the increasingly overwhelming evidence accruing in molecular biology that material factors and random variations alone cannot possibly explain what is observable in nature.
For a detailed review of all of those failed Darwinian efforts, readers should consult Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design, by Stephen C. Meyer.