Debating Atheists: Arrival of Biological Information (Part 3/5)

By Dan Grossenbach

Information embedded inside all of life demands an explanation. Virtually all agree that, at some point in earth’s early history, the first living being came about from non-living (dead) material. Setting aside for the moment the incredible principle of life arising from death, what we find inside of life gives us the greatest mystery of all. The information inside of life is exactly what we see in high tech computer engineering. It’s remarkably designed. Bestselling atheist writer and evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins remarks on information in every cell this way:

Debating Atheists Biological Information

“The machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like. Apart from differences in jargon, the pages of a molecular biology journal might be interchanged with those of a computer engineering journal.”[1]

So the argument goes like this…

  1. All life requires DNA/RNA.

Citing Richard Dawkins, “DNA code is universal among all living things” [2]

  1. DNA/RNA is information

What’s information? “By information, I mean the specification of the amino acid sequence in protein…Information means here the precise determination of sequence, either of bases of the nucleus acid or in amino acid residue in the protein.” Christian skeptic and co-discoverer of the DNA structure, Francis Crick. “Genes are information…a code…in sequence…just like what a computer programmer would do!” [3]

  1. Information requires a mind

In his debate with Christian apologist David Wood last year, leading atheist and editor of Skeptic Magazine Michael Shermer explains it this way,

Is there some advanced intelligence, a designer, call it whatever you want. Maybe. How do we know? Our methodology is actually pretty good for finding out…[Y]ou know the SETI program has algorithms. They grind through of signals coming from space to determine if it’s random noise or if it’s a signal. [4]

Shermer concedes that information infers an intelligent cause and even offers a way to verify it. Ironically, his method is the very same one offered by the ID advocates he’s trying to refute.

  1. Therefore, life required a mind.

This is why religion critics like Francis Crick[5], Richard Dawkins [6] and others propose the rarely accepted view of panspermia, or the idea that intelligent alien life seeded the early earth at just the right time for life to take root. In fact, there’s little discussed about origin of life at all. Normally, the question skips the origin of life issue and goes right into the evolution mechanism. Like all facts which lead us to conclusions we don’t like, it’s much easier to simply ignore the problem.

But not all of them are. The arrival of biological information is an area evolutionary biologists around the world are dealing with. In Nov 2016, scientists from around the world met in London to discuss how the neo-darwinian mechanism fails to account for the complexity of life. Recordings of the lectures will be provided on the Royal Society website soon. What’s more, is that the issue of information already in the cell before the first organism ever existed is not even a matter of evolution at all.

The reason I presented this as evidence for God is the same reason atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel and former atheist Antony Flew saw purpose and design in biological life. Every living cell requires something that is so particular that it cannot, in principle, be attributed to chance or natural causes. The DNA molecule contains not only complexity – for it has that. The complexity must also be arranged in such a way that it performs a specific function for the development of a living organism.

The specific complexity of this program is exactly like computer software. In fact, the four fundamental nucleotide base chemicals comprising the DNA molecule strands are not only similar to a computer program but they are the exact same thing. The pioneer of modern software, and no friend to Christianity, recognized this when he said, “DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.” [7] The four chemicals abbreviated A-C-G-T are a four character code much like the binary two character code of human developed software consists of particularly placed zeros and ones. The only difference, is that whereas a slight computer code error typically results in a minor disfunction, any deviation from the DNA sequence most likely terminates the organism and any future decendants. This poses major problems for the. Neodarwinist theory of random mutation but that’s beyond our immediate scope.

Lest anyone be tempted to think time and chance under natural laws can produce such a function-based information code, atheist paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould shows that time is not available to us:

[W]e are left with very little time between the development of suitable conditions for life on the earth’s surface and the origin of life. Life is not a complex accident that required immense time to convert the vastly improbable into the nearly certain. Instead, life, for all its intricacy, probably arose rapidly about as soon as it could. [8]

Richard Dawkins goes further by ruling out chance a priori:

However many ways there may be of being alive, it is certain that there are vastly more ways of being dead, or rather not alive. You may throw cells together at random, over and over again for a billion years, and not once will you get a conglomeration that flies or swims or burrows or runs, or does anything, even badly, that could remotely be construed as working to keep itself alive. [9]

Not only was there no time for the DNA/RNA to develop naturally, there was also no known natural mechanism for it to do so.

Atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel agrees, “The more details we learn about the chemical basis of life and the intricacy of the genetic code, the more unbelievable the standard historical account [neo-Darwinian evolution] becomes.” [10]

“It is prima facie highly implausible that life as we know it is the result of a sequence of physical accidents together with the mechanism of natural selection.” [11]

“I realize that such doubts will strike many people as outrageous, but that is because almost everyone in our secular culture has been browbeaten into regarding the reductive research program as sacrosanct on the ground that anything else would not be science.” [12]

“I believe the defenders of ID deserve our gratitude for challenging a scientific world view that owes some of the passion displayed by its adherents precisely to the fact that it is thought to liberate us from religion.” [13]

Whenever information is found, in uniform and repeated human experience, it’s been the product of an intelligent mind. I left it to Dr. Shapiro to provide at least one piece of evidence to the contrary. He didn’t. 

This was the third in a series of five posts showing how atheists concede four primary facts that infer biblical Christianity. For a fuller picture of this argument, you may want to check out part one (introduction) or part two (arrival of the universe). 

Notes

[1] Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life, New York:Basic Books/Harper Collins, 1995., p17

[2] This fact is so widely assumed it was hard to find a direct quote. Richard Dawkins cited in a news article https://news.virginia.edu/content/richard-dawkins-universal-dna-code-knockdown-evidence-evolution. It’s worth noting after an exhaustive search, I found no published work directly denying this fact.

[3] Richard Dawkins interview starting at 1:25 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oF1UzhPA5N8

[4] Michael Shermer vs. David Wood debate on “Does God Exist” October 10, 2016, Kennesaw State University

[5] Francis Crick, directed panspermia 1972, https://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/ps/access/scbccp.pdf

[6] Richard Dawkins at the end of Expelled https://www.youtube.com/shared?ci=Dee3DLgEDEw

[7] Bill GatesThe Road Ahead p228

[8] Stephen Jay Gould, “An Early Start,” Natural History, February, 1978.

[9] The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design 1988, p9 The immediate relevance to this was pointed out to me by Douglas Axe.

[10] Nagel, Thomas (2012). Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p5

[11] ibid, p5

[12] ibid, p7

[13] ibid, p12

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2veByDB

 


 

Free CrossExamined.org Resource

Get the first chapter of "Stealing From God: Why Atheists Need God to Make Their Case" in PDF.

Powered by ConvertKit
19 replies
  1. KR says:

    “By information, I mean the specification of the amino acid sequence in protein…Information means here the precise determination of sequence, either of bases of the nucleus acid or in amino acid residue in the protein.”

    .

    This is taken from Crick’s explanation of the Central Dogma of molecular biology: information flows from nucleic acids (DNA and RNA) to protein, never the other way. IOW, Crick is not trying to provide a general definition of information, this is specifically about sequence information in DNA, RNA and proteins.

    .

    “Information requires a mind.”

    .

    By what definition of information? Not the one provided by Crick. The only minds we know that can create sequence information in biomolecules are human minds but we’re just tinkering with a process that has been running for billions of years. We have no evidence of any non-human mind creating DNA sequence information and plenty of evidence of sequence information resulting from an evolutionary process of mutation, natural selection and genetic drift.

    .

    “[Y]ou know the SETI program has algorithms. They grind through of signals coming from space to determine if it’s random noise or if it’s a signal.”

    .

    The way SETI separates signals from noise is not by looking for “information” but by looking for narrow-band signals. Natural radiating bodies like pulsars and quasars send out broad-band signals that cover the entire spectrum but a narrow-band signal could be an indicator of a purposely built transmitter. This is an inference we make since we know of no non-artificial source of such a narrow-band signal. This doesn’t really translate to biology since we do know of a non-artificial process that can create sequence information: evolution.

    .

    “Therefore, life required a mind.”

    .

    This doesn’t seem to follow, since we have no evidence of any non-human mind creating biological sequence information. We know that sequence information can form through mutation, natural selection and genetic drift and there’s no indication that these processes require any mind.

    .

    “This is why religion critics like Francis Crick[5], Richard Dawkins [6] and others propose the rarely accepted view of panspermia, or the idea that intelligent alien life seeded the early earth at just the right time for life to take root.”

    .

