I have now read Paul Greene’s book ”A time of change”, focusing on his evidence against evolution, and these are my conclusions (I start with them before going into detail):
Paul’s book completely fails to answer or provide evidence for anything at all. Most strong evidence for evolution is not even dealt with, such as Biogeography, Chromosome 2, and inner organs. It mentions DNA, but in no way disproves what it shows us, it questions the fossil record without understanding how it is supporting evolution, a large part of the book centers on Darwin’s doubts about evolution, which is totally irrelevant today. The book promotes some kind of mystical mumbo jumbo explanation close to the idea of the ”first mover”. In short, the book is a laugh riot, and is worth reading for the laugh, but it contains absolutely no evidence against evolution, and absolutely no evidence for an alternative theory.
*Indeed, not every single anthropologist and molecular biologist on the planet is endorsing the claim made by the Darwinists that gradual evolution is a solid.. True, there are 3% of all scientists that does not, and among scientists in relevant fields, there are 0,5% questioning evolution. So, it is like listening to the scientists saying smoking is harmless.
*no one knows exactly how many dissenters are out there and which side has the majority. What we do know is that only a few scientists are speaking out in support of evolution* In fact, there are over 4000 scientists just named ”Steve” that speaks out in support of it. According to studies, 99,5% of all biologists support evolution.
*They tell our children in schools all scientists are on the same page when it comes to Darwin’s theory of evolution, and that is utterly false*
True, 3% are not… And 0,5% of the relevant scientists are not.
*since a rational logical interpretation of known facts, as well as genuine science strongly suggests the Darwinian gradual evolution is not a possible course of action in nature*
Logic is useless without evidence. It doesn’t matter that nature is contra intuitive, we can only follow the evidence. ”Something from nothing” is also contra intuitive, but that is where the evidence points.
*evolution for being an unscientific proposition and for coming in conflict with both logic and the scientific method of research are secular scholars*
This is of course only true according to laypeople.. Also, evidence outshines logic.
*To begin with, contrary to the general perception created by neo-Darwinists, there are quite a few versions of evolutionary theory vehiculated today among evolutionists*
This is not contrary to the general perception. The overall idea that we are related to all living things and that we all come from simple beginnings and so on, is shared by basically every scientist, there are however disputes within the theory between gradual change and sudden appearance, but both these theories agree that evolution happens.
*Every single one of them is a wild assumption*
Well, not one of them actually. This is one of the many claims in the book that is backed up by absolutely nothing.
*Evolutionists claim, or used to, that lizards turned gradually into birds, yet no one has observed that happening or has proof it did. *
Using this logic, it would be impossible to solve most crimes, since no one saw them. Most of us however, know that we can look at evidence, mainly DNA, the fact that late dinosaurs had feathers, and the fact that some could fly, along with the many similarities between reptiles and birds, and draw conclusions from that.
*The evidence we have forces us actually to reject that claim.*
This is of course a lie.. And Paul of course does not back it with evidence.
*The famous fossil known as Archaeopteryx, for example, a theropod bird dinosaur that lived one hundred and fifty million years ago represents proof birds are distinct species that were present on Earth simultaneously with and independent of other species of dinosaurs.*
There is no reason for me to debunk already debunked ideas, so. here you go:
*Darwin himself was constantly finding evidence his theory was not a correct interpretation*
Which is of course totally irrelevant, it was over a 100 years ago..
*Today’s neo-Darwinists, on the other hand, make it look like he never doubted himself.*
This is also a lie, we are sure today, Darwin was not.
