Creation Versus Evolution

I beg to differ. I just presented you with a huge delima for evolution. In the past, evolutionists had an easy ride with just showing how certain things resemble one another, and it was easy to make connections (based upon supposition). But late in the 20th century, molecular biology grew as did biochemistry, and behold, evolution begins to fail. Mutations occur at the molecular level, according to evolutionists, because change must take place at the molecular level. Irriducible complex systems exist in biological systems, and these systems cannot have evolved, and the chances that they just appeared are impossible. Perhaps brother, you are not up on the details that accompany the idea of evolution.

After reading Charles Darwin's book in college (including updated material) I don't think Darwin's theory was to show the complexity of cellular division rather, to show how organisms evolved in certain conditions and to show how this occured.

1) life started in some goo of organic compounds

2) that speciation occured (something becoming a reptile and a mammal for instance)

Didn't make sense because the following analogy:

  because an elephant, isolated on a island over time becomes small, does not imply, that 1 or 2 are true, which is at the heart of evolution.

Either was not properly written or was not well thought out. Instead of making this long drawn out post let us cover the two main themes of your statement.

1)life started in some goo of organic compounds

Just so I'm not "preaching to you" allow me to elaborate what you are saying here. Obviously, you are referring to the Primordial Soup theory. For those of you who may be reading don't know basically what this theory states is life began in a pond or ocean as a result of the combination of chemicals from the atmosphere and some form of energy to make amino acids, the building blocks of proteins, which would then evolve into all the species.

How evolution played a role in the Primordial Soup Theory

-Andalus are you familiar with the Russian Chemist, A.I. Oparin and Haldane? (This is just for kicks and giggles)

-Basically what follows here is that the basic building blocks of life came from simple molecule which formed in the atmosphere without the existence of oxygen. This was then actualized by lightning and the rain from the atmosphere created the "organic soup". The first organisms would have to be simple heterotrophs in order to survive by consuming other organisms for energy before means of photosynthesis. They would become autotrophs by mutation (an element in evolution).

Obvious problems covered in this theory

1) Amino acids have to become protein

2) Hitting the right protein is very difficult

3) Amino acids are building blocks not the assembled structures

4) The early atmosphere contained early gases methane and ammonia which were gases that encompassed earth well before oxygen.

5) Cannot spontnaeously generate protein

So although this theory (also revised later by Muller?) it is just a theory and there is not enough physical evidence to support it. Evolutionist are fanatical about this theory because of the existence of mutated organic substances. Now in the realm of science what is more likely to be measured? God created the world out of a void or, organic compounds that can be studied to its earliest form? Although this theory is still a theory it still provides the groundwork for later discoveries.

Again, Creationist do no better by simply saying a "designer created the world out of a void" why? Because faith cannot be measured. God is incorporeal and cannot be measured so in the case of Ockam's Razor what is more plausible here?

2) that speciation occured (something becoming a reptile and a mammal for instance) 

In reference to this question like the previous one I just answered I turn to the concept of "biological evolution" which is something I should have indicated in my previous post to discern the different types of evolution. When it comes to Speciation my frient to understand this you must also confront the four types of speciation: allopatric, peripatric, parapatric and sympatric. Do you deny that all of these are false? To assume you have a novice's understanding of speciation and these four processes I will not go into detail to not sound like I'm "preaching to the choir."

However it is important to note that in these four processes comes the result of the differnetiation of species. The following is an explanation on the various types of Reproductive Isolation:

Types of Reproductive Isolation

There are many barriers to reproduction. Each species may have its own courtship displays, or breeding season, so that members of the two species do not have the opportunity to interbreed. Or, the two species may be unable to interbreed successfully because of failure of the egg to become fertilized or to develop.

This suggests a simple and useful dichotomy, between pre-mating or prezygotic (i.e., pre-zygote formation) reproductive isolating mechanisms, and post-mating or postzygotic isolating mechanisms. Remember that a zygote is the cell formed by the union of two gametes and is the basis of a developing individual.

Prezygotic isolating mechanisms

1. Ecological isolation: Species occupy different habitats. The lion and tiger overlapped in India until 150 years ago, but the lion lived in open grassland and the tiger in forest. Consequently, the two species did not hybridize in nature (although they sometimes do in zoos).
2. Temporal isolation: Species breed at different times. In North America, five frog species of the genus Rana differ in the time of their peak breeding activity.
3. Behavioral isolation: Species engage in distinct courtship and mating rituals.
4. Mechanical isolation: Interbreeding is prevented by structural or molecular blockage of the formation of the zygote. Mechanisms include the inability of the sperm to bind to the egg in animals, or the female reproductive organ of a plant preventing the wrong pollinator from landing.

Postzygotic isolating mechanisms Hybrid inviability. Development of the zygote proceeds abnormally and the hybrid is aborted. (For instance, the hybrid egg formed from the mating of a sheep and a goat will die early in development.)  Hybrid sterility. The hybrid is healthy but sterile. (The mule, the hybrid offspring of a donkey and a mare, is sterile; it is unable to produce viable gametes because the chromosomes inherited from its parents do not pair and cross over correctly during meiosis (cell division in which two sets of chromosomes of the parent cell are reduced to a single set in the products, termed gametes - see Figure).  Hybrid is healthy and fertile, but less fit, or infertility appears in later generations (as witnessed in laboratory crosses of fruit flies, where the offspring of second-generation hybrids are weak and usually cannot produce viable offspring).  ** Post-zygotic mechanisms are those in which hybrid zygotes fail, develop abnormally, or cannot self-reproduce and establish viable populations in nature. ** So species remain distinct due to reproductive isolation. But how do species form in the first place? An abbreviated illustration of meiosis, by which reproductive cells duplicate to form gametes.

http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lect ures/speciation/speciation.html

Ever heard of Cladogenesis brother Analdus?

You know the one species develops into two or more through adaptation. Also plays a role in the evolution of organic species. Remember the Galapagos Island analogy that you found so irrelevant? Actually that was quite relevant to explain the validity behind evolution. Evolutionist may note in regards to specicies, an isolated population branches off from its ancestral species when it has accumulated a number of significant, independent variations that differentiate it from the original species.

What's so interesting about Cladogenesis is that  Cladogenesis explains the development of a large assortment of species from a smaller set of ancestral species through evolution. Unlike anagenesis, speciation through cladogenesis does not require the extinction of the ancestral population. Through successive cladogenetic splits, either with or without the extinction of the ancestral population, the total number of species increases over time. Cladogenesis is probably a more common form of evolution and speciation than anagenesis [See: Stanford Encyclopedia].In case you don't know what is the concept of anagenesis  it is when the population of an entire species changes on a genetic level without a split.

Evolution gains another pillar of support when we find convergence between multiple phylogenies developed by multiple, independent means. For instance, the convergence between phylogeny developed from genetics and phylogeny developed from morphological characteristics of fossils.

Convergence between genetics and fossils aren't the only relevant convergences to speak of, however. I recently read an example of convergence between two genetically-derived phylogenies: The common pocket gopher (family Geomyidae) and species of the genus Geomydoecus, their pubic lice. As it state sin the following:

"Phylogenies based on mitochondrial cytochrome oxidase I (COI) sequences for 15 taxa of gophers and 15 species of Geomydoecus show considerable congruence (Fig. 2). More detailed comparisons of these phylogenies revealed that 8 of the 12 ingroup nodes (67%) show potential cospeciation events (Page and Hafner, 1996). This amount of cospeciation is more than expected by chance alone (P < 0.01; reconciliation analysis, as implemented in TreeMap 1; Page, 1995). These comparisons indicate that cospeciation between gophers and lice is extensive."