    Check the date on that Francis Crick article – 1972. That was when the chicken-and-egg conundrum of which came first, DNA or proteins, still seemed insurmountable. Then, in the 80’s, Thomas Cech and others were able to show that RNA could serve both as a carrier of sequence information (like DNA) and as a catalyst (like proteins). This was the beginning of the “RNA world” hypothesis, which is one of the main lines of investigation within the field of abiogenesis research.

    .

    “In Nov 2016, scientists from around the world met in London to discuss how the neo-darwinian mechanism fails to account for the complexity of life.”

    .

    If you’re referring to the meeting at the Royal Society, November 7th-9th 2016, your description is inaccurate. The meeting was organized by a number of people who believe that the theory of evolution needs to be expanded to incorporate new findings in areas like epigenetics and developmental biology. Most evolutionary biologists don’t see the need for this overhaul as they think the current theory already accounts for this data.
    .
    They also think that the people who are advocating this “paradigm shift” have an outdated view of evolutionary theory. “Neo-darwinism” hasn’t been the reigning paradigm for decades, modern evolutionary theory places a lot more emphasis on genetic drift and the observation that most evolutionary change isn’t adaptive.
    .
    “What’s more, is that the issue of information already in the cell before the first organism ever existed is not even a matter of evolution at all.”
    .
    Does this refer to the “protocells” that abiogenesis researchers call their models of the first self-replicating structures? Otherwise, this seems to suggest that there were cells before there were organisms, which makes very little sense to me. If the first cells were not organisms, what were they – and how do you define “organism”? I’m encouraged, however, that you’re apparently able to distinguish between abiogenesis (the origin of life) and evolution (the development of life). Most creationists tend to conflate the two.
    .
    As for the information in the first protocells, there would have been very little need for anything more than the capacity to self-replicate. When you have an imperfect replicator (like RNA), you will inevitably have evolution.
    .
    “Every living cell requires something that is so particular that it cannot, in principle, be attributed to chance or natural causes.”
    .
    This looks like little more than a bald assertion. How would you demonstrate that a cell can’t be attributed to natural causes?
    .
    “The DNA molecule contains not only complexity – for it has that. The complexity must also be arranged in such a way that it performs a specific function for the development of a living organism.”
    .
    It performs the function of propagating itself – until it doesn’t. The fact that more than 99.9% of all species that have ever existed are now extinct is what you would expect from an unguided process, not from a purposeful design.
    .
    “The pioneer of modern software, and no friend to Christianity, recognized this when he said, “DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.””
    .
    Bill Gates is a brilliant guy in many ways but he’s not a biologist and his analogy is flawed. DNA is not like a computer program and the cell is not like a computer. DNA is a molecule that can serve as a template for making other molecules – molecules that can interact with yet other molecules within the chemical machinery that makes up a cell.
    .
    A computer program contains instructions. In theory, a good computer programmer can look at a piece of computer code and have a fairly good idea of what the program will do. No biologist, no matter how skilled, will be able to look at a DNA sequence and say what the resulting protein will do. In fact, he won’t even be able to tell which parts of the DNA sequence actually code for a protein product and which don’t.
    .
    “The only difference, is that whereas a slight computer code error typically results in a minor disfunction, any deviation from the DNA sequence most likely terminates the organism and any future decendants.”
    .
    You have that completely backwards – the protein synthesis system is much more forgiving towards changes in the sequence data than a computer is towards errors in the code. You can make a completely scrambled, random DNA sequence and insert into a cell and the protein synthesis machinery will happily churn out a protein. Try running a scrambled piece of software on your computer and watch it come to a screeching halt. Most changes (i.e. mutations) in DNA have no effect at all for the simple reason that most DNA (at least in humans) has no function.
    .
    Now for your quotes. The Stephen Jay Gould quote says the opposite of what you’re claiming it to say (that “time is not available to us”), it says that life probably arose quickly (by geological standards – we’re still talking about millions of years) once conditions were right. The Dawkins quote does indeed rule out pure chance but then neither chemistry nor evolution operate on pure chance. Chemical reactions are determined by the laws of thermodynamics and an important part of evolution is natural selection which clearly doesn’t operate on chance.
    .
    Thomas Nagel seems to be as unaware of modern developments in evolutionary theory as the “paradigm-shifters” at that meeting at the Royal Society – neo-darwinism is old hat and has been for decades. The argument “this looks really complex so it couldn’t have happened naturally” is of course as fallacious now as when Paley made it 200 years ago. Some things don’t get better with age.
    .
    “Whenever information is found, in uniform and repeated human experience, it’s been the product of an intelligent mind. ”
    .