*he (Darwin) admits that the criticism of his theory proffered by other scientists “is probably valid.”*
And he was wrong…
*he was unable to produce physical evidence for what would have been an “intermediate between living species or groups*
WE of course have a massive amounth today: Nautiloidea, Bactritida, Ammonoidea, Cephalopods, Pohlsepia, Proteroctopus, Vampyronassa, Palaeoctopus
Rhyniognatha, Rhyniella, Archimylacris, Aphthoroblattina, Archaeolepis, Lepidopteran, Melittosphex, Sphecomyrma
Eophyllium, Protoclaviger, Attercopus, Eoplectreurys, Pikaia, Conodont, Haikouichthys, Arandaspis
Birkenia, Guiyu, Chondrichthyes, Cladoselache, Dalpiazia, Cyclobatis, Andreolepis, Amphistium, Eobothus,
Leptolepis, Anguillavus, Hippocampus sarmaticus, Hippocampus slovenicus, Nardovelifer, Eomola, Corydoras revelatus, Ruffoichthys, Palaeoperca, Trachicaranx, Histionotophorus, Eolactoria, Proaracana, Gazolaichthys, Psettopsis, Pasaichthys, Eozanclus, Cretatriacanthus, Nardoichthys, Protozeus, Archaeozeus, Cooyoo,
Protriacanthus, Osteolepis, Eusthenopteron, Panderichthys, Tiktaalik, Elginerpeton, Ventastega, Acanthostega, Ichthyostega, Hynerpeton, Tulerpeton, Pederpes, Eryops, Gerobatrachus, Triadobatrachus, Prosalirus, Vieraella, Eocaecilia, Proterogyrinus, Limnoscelis, Tseajaia, Westlothiana, Solenodonsaurus, Casineria, Hylonomus, Paleothyris, Odontochelys, Proganochelys, Eileanchelys, Eupodophis, Najash, Anqingosaurus, Dallasaurus, Palaeosaniwa, Gangiguana, Cretaceogekko, Darwinopterus, Pterorhynchus, Proterosuchus, Marasuchus, Asilisaurus, Spondylosoma, Eoraptor, Pisanosaurus, Thecodontosaurus, Huayangosaurus, Stenopelix, Yinlong, Guanlong, Falcarius, Scelidosaurus, Probactrosaurus, Pelecanimimus, Juravenator, Pedopenna, Anchiornis, Archaeopteryx, Confuciusornis, Eoalulavis, Ichthyornis, Waimanu, Elornis, Colymboides, Mopsitta, Masillaraptor, Primapus, Protoclepsydrops, Archaeothyris, Haptodus, Dimetrodon, Biarmosuchus, Cynognathus, Thrinaxodon, Morganucodon, Yanoconodon, Kollikodon, Djarthia, Eritherium,Miacis, Heteroprox, Eotragus,Protylopus, Hyrachyus, Heptodon, Hesperocyon, Eurymylus, Onychonycteris, Purgatorius, Sivapithecus, Kenyapotamus, Eomanis, Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Kutchicetus, Artiocetus, Dorudon, Aetiocetus, Basilosaurus, Eurhinodelphis, Mammalodon, Pezosiren, Prorastomus, Protosiren, Eotheroides, Halitherium, Puijila, Potamotherium, Enaliarctos, Hyracotherium, Mesohippus, Parahippus, Merychippus, Pliohippus, Equus, Apidium, Aegyptopithecus, Proconsul, Pierolapithecus, Ardipithecus, Australopithecus, Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Homo rhodesiensis.
*Today’s evolutionists claim they do have those intermediate species. They do not, and it is not like they do not know they do not have them.*
(See list of the ones we do have above, we have pictures and DNA analysis of them all of course, confirming what we already knew.
*They present distinct species that went extinct without ever evolving into anything else as transitional species*
Every single one in the list above evolved into something else, and we have several itermediate forms to prove it, between basically every species.
*and they hope they can get away with that on account that they are the “experts.*
Well, of course the experts chance of making a correct interpretation of evidence is vastly supperior to a laypersons. That is the whole point of education.
*In reality, more than one hundred fifty years after Darwin published his book, there is zero proof the transition happened.*
According to 97% of the worlds scientists, it is one of the absolutely strongest theories in all of science. You people choose who to believe, basically every scientists, or layperson Paul Greene.. People who spent their lives learning and studying DNA, or, Paul..
