About Lamarckism, University of Toronto Professor Stephen Wright said in his September 14, 2009, BIO150 lecture,
"So there is constantly new life appearing magically and then they constantly have this inherent tendency to get more complex, also magically. So there is a lot of magic or mystical tendencies in Lamarck's ideas."
The Law of Biogenesis, demonstrated by Pasteur and Virchow in the nineteenth century, holds that life can only arise from living matter; it cannot come from non-living matter. Therefore, the spontaneous generation of life is a scientific impossibility. However, modern-day Darwinian evolutionists insist that this must have happened, regardless. Why is the spontaneous generation of life "magic" in Lamarckism, but "science" in Darwinism? In fact, it is an impossibility in both cases, and that, folks, is a fact of science.
Click HERE to return to main menu
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You're an imbecile; even if the origin of life is not well understood, Darwinian evolution doesn't have anything to do with it. Darwin only claimed that life (ie. life that has already been created by one means or another) transfers hereditary information via genetics and natural selection. Stop taking words out of scientists' mouths and using them to convert other people to your idiotic cause.
ReplyDeleteOh btw, Lamark was wrong in his theory of evolution, Darwin has yet to be proven so.
RESPONSE:
ReplyDeleteFirst, as noted in my response to the previous comment, the theory of evolution includes both biological evolution (the transfer of hereditary information) and chemical evolution (the rise of the first simple cell from nonliving matter), so it is a false dichotomy to say that “Darwinian evolution doesn’t have anything to do with [the origin of life].”
Second, it is not that “the origin of life is not well understood,” but that all materialistic explanations are impossible, as the scientific Law of Biogenesis recognizes.
Third, Darwin did not claim that left “transfers hereditary information via genetics,” as he knew nothing of genetics. He simply claimed that natural selection acted on “variation,” without any explanation of how variation arises. (Without this, his theory should never have been accepted.)
Third, Darwin did, in fact, address the origin of life. In a letter written in 1871, he wrote, “But if (and oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, - light, heat, electricity present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes…” (cited in Bad and Lazcano, “The Origin of Life” in Ruse and Travis, eds. Evolution: The First Four Billion Years, p.49)
Fourth, I don’t understand your objection to “taking words out of scientists’ mouths.” Isn’t that where we’re supposed to get them from? Is not what scientists say relevant to this matter? I am not misquoting them and I am providing context and the references so that my accuracy can be checked. If what they say is embarrassing to the cause of evolution, that is not a reason to hide what they say.
Fifth, as for trying to “convert other people to your idiotic cause,” what I am doing is giving the rest of the story, the facts that are ignored in university and high school classes and the media. I am doing this for people who are interested in knowing the truth and are willing to subject what they are told to critical thinking. Let us hope they go where the evidence leads them.
This is ridiculous... If you actually read some articles, we might respect you more. But you are just quoting scientists without understanding the science behind it, making fun of the way they speak rather than what they speak of. Go read some Nature or Science articles and then try to support your theories - with references!
ReplyDeleteBTW, Prof. Wright was referring to the fact that Lamarck was overestimating the ability of life to spontaneously appear. The probability of life evolving more than once is obviously much larger than just once. But seriously, go read. And cite. Articles.
The problem I pointed out remains. According to the Law of Biogenesis, life cannot arise from non-living matter. Evolutionists, whether Lamarckist or Darwinist, ignore this fact, which is a fatal problem to their origin of life theories. It certainly is problematic rightly to call the spontaneous generation of life in Lamarckism "magic" while ignoring the fact that it is equally "magic" in Darwinism. Laws of nature cannot be ignored simply because they contradict our pet theory.
ReplyDeleteThose who actually understand science know that it is not necessary to cite references for laws of nature, as they are uncontested universal knowledge. I doubt that Anonymous would ask someone to give a reference were he to mention the law of gravity.
However, to be accomodating, here is one:
"biogenesis: The principle that a living organism can only arise from other living organisms similar to itself (i.e. that like gives rise to like) and can never originate from nonliving material." - Oxford Dictionary of Science (5th edition), p.94. I trust this will be clear enough for Anonymous, and that he will notice how this destroys the credibility of Darwinism.
Now, Anonymous wrote, "If you actually read some articles...you are just quoting scientists without understanding the science behind it." Since you do not know me, you have no idea how much I read, so your comment is unwarranted. I do read the evolutionist side, including Nature, but I also read the other side. I suggest you try reading Journal of Creation, and do with an open mind.
Furthermore, I think a fair minded person who has read the articles I've posted here will admit that I do understand the science. I understand it well enough to spot the errors and impossibilities in the theory of evolution.
Finally, it should be noted that Anonymous has launched insults but has not actually shown any error in what I wrote. He claims that "Prof. Wright was referring to the fact that Lamarck was overestimating the ability of life to spontaneously appear." How does one "overestimate" the impossible? According to the law of biogenesis, the spontaneous generation of life doesn't happen ever. There is no substantive difference between claiming the impossible happens often or rarely; they are equally wrong.
Finally, Anonymous writes, "The probability of life evolving more than once is obviously much larger than once." Actually, we can only talk about the probability of the chance evolution of organic molecules, not life (which is impossible; See the law of biogenesis yet again). Someone who knows science would know that the probability of an unlikely event happening more than once is much SMALLER than it happening once, not larger. The chance of rolling a six on a die is 1/6. The chance of rolling two sixes in a row is 1/36.
So, Anonymous, I offer you your own advice. "Go read." Read the other side, too, if you want to know the truth. Don't let yourself be led by the nose to believe a scientifically impossible theory.