If evolutionists were painters of pictures they would still be producing works like those of Constable and Gainsborough rather than those of Picasso and Braque or even Cezanne and Turner in which matter has dissolved as it has in modern physics.
Evolution theory can be compared to trick camera work in cinema where photographs taken at different times and in different places can be run together to give the appearance of things moving in the Euclidian space in the direction the makers have chosen to arrange.
The things that have happened in the 3.5 billion years of the history of life on earth each happened in discreet moments of space-time. The evolutionist then selects an exceedingly small percentage of these events and links them together as having a superficial similarity enough for him to group them together as a unity and give them a label--evolution.
With such a vast range of events to choose from, infinite to all intents and purposes, and the evolutionist only looking for those events which fit the pattern he, and his party, wish to demonstrate, anything else, such as intermediates, can easily be discarded to the cutting room waste-bin and he can make his movie in which, to everyone's astonishment, he is the star, takes his bow and the money and sits back looking like the cat that got the cream.
He takes advantage to achieve this of the ordinary person's scientific limitations in respect of his inability, which he probably shares, to conceive of the world in any other way than imagining that movement must involve something moving and matter having not been dissolved by modern physics.
When we listen to a melody we are hearing it as it goes by moment by moment, theoretically infinitessimal moment by infinitessimal moment. We do not imagine that the melody, the movement, exists complete in those moments.
Evolutionists have imagined that this complete entity which they label evolution is a single unified "thing" in each of the moments the process was taking place as if a minute fraction of an audio frequency in a melody is the melody itself. They confuse experience, what one observes, with prejudice, what one imagines one observes.
This would be all very well if the uses to which their theory could be applied had some advantages, some wished for social consequences, to the wider society which is providing the economic resources, including their own possibilities, which are being used to grow the theory and develop it and to get its feet under the table and which could be applied to other uses such as free beer for the troops in Iraq.
And everytime they are asked to provide an explanation of the utility of their theory to those who pay their wages they dodge off into some esoteric arcana which nobody really understands, possibly including themselves, or has any practical connection to it.
Quote:proto cells, once the reaction mechanism is established, are"immortal". Pertide linkage, like rust, only needs a small host of chemicals Since the base pairs are the small molecules, the replicant is the arrangement of the family of Oxyribonuclease You dont seem to catch what Shapiro is saying RL.
Obviously hes not postulated an evolutionary dead end, maybe dead ends for thousands of nucleoties that DIDNT WORK, (and does the L/R rotatory aminos acids have anything important to say)
Anybody fancy putting that in language we can understand.