*Any so-called inference in Darwinism is actually a huge leap of faith, and Darwin himself admitted to that.*
Darwin did, then we collected evidence for 150 years, and now, it is not a leap of faith anymore, it is proven fact (and the theory of evolution explains this fact).
*Pauls keeps on repeating that Darwin doubted evolution*
Which of course is irrelevant, that was a 150 years ago, he didn’t know better.
*In a 2009 book called The End of Darwinism, Eugene D. Windchy writes*
A self published book by an anti-evolutionist enjoying basically no support at all because of its total lack of evidence:
*To this day, though, they have no idea how the first amoeba came into existence or how it turned into a fish.*
How life came to be is not a question for evolution, how it turned into a fish is well understood.
*Nevertheless, they claim in front of their trusting audiences, which includes the tuition paying students of our schools and universities they have lots of evidence for that, when in fact they are unable to produce the record of a single credible case of real transmutation.*
Except the around 300 specific cases I provided above.
*There are scientists out there who not for a moment consider gradual evolution to be a valid explanation for the origin of life forms*
There are also scientists saying that smoking is not dangerous and that the earth is 6000 years old, there are always cooks.
*A FEW AMONG THE MANY SERIOUS PROBLEMS WITH THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION NEITHER DARWIN, NOR HIS LATER FOLLOWERS WERE ABLE TO ADDRESS. FAVOURED RACES AND EUGENICS: THE AMERICAN LINK TO HITLER’S FINAL SOLUTION.*
As basically every ”evolutionist” will tell you, just because evolution happens to be proven correct, does not mean we should form our society in that way. This is such a classic argument that it actually got its own name ”the Hitler fallacy”.
*One of the most powerful pieces of evidence that proves Darwin’s assumptions are a fallacy has left many scientists of the time with no other choice but to declare evolution by the way of natural selection a theory dead on arrival. We are talking here, again, the fossil record found in the geological layers of the Cambrian. This was a major problem then, and it remains a major problem today. Recent findings by Chinese scientists J. Y. Chen from Nanjing Institute of Paleontology and Geology, and Zhou Qui Gin, research fellow at Chenjiang Fauna confirmed that Darwin’s ‘tree of life” was turned completely upside-down by the fossil record, and that, as Gin would declare, “animals did not develop gradually, they appeared suddenly.” (Icons of Evolution, DVD, ColdWater Media) How sudden, that is still a matter of debate, yet no one is disputing the fact that it happened much faster than originally thought.*
Today, we can of course explain this, since this is done som many times before, I simply link you good folks to talk origins:
*Since it utterly disproved his claim that existing species were the result of a long process of gradual evolution and natural selection, Darwin was very concerned about the fossil record. His hope was that, in time, this problem would be somehow solved. It wasn’t. In fact, as anthropologists were unearthing more fossil deposits all over the world, it became an even bigger one.*
This of course does not take away the evidence from Biogeography and DNA, fossils simply confirms this, and so far, have not found one single fossil which we could not explain.
*Once he acknowledges that “species of the same group,” species supposedly related that according to his theory would have taken millions of years to develop appear in the same geological layer, that they belong to the same period, he seems to realize there is nothing out there that can prevent a rationalistic mind from concluding that similar life forms were appearing more or less spontaneously and simultaneously on Earth within a relatively short time.*
Which of course is explained: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html
*Darwin admits practically the Cambrian fossil record was proof life did not appear gradually on Earth*
Now however, we know better. We also know that it is classic to argue against the fossil record if you know nothing about evolution, most of us know that fossils are far from the strongest evidence.
*the fossil record of the Cambrian strata shows that (..) the Cambrian life forms have become extinct, and that they did not evolve into other species, as assumed by Darwin.*
*Secondly, life has not appeared gradually on our planet but in sudden bursts of diversified, distinct complexity and form.*
Gould claims so, but most evidence speaks against him. The strongest evidence for evolution is not the past, but the species that lives today.
