hey vortex,
while doing some research to see what falsehoods hunter was passing off as science, i came across this site that sets them out pretty reasonably. Have a look:
Cornelius Hunters Darwin Predictions The DNA structure gave rise to the first life - Homologous Legs
Seriously psychotropic, if this is what sounds convincing to you, I am not sure what to say:
"Evolution by natural selection does not require abiogenesis being true to also be true.
The first lifeform could have come into being by a completely supernatural process, and evolutionary theory would still be correct. However, abiogenesis did use evolutionary processes to proceed, such as mutation and natural selection. So, there is a link, but it is not a dependent link. And, as a consequence of this, evolution does not predict abiogenesis, so the falsification of abiogenesis does not falsify evolution. Sorry, Cornelius".
The student writing this article seems to have forgotten that Darwin himself has spoken about evolution being a two part process - chemical and biological.
This is not the only mistake that is being made in this article though.
Here is another:
From Darwinspredictions site:
"Darwin speculated about chemical as well as biological evolution, and since then evolutionists have continued to speculate and search for mechanisms to explain both types of evolution. The prediction that the DNA structure gave rise to first life deals with chemical evolution rather than biological evolution".
Naontiotami
And its not a prediction of evolution. So even if you had falsified it, which you didnt, evolutionary theory would still be fine. And it is.
What this author does not seem to understand is that we are not playing with semantics here. Darwin himself knew nothing at all about DNA. So, he absolutely could not have talked about DNA when he was presupposing theories about chemical evolution. But he does talk about chemical evolution leading upto biological evolution.
Cornelius Hunter simply takes the proof of the constituents of life forms (as in present time) and puts Darwin's theory to the sword based on that.
Lastly DNA or RNA is not the important thing. What is important and what is being drawn to our attention is the fact that for protein molecules to recombine themselves into structures needed to give rise to life - even the most primitive form - there is no explanation. Not until the present day.
To summarize this I think Cornelius has come up with a nice little paragraph:
"
Though evolutionists do not know how the first cell could have evolved, they refer to the hypothetical processes leading up to the first cell as chemical evolution, and subsequent processes as biological evolution. [13] Because these two evolutionary processes are speculative, there can be some degree of overlap in how these processes are conceived. For instance, selection is contemplated as a mechanism for chemical evolution, as well as biological evolution.
Darwin speculated about chemical as well as biological evolution, and since then evolutionists have continued to speculate and search for mechanisms to explain both types of evolution. The prediction that the DNA structure gave rise to first life deals with chemical evolution rather than biological evolution".