    Again, what is your definition of information? It seems to me all kinds of natural objects contain information. Tree rings can tell you the age of the tree and also provides information of its growth rate. This is obviously information and it seems to have formed without the need of any intelligent mind.

    Reply
  2. A good question says:

    So please tell me oh brilliant minds, why have we never observed life coming from non life?
    If evolution has been proven, then how come it’s still such a debate even within the scientific community?
    Why is it, that the genetic mutation study done always resulted in the death of the organism tested on?

    Reply
    • KR says:

      “So please tell me oh brilliant minds, why have we never observed life coming from non life?”
      .
      Do you have any particular reason to think that we should have? The evidence indicates that life has existed for upwards of 4 billion years. Exactly how it started we don’t know but we do know that conditions were very different at that time. For one thing, the atmosphere would have contained almost no oxygen. This is significant, since the chemistry involved in the formation of the building blocks of life (amino acids, lipids, nucleotides etc.) from simple chemicals doesn’t seem to work in an oxygenated atmosphere.
      .
      You could of course speculate that new kinds of life could develop from already existing building blocks but that would technically not be “life from non life” as these building blocks would have been produced by living organisms. Also, there is simply no chance that such organisms would have time to form before they would be consumed by already existing and much fitter organisms. It seems that existing life is a pretty formidable obstacle against new life from no life, so the fact that we haven’t observed it is pretty much what we would expect.
      .
      Abiogenesis researchers can of course artificially create all kinds of environmental conditions but the fact that they haven’t yet found all the answers concerning the origin of life simply means that we don’t know how it happened.
      .
      “If evolution has been proven, then how come it’s still such a debate even within the scientific community?”
      .
      Evolution is defined as “changes in allelic frequencies within a population over time”. This is an observable fact. The theory of evolution is our best current explanation for that fact. It suggests that the changes in allelic frequencies are caused by mutation, recombination, natural selection and genetic drift. I’m not aware of any debate over these basics within the scientific community, even if there are some differing opinions on e.g. the relative importance of natural selection and genetic drift.
      .
      There are of course people who don’t accept the theory but this tends not to be for scientific reasons but rather for religious reasons.
      .
      “Why is it, that the genetic mutation study done always resulted in the death of the organism tested on?”
      .
      I’m sure the biotech industry is also puzzled by this – seeing as it wouldn’t exist if all genetic mutations resulted in the death of the organism

      Reply
    • KR says:

      I might add that, on average, every human being is born with around 100 new mutations that they didn’t inherit from their parents. Most of these newborns seem to have no problem surviving this onslaught. This is in fact one of the reasons we know that most of the human genome cannot be functional – if all of these mutations were hitting functional DNA sequences we would have gone extinct long ago due to genetic melt-down.

      Reply
    • toby says:

      So please tell me oh brilliant minds, why have we never observed life coming from non life?
      |
      You might consider that possibly the conditions aren’t right on this planet to generate new types of life. And another thing would be perhaps there are the right conditions somewhere on the planet, but whatever gets made doesn’t survive because current life destroys it.
      |
      KR & Andy: does this argument about information in DNA seem like a category error to you? Somehow it does to me. A misuse or over-extension of the word information. We make observations of things and what we learn we label information, but that by no means a mind had to put “information” into what we observe. It’s the same problem I have with the design argument. They literally think everything is designed so how on earth can they determine what undesigned would be? This is a subargument of design and it has the same problem where can they say that there is no information? We can look at a rock and find out its chemical composition and study how the metals in the rock light up in a certain direction to give us information on the earth’s magnetism at the time it formed. Wow, rocks are information, therefore a mind made it, therefore god!

      Reply
      • Andy Ryan says:

        Pretty much, yes. And if you say there’s information in rocks, they’ll reply that God made rocks too. As you ask, if they claim that everything is designed or made by God, how do they know what an undesigned object would look like? We’ve got both arguments from ignorance and arguments rooted in ignorance.