*This strong possibility creates another problem for the theory of evolution, especially since we know that some of the today’s species have remained unchanged for over 100 million years.*
This is of course not strange at all for someone familiar with the theory. IF there is no need for adaption, no natural selection (which is basically the case with humans today), evolution does not happen.
*Another almost 100-million-year-old life form that according to our scientists remained unchanged all this time, as in unevolved, is the famous Salty, the Australian salt-water crocodile. Many other hundred million years old fossils of big and small animals having well defined characteristics suggests they too did not evolve from other species. They seem to have appeared relatively fast, and it looks like from the beginning they were more or less the well-defined complex organisms with multiple interrelated functions we see today.*
Which as previously explained, is not strange or contrary to evolution theory in any way.
*there are no transitional species in the Cambrian fossil record.*
Evolution stands without one single fossil, the only debate is exactly how it happened. Fossils are made under extreme circumstances, we are lucky to have them at all, but, we do not need them to prove evolution.
*The question is, does a group of life forms become “stronger” when we eliminate its physically weaker members?*
Yes, and also, evolution has nothing to do with becoming stronger or better, that is a common misconception and one of the reason we don’t let laypeople do their own interpretations.
*Does that prevent other “weaker” individuals from being born into the same species?*
In time, yes. Obviously, otherwise dog breeding wouldn’t work.
*He fails to explain what a species “slightly better-endowed” and a “species slightly less well-endowed” stands for*
No he does not, it means less or more fit to survive.
*but, as we know it, for various reasons, some of which are still unknown to biologists, within a certain community of organisms, weaker individuals appear all the time.*
But not less fit, unless natural selection is eliminated such as in the case of human society.
*As anyone can see, the idea advanced by Hitler in the above passage is identical to the one advanced by Darwin in the Descent of Man.*
So?? Is the Author of catcher in the rye in anyway responsible for the death of John Lennon?
*According to Darwin, Mother Nature presents all species with only two options: you either die, or you cause the weaker one to die*
Wrong, another misconception. The options are ”to adapt if needed or die”, not to ”die or kill the weaker”.
*The theory about species evolving into other species by the way of gradual mutations and natural selection remains to this day an unproven assumption,*
DNA proves we are all related (all life), in the exact same way DNA can prove that you are a father to a child. Biogeography proves changes in the gene-pool because of environment, fossils confirms this to be correct, along with a shitload of other evidence.
*nothing about biological gradualism passes the test of reason, rational logic, and commons sense.*
And, as most educated people know, evidence outshines logic and sense.
*Neither creationists nor evolutionists offer a credible answer to the question of the origin of life in general and of man in particular.*
That is because it is not a question for evolution. To criticize evolution theory for not not answering what the origin of life is, is like criticizing a chef for cooking a beef that is not a sandwich. Evolution is not trying to answer what the origin of life is.
*Indeed, natural selection is a reinvented gimmick,*
To accept natural selection is to accept 2 statements, and to deny it, is to deny any of these statements:
1) Dead things do not give birth
2) There are individual factors that may increase your odds of survival in nature. For example, to be quicker may increase your chance of survival.
*many among today’s neo-Darwinists have actually stopped claiming natural selection was a player in their otherwise imaginary process of gradual evolution.*
Nope.. There may be individuals, sure, but many, no.. That is simply a lie that is not supported by any evidence in the book.
*After all, they know very well natural selection is a figment of an evolutionist’s imagination.*
In that case, they would not study it. This is one of many examples that gives us a hint of Paul’s actual knowledge of the subject.
*Something no Atheist evolutionist cares to mention while holding Darwin to be his hero and the theory of evolution fact*
Here is another example of Paul not understanding science. Evolution IS a fact, the theory of evolution explains this fact. It is obvious that he things that there is a hierarchy in science, and that a ”fact” is on the top. This is of course not the case. This is one reason we seldom let laypeople get a say in a scientific discussion.
