Harsh Truth: If Intelligent Design is Untestable . . .

[JM2C]

Mutation. We see it all the time.

EDIT*
Actually went to look this up. Looks like we have on average at least 100 mutations per person. That means every single living person on the planet has at least 100 bits of new genetic information in them that never existed prior to them. On occasion they do things. In fact mutations that are harmful are far more common. But there are mutations that are beneficial.

Do you deny mutations exist? If you don't then you are denying your statement above.

Genetic mutation does not produce new genetic info. This is what evolutionist cannot back up with science. What you are saying is the rearranging of the preexisting genetic information through sexual reproduction or genetic mutation. No new information is added on either process.

As Dr. Spetner again explains, “I really do not believe that the neo-Darwinian model can account for large-scale evolution [i.e., macroevolution]. What they really can’t account for is the buildup of information. …And not only is it improbable on the mathematical level, that is, theoretically, but experimentally one has not found a single mutation that one can point at that actually adds information. In fact, every beneficial mutation that I have seen reduces the information, it loses information.” (Ibid.)

 

[Shad]

So, from Darwin’s molecules to man theory to allele frequency in population genetics is what you’re saying here, right?

No, I am pointing out you are ignoring the theory as it current is instead you attack the theory as it was in Darwin's day.

But can you tell the difference between Darwin’s molecules to man theory and the allele frequency in population genetics? This is where you guys lost me because between these two theories is a huge increase in genetic information. Can you account where that new genetic information, between Darwin’s and H-W Principle, came from? No you can’t, because the Harry-Weinberg Principle, the present genetic information, has nothing to do with that gap that the evolutionist could not account for, but use that Principle only, as a switch, from Darwin’s molecules to man theory of evolution, as the bait. You know the bait and switch tactic by evolutionists? You can rearrange all the alleles you want but you can never turn a reptile into a man.

Go read the H-W principle, it removes all mechanics of evolution and presents a model without these mechanics. It is a "what if" exercise. . H-W is far more of an anti-evolution view than one for it. However in biology is used to against evidence that it does not included thus is falsified repeatedly. You do not know what the H-W equation is about and in your ignorance think it is a supportive argument for your case, it is not. It is almost mocking your view if you think about it. You are treating it as a competing theory but it is not, is a point of falsification which evolutionary theory passes. You comment has no merit since you have no idea what you are talking about.

Reptile to man? This is your creationist strawman, nothing more.

Hardy–Weinberg principle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Modern Theories of Evolution: Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium Model
Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium - Biology Encyclopedia - body, different, blood, role, common, first, form, disease, genes
http://abacus.bates.edu/acad/depts/biobook/Lab2HW14.pdf

Yes, you do. From where life came from is the main argument in this thread and you guys cannot provide that information. You need to go back to Darwin’s ToE because that is the main argument in this thread [you know the monkey to man theory], but according to you,The funny thing is, your denial of Darwin’s ToE is where your arguments will end up anyway and “They make these proverbs come true: “A dog returns to its vomit,” and “A washed pig returns to the mud.” -2Peter 2:22

Evolution is changes within life not the origins of life thus your point is a strawman based on your own ignorance. There is no denial from me, I am just pointing out you are going back to the theory as it was over a century ago to attack it rather than the modern theory thus you point is a strawman.

You don’t need to because this is observable while the ToE is not.

Double-stand compared to the previous comment. My reply to that comment applies to this one as well. Planetary orbit theories and mechanics apply to planets that already exist just as evolution applies to life which already exists. Neither needs to address the origin of either since neither is about origins.

 

[Shad]

As Dr. Spetner again explains, “I really do not believe that the neo-Darwinian model can account for large-scale evolution [i.e., macroevolution]. What they really can’t account for is the buildup of information. …And not only is it improbable on the mathematical level, that is, theoretically, but experimentally one has not found a single mutation that one can point at that actually adds information. In fact, every beneficial mutation that I have seen reduces the information, it loses information.” (Ibid.)

Not a biologist thus a statement from incredibility from a creationist, nothing more. Quoting someone is meaningless as you never quoted an argument supporting the statement.

 

[JM2C]

Do you have a couple of years to learn and understand modern evolution?


Do you really think evolution is static and stuck in the 19th century?


Natural Selection (NS) have expanded beyond Darwin's original theory on NS in the 20th and 21st centuries.


