Barbarian, thanks for not giving up on us! Hey, in your post, did you BOTH:
- Deny that Darwinists say they predicted biological universals, AND
- Claim that Darwinists did predict biological universals?
Here's the part where I think you denied it:
Originally Posted by Me
Originally Posted by You (Barbarian)
That's Bernard Davis writing in 1985 in Perspectives in Biology and Medicine.
Originally Posted by B. D. Davis, Molecular Genetics and the Foundations of Evolution
Now comes the part where you claimed Barbarian that they DID predict it.
One part of your criticism is especially constructive, so I rewrote my original subhead:
Darwinists Did NOT Predict Biological Universals (like DNA) and Darwinists Do NOT See Evolution as Falsifiable
When I first wrote that subhead, it was only relating to the Prediction, and I had written DarwinISM. But then I expanded it to include Falsifiability, and I changed ISM to ISTS without realizing that I introduced an error, which you caught. Good job:
*DarwinISM* Does NOT Predict Biological Universals (like DNA) and Darwinists Do NOT See Evolution as Falsifiable
Originally Posted by Barbarian
Here's some of the evidence that shows that DarwinISM (i.e., evolutionism) does not predict biological universals:
1. Leading Darwinists researching abiogenesis posit early life forms WITHOUT DNA, w/o predominantly left-handed amino acids, w/o RNA, w/o cell membranes, w/o proteins, etc.So Barbarian, yes, evolutionists and creationists (and even Buffon writing a century before Darwin, as reported by Donald Johanson) see a unity of life. Toward that end, Schrödinger wrote about the need for "negative entropy" (what we today credit "information" for accomplishing in a localized way). And that's of course why he described it as "aperiodic," because information is not made up of strictly repeating patterns (as in snowflakes and crystals), but in irregularity. (A book would lose it's information if it's letters were lined up in alternating vowels and consonants, or alphabetically, or in some other regularly repeating pattern.) But Darwinism, as opposed to creationism, does not predict one biochemical pattern for all life.
2. Many leading Darwinists believe in aliens, and the alien physiology, sight-unseen, they assure us would have arisen not via creation but by Darwinian mechanisms.
3. Darwinism requires variability but not stasis (nor biochemical stasis), thus leading evolutionists have claimed that abiogenesis could have occurred on Earth (& in outer space) multiple times, and in fundamentally different ways.
So I assert Barbarian that Darwinism cannot rightly be credited with predicting biochemical universals when many of its proponents in mainstream publications continue to DENY universals (for example in early lifeforms) without fear of ridicule.
And you have more great comments to discuss, but (sort of like evolution) I'm running out of time! Thanks for your thoughts!