*In reality, the DNA carries a program that triggers a process meant to produce an identical copy of an already existing life form or organ. As a result, life forms cannot achieve new parts by the way of a natural process.*
The fact is that DNA does NOT make perfect copies of itself, this is the main cause of evolution. So this whole argument just falls apart, this is why you need knowledge of a subject if you want to criticize it.
*Proving this is precisely the case, devices associated with the DNA are making sure significant errors, as in mutations that may result in a substantially different biological structure would never occur. If an error does occur, that significant aberration from the original genetic code would result in a malformation, which is certainly not advantageous for the species.*
Most mutations are of course not beneficial to a species, this is where natural selection comes into play.
*As even famous evolutionists like Stephen Jay Gould had to admit, to have new parts added to an existing biological system, the entire organism will have to change simultaneously, and that is biologically and genetically impossible.*
It is hard to understand how anyone could make this claim, since anything mutations can do, mutations can undo. Some mutations add information to a genome; some subtract it. Creationists get by with this claim only by leaving the term ”information” undefined, impossibly vague, or constantly shifting. By any reasonable definition, increases in information have been observed to evolve. We have observed the evolution of:
increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)
increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)
A mechanism that is likely to be particularly common for adding information is gene duplication, in which a long stretch of DNA is copied, followed by point mutations that change one or both of the copies. Genetic sequencing has revealed several instances in which this is likely the origin of some proteins. For example:
Two enzymes in the histidine biosynthesis pathway that are barrel-shaped, structural and sequence evidence suggests, were formed via gene duplication and fusion of two half-barrel ancestors (Lang et al. 2000).
RNASE1, a gene for a pancreatic enzyme, was duplicated, and in langur monkeys one of the copies mutated into RNASE1B, which works better in the more acidic small intestine of the langur. (Zhang et al. 2002)
Yeast was put in a medium with very little sugar. After 450 generations, hexose transport genes had duplicated several times, and some of the duplicated versions had mutated further. (Brown et al. 1998)
*They claim they can yet evolutionists are unable to explain how evolution works its miracles.*
Paul is of course not very specific, but no, basically every person with a decent education knows we can explain evolution in detail.
*What are the chances, though, this path of development was taken randomly by nature? Practically, zero.*
A person who knows logic, knows that it is meaningless to talk about odds after something has already happned. Imagine I throw a ball into the wall, when I do, I will hit certain atoms. If I were to throw that ball dor a million more years, I would never hit the exact same atoms again, but still, I did this impossible task on the first attempt.
*Before we farther expose the lack of credibility characterizing the theory of evolution, the reader must be reminded that Darwin did not even attempt to address the essential question of how the most rudimentary forms of life have appeared.*
Because that is not what evolution is trying to explain. It is so very clear that Paul Greene does not even know what evolution is.
*Common sense dictates though that in order to have species evolving from a common ancestor you need to have first a common ancestor, and yet the theory of evolution does not explain how he got his original progenitor.*
Since this is not what evolution is trying to answer. AS I said before, this is like criticizing a beef for not being a sandwich.
*However, it is not their imaginary common ancestor. Thanks to the relatively new science of quantum physics, as well as to the Greek sages of the old, we know that the entire universe is made of particles and energy. This is our real common ancestry, and not the one proposed by neo-Darwinists.*
This in no way contradicts Darwinism of course, particles starting to form more advanced ones happened before evolution started. This is classic new-age bullcrap.
*In response to the false claim of absolute unity among scientists regarding the concept of biological evolutionary gradualism*
No one claims absolute unity of course, but, as I have provided a source for above, it is supported by 99,5% of every person highly educated on the subject.
*Evolutionists, on the other hand, claim that one should not be allowed to question evolutionary theory in science class*
This is of course another lie/misunderstanding. Scientists encourages you to question, if you bring evidence that supports your claim, Paul Greene has so far failed to do so.