        Reply
      • KR says:

        The problem is that the people who use this “origin of information” argument never make clear what definition of information they’re using and how they quantify this information. Without it, the claim that an unguided evolutionary process cannot create new information is completely content-free – and also impossible to test.
        .
        There are quantifiable types of information, like Shannon-information but this is unhelpful to the evolution skeptic since the evolutionary process will handily create such information. All that’s needed is an increase in the number of DNA base pairs in the genome and any old insertion or duplication mutation will do that.
        .
        In general, I find the concept of information of limited use when it comes to living organisms. It seems to me that an organism will survive and thrive not on the basis of its informational content but on the basis of its functionality within its specific environment. Microorganisms are, arguably, the most successful form of life if you consider their adaptability to various environments and sheer numbers but they’re also the simplest form of life.
        .
        In the end , I think the question of whether evolution can provide functionality is more interesting than whether it can create information since functionality seems more clearly tied to survivability. Functionality will obviously always be context-dependent – a fish is decidedly more functional in the water than on land – but since everyone seems to agree that evolution can lead to adaptation, it seems clear that evolution can provide functionality.

        Reply
  3. A good question says:

    The funny thing about life coming from inorganic matter is the fact that they can’t do it. That’s the point.
    Number 2, there are certain attributes that change a little over time. It’s called adaptation. But never have they managed to get a new species. The fossil record doesn’t support that idea either.
    The study I was talking about was a study where they were purposely introducing things into the bee, or whatever they were using, and the organism died every time. They couldn’t get them to do anything else.

    Reply
    • Andy Ryan says:

      “But never have they managed to get a new species”
      Yes they have – speciation has been observed. Even if it hadn’t, so what? Why would the test of this be whether or not people can produce a new species in a laboratory?
      .
      “The fossil record doesn’t support that idea either”
      Yes it does. I don’t believe you have any clue what the fossil record supports.
      .
      “they were purposely introducing things into the bee, or whatever they were using”
      You don’t seem very clear on this.
      .
      “So please tell me oh brilliant minds, why have we never observed life coming from non life?”
      We’ve never observed a God creating life either. That aside, it’s a red herring questions anyway – are you aware of forensic evidence? People get convicted of crimes on the basis of it – we don’t need to actually observe a crime being committed in order to gather evidence and establish beyond reasonable doubt what happened. Similarly, we knew of the existence of Neptune for years before it was observed, due to the movements of Uranus. You’re attempting to reduce science to ‘Yeah but have you seen it happen with your own eyes’ – it doesn’t work like that.
      .
      And try cutting the sarcasm, A Good Question – it’s bad enough coming from people who know what they’re talking about.

      Reply
      • A good question says:

        “We don’t need to actually observe a crime being committed.”
        Before that, you said “we’ve never observed a God creating life either. ”
        ” Yeah but have you seen it with your own eyes? It doesn’t work like that.”
        So you would have to observe a God creating life in order to believe it, but not evolution?
        And by the way, I never asked that.
        They have never gotten a completely new species out of another. And no, they don’t have any fossils in intermediate either. Of course because of your bias, you would believe anything and everything an atheist scientist says, but everyone else is just stupid.
        The apologists present evidence all the time, and you reject it without a second thought.
        But something called a theory, with no real evidence, is talked about like it’s fact.

        Reply
        • KR says:

          “And no, they don’t have any fossils in intermediate either.”
          .
          I’m assuming you’re talking about transitional fossils? Again, I don’t think you’ve looked very hard. A quick google search for “transitional fossils” is as good a start as any. Go forth and educate yourself.
          .
          “Of course because of your bias, you would believe anything and everything an atheist scientist says, but everyone else is just stupid.”
          .
          Personally, I tend to believe people who can back up their claims with actual empirical evidence and whose conclusions are corroborated by other experts within their field.
          .
          “The apologists present evidence all the time, and you reject it without a second thought.”
          .
          Not so. I do put quite a bit of thought into considering what is presented. It’s just that what apologists consider to be evidence tends to fail in the “empirical” department.
          .
          “But something called a theory, with no real evidence, is talked about like it’s fact.”
          .
          This is backwards – we don’t start with the theory and then look for evidence, we start with the observations (i.e. the evidence) and then hopefully end up with a theory that explains these observations. In the case of biology, observations like the repeated patterns of nested hierarchies wherever we look (comparative anatomy, physiology, biochemistry and genetics) and e.g. the evidence from biogeography (the geographical distribution of species) all need to be explained. The theory of evolution does explain these things and as far as I’m aware, there’s no competing theory out there that has the same explanatory power.

          Reply
          • Clinton says:

            Actually, macro evolution did start out as a theory. # 2. Many famous evolutionist admit that they don’t have any transition fossils, but they don’t want the public to know that because they don’t want people to doubt evolution.
            #3
            Everything you find on the internet is true.