Because there are better technology and tools that have been developed since Darwin's time, we have better understanding of Natural Selection than Darwin ever did.

“better technology”? Really? What’s this got to do with Darwin’s theory of where man came from? You need to answer that because that is the main question here.

 

[JM2C]

edit

 

[JM2C]

Mutation is another mechanism to the theory of evolution, and could encompass Natural Selection and other evolutionary mechanisms.

Do you understand the meaning of new information and new mechanism?

Just to give a couple of examples:

E.coli feeding on glucose in an aerobic environment, but after consuming all the glucose they started to eat citrate to survive. Cause of mutation: starvation. Guess what, they can’t find any genetic basis for the change so there is NO NEW GENETIC INFORMATION, NO NEW MECHANISM.

The Italian wall lizard was placed in an island and all the local lizards disappeared overtaken by the introduced lizards. Cause of mutation: starvation. Guess what, they can’t find any genetic basis for the change so there is NO NEW GENETIC INFORMATION, NO NEW MECHANISM. It was just an enlargement of muscles in the valve between small and large intestine that was already there.

If you take a group of skinny malnourish people from a starving country and bring them to a country that is rich in food and nutrients, and leave them there for 100 years, they will change in appearance too, and just like the lizards, you won’t see a trace of them from the time they came into that country that is rich in food and nutrients after 100 hundred years. Did they gain any NEW GENETIC INFORMATION and NEW MECHANISM? NO, because the mechanism was there already and it’s just a matter of exercising that mechanism.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Genetic mutation does not produce new genetic info. This is what evolutionist cannot back up with science. What you are saying is the rearranging of the preexisting genetic information through sexual reproduction or genetic mutation. No new information is added on either process.

As Dr. Spetner again explains, “I really do not believe that the neo-Darwinian model can account for large-scale evolution [i.e., macroevolution]. What they really can’t account for is the buildup of information. …And not only is it improbable on the mathematical level, that is, theoretically, but experimentally one has not found a single mutation that one can point at that actually adds information. In fact, every beneficial mutation that I have seen reduces the information, it loses information.” (Ibid.)

Mutation is exactly what it is. It is a new genetic sequence that was not there before. It is by definition new genetic material. It isn't from re-arranging old material.

Another good example here is being near a nuclear power source. Or what about the mutations caused by sunburn that eventually create skin cancer? Both of those are new genetic information brought on by outside sources.

I think you just don't know what a mutation is. You can't say mutations exist without saying new information exists.

 

[JM2C]

Other mechanisms are -

1. Gene Flow (in which population B migrate to population A, intermix with each other, transferring genes or alleles from one to another, otherwise known as gene migration; this is when changes in external environment don't force change upon existing population, so it is not like NS),
2. Genetic Drift,
3. and Genetic Hitchhiking.

I know less of the last 2 mechanisms, so I will leave it to others to explain GD or GH to you.
Just because there are 4 newer evolutionary mechanisms, Natural Selection is still a very relevant and valid mechanism in evolution today, which is why NS hasn't been refuted and discarded, and there being EVIDENCES still support NS.

Explain gene flow and Darwin’s theory on how life started here on earth and see what you meant by this

Do you have a couple of years to learn and understand modern evolution?

But my point is that biologists are no longer relying on Darwin's old theory. If you truly want to learn evolution, then at least do some reading of modern evolution.

I don’t think you understand the question here. It’s either God created man according to Genesis 1:27 “God created man in His own image” or man came from molecules is what we are arguing here and until you answer this, molecules to man theory, then all these C&P meant nothing.

 

[Shad]

Do you understand the meaning of new information and new mechanism?

Just to give a couple of examples:

E.coli feeding on glucose in an aerobic environment, but after consuming all the glucose they started to eat citrate to survive. Cause of mutation: starvation. Guess what, they can’t find any genetic basis for the change so there is NO NEW GENETIC INFORMATION, NO NEW MECHANISM.

The Italian wall lizard was placed in an island and all the local lizards disappeared overtaken by the introduced lizards. Cause of mutation: starvation. Guess what, they can’t find any genetic basis for the change so there is NO NEW GENETIC INFORMATION, NO NEW MECHANISM. It was just an enlargement of muscles in the valve between small and large intestine that was already there.