*Biologists uncover facts about the structural and functional aspects of life forms. They do not have though a monopoly on how those facts are to be interpreted.*
Well, yes they actually do. Just as certain people has a monopoly on constructing and building bridges. WE do not want a person not understanding the laws of motion building bridges, and we do not want people not understanding biology to interpret the evidence. Why? Well, because education severely increases your odds of interpreting something correctly. I can for example give someone who knows nothing about math an equation, and he may be chance just blur out the correct syllables to solve my equation, but the chance of someone knowing math doing it is far greater.
*Among others, they are in a position that theoretically allows them to decide for all of us what theories we must teach with sanctity in our schools and universities as absolute truth*
Theories are of course never defined as absolute truths, you can hear that by the very name. We teach evolution as the best supported explanation for what we observe. And we will change our minds if new evidence are put forward. And also, of course scientists decides what we teach in school, who else should? Someone who doesn’t understand the subject. Imagine just letting anyone making changes to the design of a bridge!! We would have a 100 000 death a year just from falling bridges.
*Someone like Richard Dawkins, for example, who makes public appearances after public appearances to promote Darwin’s theory as fact*
He does in fact not. Evolution is a fact, we observe it all the time. The theory of evolution explains how the fact evolution works, and why. WE do not teach the theory of evolution as a fact, we teach it as the best explanation, we do however teach that evolution is a fact, since it is a fact that we observe it all the time.
*They seem to be convinced they can get away with it because, after all, they are “scientists,” and they are against religion, or sort of*
Nope, this is simply an incredibly idiotic statement.
*The evidence, however, is clearly stacked up against their claims and as a result, religion remains the untreated cancer of civilization Earth*
First of all, there is no evidence stacking up on evolution, and Paul provides no such evidence, secondly, religion was around long before the theory of evolution, how could it possibly be responsible? Once again, Paul is just being illogical.
*University of Otago published a book called Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. In it, he demonstrates what it was known for almost one hundred and fifty years: there is no evidence supporting the conclusion reached by Darwin and promoted today by neo-Darwinists as fact.*
Once again, there is no need for me to debunk this, since it is already done:
*At the same time, the evidence we do have proves Darwinian evolution could not have happen in nature.*
Paul of course does not provide any of these evidence, but he keeps on claiming it.
*As a result (of money being a factor), we could be in a better position to reach sound conclusions than the ideologically biased biologist with impressive credentials teaching outdated data and an erroneous interpretation of facts at a higher education institution.*
This is obviously written about a person who does not understand how ”peer reviewing” works. You see Paul, all theories goes to rigorous periods of testing by other people, a lot of other people. In fact, anyone attending any university in the entire world could write an official peer review of any theory. So it is quite impossible to get bias trough it.
*Once again, there is no need to wait millions of years for molecules to cluster up into body parts by chance when the DNA produces that orderly, efficiently, and much faster. As a result, the key to solving the mystery of the origin of life is to unveil the origin of the DNA and of the information stored in it.*
DNA technically can, as we see in selective breeding, it is just that it does not, because naure is way slower that us. Once again, Paul also argues the origins of life, which most educated people know is a warning sign when it comes to argue evolution, since evolution theory in no way is even trying to anwer that question.
*There is no evidence to support the story put forth by the evolutionists about how the eye and all the other super-complex, interdependent and irreducible organs were formed.*
Perhaps Paul should introduce himself to Wikipedia? We have massive evidence supporting our claims.
*The eye, however, is not an independent life form, and it could have not evolved on its own, as the story told by evolutionists implies.*
This is in no way what the theory of evolution imply, once again proving Paul really has no idea what he is talking about.
