In this post we discover: According to Darwinian theory, new species emerge when mutations produce individuals who can outperform the stock they came from…
This statement, and so many like them, reveal how Darwinian “logic” is based primarily upon hyper-imaginative speculation, and not anything that could be described as science. Here’s how Darwinian logic works:
Given #1: A certain feature of a living system exists. (Let’s try a trivial example, like Mozart’s ability to write symphonies.)
Given #2: Since this feature exists, it must have a survival advantage.
Given #3: Since it is known (scientifically) that Darwinian mechanisms can explain everything about the history of life, there must have been a gradual pathway such that random mutations and natural selection could turn a microbe into Mozart. How could this not be obvious?
The ID proponent challenges the Darwinist with some obvious questions:
Which random mutations would be required to turn a microbe into Mozart? How long would this take? What is the probability that these beneficial mutations could take place, and what is the probability that they could be fixed in the population with the available reproductive and probabilistic resources? What about the fact that the simplest living cell is the most sophisticated and functionally-integrated information-processing system ever discovered?
The universal and entirely predictable Darwinist response to such challenges:
Are you a religious fanatic who wants to destroy science?