If you take a group of skinny malnourish people from a starving country and bring them to a country that is rich in food and nutrients, and leave them there for 100 years, they will change in appearance too, and just like the lizards, you won’t see a trace of them from the time they came into that country that is rich in food and nutrients after 100 hundred years. Did they gain any NEW GENETIC INFORMATION and NEW MECHANISM? NO, because the mechanism was there already and it’s just a matter of exercising that mechanism.

You have this argument completely backwards. By not finding a genetic reason for this change it is not a change found within existing genetics of an organism. It is the emergence of new genetic information. You comparison of lizards and bacteria to humans is flawed. In the lizard example you did not proved a change in food consumption from stock food supplies not a food supply which was not originally within the food consumption ranges of lizards. Same with humans. The bacteria example shows a shift to a completely new food source which was never consumed by the organism previously. Citrate consumption would have been present before hand, which you have no demonstrated, for there to be no new mechanics or genetic information. However since there was a shift to a new food source which is not found in the origin organisms this is a change thus evolution is confirmed and you point falsified

 

[JM2C]

Mutation is exactly what it is. It is a new genetic sequence that was not there before. It is by definition new genetic material. It isn't from re-arranging old material.
Another good example here is being near a nuclear power source. Or what about the mutations caused by sunburn that eventually create skin cancer? Both of those are new genetic information brought on by outside sources.
I think you just don't know what a mutation is. You can't say mutations exist without saying new information exists.

I respect your opinion but do you have anything to back this up like this one,
As Dr. Spetner again explains, “I really do not believe that the neo-Darwinian model can account for large-scale evolution [i.e., macroevolution]. What they really can’t account for is the buildup of information. …And not only is it improbable on the mathematical level, that is, theoretically, but experimentally one has not found a single mutation that one can point at that actually adds information. In fact, every beneficial mutation that I have seen reduces the information, it loses information.” (Ibid.)
E.coli used to eat glucose but because of mutation, the enzyme that is catalyzing E.coli to eat glucose has been altered by this mutation. IOW, the genetic sequence has been rearrange or giving new message to E.coli, and that is, to eat citrate because there is no other food to eat but citrate. It did not create new mechanism to do this because that mechanism was always there therefore, there is no information. I wish you have something to disprove this.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I respect your opinion but do you have anything to back this up like this one,
As Dr. Spetner again explains, “I really do not believe that the neo-Darwinian model can account for large-scale evolution [i.e., macroevolution]. What they really can’t account for is the buildup of information. …And not only is it improbable on the mathematical level, that is, theoretically, but experimentally one has not found a single mutation that one can point at that actually adds information. In fact, every beneficial mutation that I have seen reduces the information, it loses information.” (Ibid.)
E.coli used to eat glucose but because of mutation, the enzyme that is catalyzing E.coli to eat glucose has been altered by this mutation. IOW, the genetic sequence has been rearrange or giving new message to E.coli, and that is, to eat citrate because there is no other food to eat but citrate. It did not create new mechanism to do this because that mechanism was always there therefore, there is no information. I wish you have something to disprove this.

He has expressed an opinion that is not within his field with no research or evidence to back it up. And after having said that has been refuted and the claim has been proven false.

Mutation is by definition the change of genetic information. Sometimes it adds sometimes it reduces. We have roughly 100 or more mutations per person. This year there have been more than 73 million people born. That means as many as a trillion possible new mutations have been added this year alone. The chances of one of those trillion (or several actually) being beneficial is very good. This destroys the very root of your issue.

I also don't know why he has misunderstood the concept of mutation in "loss of information". In some circumstances yes. However this is not mutually exclusive.

I can link you to all kinds of studies about the genome and how new genetic information is developed. Here are several. Two of which are direct responses to this claim and why it is wrong.

Gene Genesis: Scientists Observe New Genes Evolving from Mutated Copies - Scientific American
CB102: Mutations adding information
Increase in Genetic Information
New genes arise quickly « Why Evolution Is True

And here is a simple one with a video as well.
Articles / New Animation: How Does New Genetic Information Evolve? - Stated Clearly

 

[David M]

Do you understand the meaning of new information and new mechanism?

Just to give a couple of examples:

E.coli feeding on glucose in an aerobic environment, but after consuming all the glucose they started to eat citrate to survive. Cause of mutation: starvation. Guess what, they can’t find any genetic basis for the change so there is NO NEW GENETIC INFORMATION, NO NEW MECHANISM.

Wrong. There was no starvation. Wrong. They identified the exact mutations that led to the ability to metabolise citrate. Wrong, new information and a completely new mechanism.

The Italian wall lizard was placed in an island and all the local lizards disappeared overtaken by the introduced lizards. Cause of mutation: starvation. Guess what, they can’t find any genetic basis for the change so there is NO NEW GENETIC INFORMATION, NO NEW MECHANISM. It was just an enlargement of muscles in the valve between small and large intestine that was already there.

Wrong, there was no starvation. Wrong, the mutation has not been identified yet because no one has sequenced the lizards' genome. The lizards have evolved, and rapidly..

If you take a group of skinny malnourish people from a starving country and bring them to a country that is rich in food and nutrients, and leave them there for 100 years, they will change in appearance too, and just like the lizards, you won’t see a trace of them from the time they came into that country that is rich in food and nutrients after 100 hundred years. Did they gain any NEW GENETIC INFORMATION and NEW MECHANISM? NO, because the mechanism was there already and it’s just a matter of exercising that mechanism.

Wrong, ignorant or deliberately misrepresenting the facts. Take your pick.

 

[Parsimony]

Do you understand the meaning of new information and new mechanism?

Just to give a couple of examples:

E.coli feeding on glucose in an aerobic environment, but after consuming all the glucose they started to eat citrate to survive. Cause of mutation: starvation. Guess what, they can’t find any genetic basis for the change so there is NO NEW GENETIC INFORMATION, NO NEW MECHANISM.

So not only did you completely ignore my post explaining how the genetic basis for the change in the E.coli was found (genes were found to be present in the Cit+ strains that were absent in the Cit- strains), but now you are claiming that starvation can cause mutation? How? How can starvation possibly cause genetic mutations? Do you even know what genetic mutation is? I really want an explanation for that one.

About information again, one of the most fundamental measures of information is computational: bits. There is no simpler way to express information content. So let's say that you have a computer drive that is just barely large enough to store the genomic sequence of a Cit- bacterium. Now you have computationally quantified the amount of information in the Cit- genome in terms of bits. The question then becomes, can the genomic sequence of a Cit+ bacterium be stored on this same drive? If it can, then that means Cit+ has the same amount of information or less than Cit-. However, since it was found that Cit+ has extra genes in it, that means that it would require extra bits to encode it computationally. Since the drive in question was stated to be just barely large enough to hold the Cit- code, it will not fit. You cannot put 6 gallons in a 5 gallon bucket. The Cit+ bacterium therefore has to have more information than the Cit- bacteria.

I also want to point out that information is not the same as functionality. A system can contain new information without gaining new functionality. Imagine you have two computer codes, each 10,000 bits long. One is a random string of 1s and 0s whereas the other one has 1s and 0s arranged in a way that allows it to successfully excute programs. Both codes contain the same amount of computational information since they are both 10,000 bits long, but only one has functionality. So please keep in mind that when you are arguing about new information and new functionality, you are talking about two different things.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

. . . Then Darwinian Evolution is untestable. If intelligent design is unfalsifiable, then Darwinian evolution is unprovable.

Why? Logic 101.

They're opposing answers to the same question, thus, any test for one will inherently test the other.
Any evidence for one will be evidence against the other.
Any proof of one will be proof against the other. proving one will falsify the other (and vice versa).

When Darwinists say we can't falsify the claim that biology is a product of design, they're unwittingly confessing that they can't prove biology is the product of blind nature.

When Darwinists say we can't prove the claim that biology is a product of design, they're unwittingly confessing that they can't falsify the claim that biology is the product of blind nature.

The only reasonable conclusion is that either both are science, or neither is science.

Food for thought. I eagerly await your flimsy excuses.

If this is logic 101, it is only useful for demonstrating fallacies.

 

[gnostic]

Damn it. Sorry, not you or your reply. I was running an errand when one of the tyres got a puncture. Heard a bang.

Luckily I was near tyre service...but I'm going to be out of pocket.

So I have time to read your replies this morning.

Explain gene flow and Darwin’s theory on how life started here on earth and see what you meant by this

You still don't get it, jm2c.

Neither Darwin's original natural selection (nor the current theory on natural selection), nor gene flow have tried to explain the FIRST LIFE on earth, so your argument against evolution is already flawed and you're still beating the same straw-man again.