*Based on what the theory of evolution says, we would have to assume that while some molecules were allegedly figuring out how to assemble themselves into the final version of the eye, they were predicting that, one day they would assemble into two eyes of a certain similar size and color. Meanwhile, another group of molecules that somehow knew the eyes were coming, began to assemble into a skull with precisely two symmetrically positioned eye-sockets.*
This is of course a huge misunderstanding of how evolution works, as can be seen in the link above. Of course there was not 2 individual group of cells spontaneously forming 2 similar organs on two different sides of a body/head. No one is claiming that! Once again, Pauls lack of knowledge is simply darling.
*They would match the size of the eyes the other group of molecules was putting together gradually and randomly.*
And what is Paul’s evidence for this claim? Oh, nothing at all, he does not provide any evidence.
*The only thing scientists were able to do, so far, was to acknowledge its existence, take note of its complex structure, and list in owe its amazing properties. Other than that, in this instance too scientists have produced a number of conflicting opinions with regard to the origin and the function of the DNA.*
This is simply not true.. Once again, Paul is referring to an extreme minority of scientists.
*So who or what created the DNA? Who are its mysterious designers and programmers? At least the evolutionists are unwilling to go as far as to declare the DNA was put together by the way of natural selection. Remaining silent about the origin of the DNA, however, does not help much their cause.*
We know of course that DNA is a result of the physical laws as well as environment. Where DNA came from is not a question for evolution to answer, but, most evolutionist would indeed say that it came to be trough a version of natural selection, so once again, Paul is wrong about basically everything.
*Our dictionaries tell us information is a mark of intelligence.*
This is known as ”the fallacy of evocation”, Paul is confusing different definitions of ”intelligence”.
*So, again, where does the information stored into the DNA come from?*
The laws of physics and simple chemicals and gases, at least as far as the evidence goes.
*We can either embrace the belief that information was somehow randomly produced during the alleged process of gradual evolution, and we have zero evidence it happened or that is possible, or we could look into the possibility that the information was beamed down into our world from outside the so-called material. After all, there is information all over the universe, everywhere around us. Information, not accidental mutations, is what creates life forms.*
First of all, evolution is not random, that is the first evidence of Paul being confused here. And it does not get better from there, from that, some real hippie-shit follows that lacks any sort of evidence, at the same time, Paul criticizes the lack of evidence for evolution, which of course is simply a result of Paul not looking into it. And lastly, the fallacy of evocation is committed again.
*It is neither rational, nor logical to assume this complex, irreducible, well-thought assemblage of molecules and proteins into structures that work with information the same way a computer works with software is the result of gradual, random mutations caused by an illusory process of adaptation and preserved by the way of what practically is an imaginary natural selection.*
No it is illogical to assume anything, but we do not assume evolution, it is something we have proven and something we can fully explain.
*No doubts about it, though, there is no such thing as a supernatural creator god that makes DNA and RNA.*
I would personally say that there most likely is no god, but, Paul once against claims actual knowledge where he has none.
*According to some evolutionists, we have lots of transitional life forms. If that were true, it would mean incomplete batches of information were once stored into the DNA,*
This is of course a huge misunderstanding of how DNA and evolution works. Transitional forms was not incomplete forms, that is a classic creationist misunderstanding.
*Richard Dawkins was asked during a taped interview to give an example of a naturally produced mutation that resulted in an increase of information that was beneficial to the species, he lowered his head and went silent for a long time.*
Well, allow me then: The mutation that causes immunity to HIV in certain humans is beneficial and adds information. So, there you go Paul, I am BTW quite sure Prof.Dawkins knows about that.
*Louis Pasteur in the nineteenth century conducted studies that proved, according to them, abiogenesis, or spontaneous generation is not possible in nature, and that living organisms develop only from other living organisms, something called biogenesis.*
Actually, he proved that complex life could not come from non living materials. The theory of biogenesis is not in conflict with the theory of abiogenesis.
As mentioned in the beginning of this text, Paul fails to provide any sort of evidence for anyone of his claims. Making this book pure pseudo science, if even that.