They like to talk about "simpler life forms" than we see now. No evidence for them is extant.
They like to say an RNA-coded lifeform existed before DNA was "evolved" but RNA is even less stable than DNA and...yes...there is no evidence for this, either.
They like to talk about all sorts of possible ways life could have evolved from non-life by resorting to such arguments as those above, but in every case they have no evidence whatever AND (trust me, this is something they have been working at for decades with no success) there are always lots of Darwinists furiously testing methods of producing "building blocks of life" in some natural way. Miller and Urey was actually a failure rather than a success. Oxygen is hostile to the components of DNA and the chemical barriers to life are impassible here on Earth. However, Earth is remarkably full of life, myriad varieties of life, so many that even if you could get one "simple" lifeform to evolve by some remarkable series of accidents, there would not be enough time for it to become all of the organisms of Earth within 13.7 billion years. Oh, sorry, that even one would evolve by chance is statistically impossible within 13.7 billion years anyway. But life is not something that could just pop out from a dust cloud or a mud puddle, so the laws of statistics are not sufficient to present the likeliness of life just HAPPENING as life is so complex it is jaw-dropping and so interdependent that you cannot intelligently talk about DNA evolving or the cell evolving because they do not exist separately.
To say that life is too complex to have happened by chance is not an argument from ignorance, it is an argument from observation. We observe things that are made and designed and we observe those things that just happen. There can be certain patterns that are typically found in the veins of leaves, the cracks in a window pane, the wandering branches of a lazy river, but even then the fractals may be a design feature of all things. How long will we allow people to pretend that a Chevrolet is designed but a butterfly is not, when the butterfly is far more intricate and complex than the Chevrolet? Are you really going to take "argument from ignorance" for an answer? Because if I hear that, I just say that "You don't have to remain ignorant if you don't wish to be..."
Real Science was begun by men who believed God created the Universe and all within it and the greats of the past would be horrified at the sloppy, idiotic and illogical reasoning of men like Richard Dawkins and Stephen Hawking. If only the likes of Isaac Newton and James Clerk Maxwell and Lord Kelvin were in their primes right now to join the fight for good science! They would be taking apart the Rube Goldberg-esque jalopy that is Darwinism and scrap it for good!
Go back to the last post to see that mutations do not fit the part of an organism-builder, sorry!
Answers 1-3 were in this post.
Published: 14 September 2011(GMT+10)
4. Why is natural selection, a principle recognized by creationists, taught as ‘evolution’, as if it explains the origin of the diversity of life?
“The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No.”
“… but I am now convinced from what the paleontologists say that small changes do not accumulate.”Answer 2: There are over 100 new mutations for every child born. It is inevitable that evolution would happen with this rate of mutation. Those with the best mutations survive and reproduce.
“When selection is unable to counter the loss of information due to mutations, a situation arises called ‘error catastrophe’. If not rapidly corrected, this situation leads to the eventual death of the species—extinction! In its final stages, genomic degeneration leads to declining fertility, which curtails further selection (selection always requires a surplus population, some of which can then be eliminated each generation). Inbreeding and genetic drift then take over entirely, rapidly finishing off the population. The process is an irreversible downward spiral. This advanced stage of genomic degeneration is called ‘mutational meltdown’. Mutational meltdown is recognized as an immediate threat to all of today’s endangered species. The same process appears to potentially be a theoretical threat for mankind” (p. 41).
5. How did new biochemical pathways, which involve multiple enzymes working together in sequence, originate?
6. Living things look like they were designed, so how do evolutionists know that they were not designed?
“Both the treponema that cause syphilis and the borrelia that cause Lyme disease contain only a fifth of the genes they need to live on their own. Related spirochetes that can live outside by themselves need 5,000 genes, whereas the spirochetes of those two diseases have only 1,000 genes in their bodies. The 4,000 missing gene products needed for bacterial growth can be supplied by wet, warm human tissue. This is why both the Lyme disease borrelia and syphilis treponema are symbionts—they require another body to survive.”