[Trapper John]

Interesting read indeed PRB! I think we are continuing to confuse to related, but different questions. One, is the question of the origin of life. The other is the question of evolution of species. The latter is the realm of the theory proposed by Darwin.

The first question is largely a study in thermodynamics, IMO. From that point of view we can see the spontaneous assembly of the macromolecules of life given the right conditions. All together this process took the majority of geological time. Once the basic templates were in place (the pre-Cambrian era) the conditions were subsequently ripe for the life explosion. Some life forms were able to exploit ecological niches and compete successfully others were not.

To argue that bombardment of flies with radiation fails to create any new species from the radiated fly and therefore disproves Darwinism is simply misunderstanding the theory. All that experiment shows is that ionizing radiation is lethal.

It was Darwin's intent to try to explain the diversity that was observed within the animal and plant kingdoms - not to explain the origin of life. Darwin's theory does not predict that random mutations in the genome in a fly will produce anything other than another fly. It may have shorter or longer wings, it may be different colors, or longer or shorter legs or antennae, or tolerance/resistance to microbial parasites any number of which could confer a selective advantage to survival and ability to pass on the genetic variant.

Scientific evidence has irrefutably shown that does occur in nature and in fact is now exploited in the biotechnology industry. One example being E.coli that produce human insulin. Now that's hard evidence for intelligent design!


What do you think about that?