Look, jm2c.

Until you understand this concept that evolution is not about the origin of first life or about life not forming out of non-living matters, hence not abiogenesis, we will never get anywhere.

I, and others have explained this to you and other creationists difference between evolution and abiogenesis to you, that's no longer funny.

You wrote:

Before we continue our debate, so that we could avoid misunderstanding and accuse me of twisting your words again, can you explain the difference between macroevolution and microevolution from your own understanding, i.e., on how you summarized it from any reading materials or articles like wiki’s and others.

If you can't accept that abiogenesis and evolution are two completely different fields in "bio-" science, what in the hell of differences would it make if I explained to you the difference between macro-evolution and micro-evolution. You are already going to discard everything I (or others say) on this matter.

Only creationists distinguish between micro and macro evolutions, but most biologists ignored this pointless distinctions. Whether it be micro- or macro-, they are all evolution.

I understand creation myth just fine. I nearly joined my sister's church when I was a teenager. I don't need to read some dumb and biased pseudoscience creationist's websites, because I already know what creationists believe in. Why would I visit and read creationist webpages, in which they cannot verify what they believe in (verify as in testing or through evidences), and WORSE misrepresent what evolutionary biology say or don't say.

And this has nothing to being Christians and atheists (or with agnostics, because I am agnostic), JM2C, because there are lot of Christians who do accept the theory of evolution being an valid and natural explanation to biodiversity phenomena. There are also Jews, Hindus and Buddhists who also accept evolution as one field of biology.

The core belief to (Christian) creationism is Genesis, and so I understand what you believe in, so I don't need these idiots who posted those webpages about creationism, tell me what they believe or don't believe in.

You say that you don't want misunderstanding between us. Then that's great. I understand Genesis' creation myth, and I understand why you believe in it...BUT CAN YOU UNDERSTAND that evolution is not abiogenesis?

Once you understand that, then that would be the first step for YOU not misunderstanding ME. If you can't understand or don't want to understand, then you are wasting my time.

 

[gnostic]

If you want to understand Natural Selection, JM2C, then read about the tortoises on different islands of Galápagos.

On some islands, the tortoises are small, but they can easily find and reach food, so their necks and legs are short, with common "domed" shells.

But in some other nearby islands, food are scarcer, and harder to reach, so tortoises continued to find suitable mates and produce offspring, in which they have longer necks and legs, and they have shells unlike their smaller cousins, known as "saddle-back" shell.

The saddle-back shape, allowed for the tortoise to crank their upright. The shell-shape even allow them to stand on their hind legs.

The islands of Galápagos demonstrated what different terrains can do to certain species, in which they must adapt or die out. That's Natural Selection.

Natural Selection is not about looking for first life, or in the cases of tortoises on Galápagos, not even about the 1st ever tortoise.

Look up "Galápagos tortoises", JM2C. I don't care if you read the wiki or some other available sources, but it just show that different islands, can produce different species of tortoises, depending on terrains, climates or availability of food sources.

Charles Darwin noticed these different tortoises, as well as mockingbirds, and even plant life were different, on different islands. His observation, are still evident today, so Darwin wasn't just a hack naturalist. For any idiot who don't see this, just showed that they don't really understand or want to understand BIOLOGY at all.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Is there a process, known to man today, by which new genetic information is added to the genome that would evolve to a new feature? Nothing!

Genetic mutation does not produce new genetic info. This is what evolutionist cannot back up with science.

Before you can learn something new, you have to stop buying into outdated, inaccurate, ignorant information...
You wouldn't step into a Calculus classroom and try to argue that Calculus is a flawed science because of what you learned in Elementary school, would you?
So, likewise, you shouldn't make bold statements or claims about biology when you very obviously don't know what you're talking about.

CB102: Mutations adding information

Adding New Genetic Information

Evolution myths: Mutations can only destroy information - New Scientist

Question 1: How Does Evolution Add Information? - How Evolution Works

Gene duplication - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Molecular evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[leibowde84]

Yes, I do have trouble understanding it. C&P is different from explaining what you’re Copying & Pasting, so if you could summarize it a little bit on how you understand the allele frequency compare to Darwin’s ToE then that would be great.

I am not familiar with what Darwin thoughts were on the subject of alleles, but a lot has changed in evolution theory since his death, along with many scientific improvements, so I'm not sure why it would be relevant. Evolution theory began with Darwin, but he was certainly ignorant of much of what we now know on the subject. That's the beautiful thing about the scientific method.

Summary:
1. The theory of Evolution holds that allele frequencies in a gene pool change over many generations.
2. Species are isolated from one another, but gene flow (or the transfer of genes between populations of the same species) hold the gene pools together.
3. Each individual organism has only part of the gene pool that they get from both of their parents, proportions being different in each individual.
4. Individual is subject to chromosomal or gene mutations and recombination of alleles. Some of these mutations/recombinations end up providing advantages to the individual. Natural selection will favor SOME of these organisms with beneficial mutations, allowing them to pass down their (mutated) genes to more offspring.
5. Changes in allele frequencies come about primarilhy by natural selection (described above), but can also be influenced by migration, gene flow (between populations of the same species), and chromosomal variations.

Does that help? What are you having issue with?

 

[JM2C]

You have this argument completely backwards. By not finding a genetic reason for this change it is not a change found within existing genetics of an organism. It is the emergence of new genetic information.

I don’t think you understand what a genetic basis for the change means. What I meant is, from eating glucose to eating citrate is not a genetic change as in gain new genetic information or gain new mechanism, i.e., by means of mutation, to digest citrate. In the case of E.coli the genetic change [NO NEW G.I. AND NO N.M.] is just the rearranging of the genetic sequence caused by mutation that is beneficial for survival. Remember in the experiment, Lenski placed the E.coli in a beaker with 10 to 1 ratio of citrate to glucose, in an aerobic environment, and after they consumed the glucose, they started to eat the citrate. What causes them to eat citrate? Starvation!

Starvation is frequently a state that bacteria have to endure. In order to survive, they need to have special adaptive capabilities. Both adaptive mutation and antagonistic pleiotropy come into play.

Anderson and Purdom sum up the conclusions rather concisely:

Each of these mutant strains has an antagonistic pleiotropy characteristic. An existing system is traded for an altered phenotype that is better suited to survive the specific stressful environment. Regulation is reduced to enable overexpression. DNA repair and DNA polymerase fidelity are reduced to enable increased mutation rates (increasing the probability of a “beneficial” mutation). A gene is inactivated by a process that concurrently activates a silent gene. Such trade-offs provide a temporary benefit to the bacterium, increasing its chances of surviving specific starvation conditions. However, these mutations do not account for the origin of the silenced genes, as their prior existence is essential for the mutation to be beneficial. (Anderson and Purdom 78)

You comparison of lizards and bacteria to humans is flawed. In the lizard example you did not proved a change in food consumption from stock food supplies not a food supply which was not originally within the food consumption ranges of lizards. Same with humans

The Italian wall lizards were insectivorous before transferring them into the island of Pod Mrcaru. They can’t find their food so they ate what was there, and that is, the plant. On the human side not having the right food and nutrient can cause mutation. Environment can change the appearance of the creature and human, but not the code. Go search for that.

The bacteria example shows a shift to a completely new food source which was never consumed by the organism previously. Citrate consumption would have been present before hand, which you have no demonstrated, for there to be no new mechanics or genetic information. However since there was a shift to a new food source which is not found in the origin organisms this is a change thus evolution is confirmed and you point falsified

You need to understand what MUTATION means. The E.coli were digesting glucose in an aerobic environment and they have the ability to digest citrate in an anaerobic environment, and as demonstrated in the experiment, with citrate as the only food, they have adapted into that environment, the aerobic environment, because of starvation.

 

[JM2C]

Evolution is changes within life not the origins of life thus your point is a strawman based on your own ignorance. There is no denial from me, I am just pointing out you are going back to the theory as it was over a century ago to attack it rather than the modern theory thus you point is a strawman.

Your ignorance is leading you to believe that modern ToE has nothing to do with Darwin’s ToE and using this modern ToE as your STRAWMAN so you can get away from the main argument, i.e., man came from a dead molecule.

Double-stand compared to the previous comment. My reply to that comment applies to this one as well. Planetary orbit theories and mechanics apply to planets that already exist just as evolution applies to life which already exists. Neither needs to address the origin of either since neither is about origins.

Really? What is the point of our arguments here then?