          • Andy Ryan says:

            “Actually, macro evolution did start out as a theory”
            Clinton, you don’t know what ‘theory’ means in science.
            .
            “Many famous evolutionist admit that they don’t have any transition fossils”
            Many famous Christians including the Pope admit there’s no God. See, anyone can make up nonsense.
            .
            Sure, there’s plenty of falsehoods on the internet. But you can see transitional fossils for yourself in museums.

          • KR says:

            “Actually, macro evolution did start out as a theory.”
            .
            Macroevolution is any evolutionary change at or above the species level. That means that the evidence for macroevolution is the same as the evidence for common descent. The fact that living organisms can anatomically be sorted into a pattern of groups within groups (i.e. nested hierarchies) was known a long time before Darwin. It’s the basis of Linnaeus’ system of classification from the 1700’s, which Darwin was certainly aware of. Darwin of course added to this data through his own studies of fossils, his observations from his voyage on the Beagle etc. IOW, the observations most definitely came before the theory. Darwin and Wallace were the first ones to connect all these dots.
            .
            “# 2. Many famous evolutionist admit that they don’t have any transition fossils, but they don’t want the public to know that because they don’t want people to doubt evolution.”
            .
            As has already been pointed out, this is simply false. Information on transitional fossils is freely available. Denying it isn’t going to make it go away.
            .
            “#3
            Everything you find on the internet is true.”
            .
            At the end of a scientific article – if it’s any good – there’s a list of references that lead to the original papers that are being cited. This means that you can look up the original papers and check that they’re being cited correctly. If the original paper was published in a peer-reviewed journal, this means that before it got into print, it was reviewed by independent experts within the field who check for stuff like poor methodology or unjustified conclusions. It may not be a perfect system but I would claim that it’s more reliable than pretty much any other information in the public domain.

    • KR says:

      “The funny thing about life coming from inorganic matter is the fact that they can’t do it. That’s the point.”
      .
      The funny thing about science is that it’s all about finding answers to as yet unsolved problems. Every research project is about something we can’t do or explain – that’s the point.
      .
      “Number 2, there are certain attributes that change a little over time. It’s called adaptation. But never have they managed to get a new species.”
      .
      I don’t think you’ve looked to deeply into this. Try googling “observed instances of speciation” and see what you find. You might also try looking up “ring species” while you’re at it – it’s a fascinating opportunity to actually study the process of speciation as it’s happening.
      .
      “The fossil record doesn’t support that idea either.”
      .
      This is incorrect – the fossil record shows exactly the kind of recurring patterns of nested hierarchies we would expect to find as traces of a process of descent with modification and speciation. Add to this the genetic evidence for common descent and it’s pretty much a slam dunk.
      .
      “The study I was talking about was a study where they were purposely introducing things into the bee, or whatever they were using, and the organism died every time. They couldn’t get them to do anything else.”
      .
      I’m not sure how this is relevant to the topic. The fact remains that most mutations have zero effect on fitness.

      Reply
  4. Andy Ryan says:

    “Before that, you said “we’ve never observed a God creating life either”
    Indeed – I was pointing out that it was pointless you saying “So please tell me oh brilliant minds, why have we never observed life coming from non life?”
    .
    “But something called a theory, with no real evidence, is talked about like it’s fact”
    Aside from the nonsense of you saying ‘no real evidence’ when museums and whole libraries are filled with evidence, you need to research what ‘theory’ means in science. As KR pointing out, evolution is both theory and fact.
    .
    “They have never gotten a completely new species out of another”
    Who is ‘they’? What do you mean by ‘completely new’? What do you even mean by ‘gotten’ here? I already pointed out to you that speciation has been observed. I can only guess here that you don’t actually know what a species is.
    .
    “And no, they don’t have any fossils in intermediate either”
    What do you mean by ‘fossils in intermediate’? There are thousands of intermediate fossils. Look them up, go to a museum, read a book. If you’re too lazy to do that, google wikipedia’s ‘List of transitional fossils’. If you don’t trust the internet, go to the extensive references at the end of the page and look up the books or journals cited.
    .
    Honestly, you are so ignorant of this subject, making such easily debunked claims, that I hardly know where to begin in setting your straight. Perhaps go to your local library and check out some beginner guides to evolution.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *