We readily acknowledge that evolutionists have admitted the inefficacy of Neo-Darwinism regarding life's genesis. However, evolution claims (with no proof, as usual) to have solved this problem: "For those who are studying the origin of life, the question is no longer whether life could have originated by chemical processes involving non-biological components. The question instead has become which of many pathways might have been followed to produce the first cells."1 NMSR claims that the Hand of God may have been required; necessary to start the process, later offering naturalistic speculations. NDT can't have it both ways. The initiation of the process is the sine qua non evolution in its many forms must answer. Of course we reject as foolishness the claim that to assume that God must be the answer is the end of scientific inquiry. Such greats as Newton, Pascal, among a list of giants freely assumed that an infinite, personal, loving God authored the universe, it's neither capricious nor inscrutable.
NMSR claims evolution has been proved, yet our earlier essay we demonstrated that evolution isn't even a scientific statement about a coherent process. Evolution is so generally described it's tough to disprove. Indeed, the simplest life is exceedingly complex - evolution has no explanation; evolution cannot scientifically occur at the atomic level.
NMSR's statement regarding Cytochrome C is unsupportable with real evidence. Leading evolutionists, such as Orgel and Crick, are surprised there aren't multiple codes in nature. Yet evolutionists claim that the universal genetic code is strong evidence for evolution. (Ridley, Blackwell, 1993). The protein synthesis argument has been thoroughly debunked, because different proteins evolve at different rates, that different portions of the genome evolve at different rates for a species; that the same region evolves at different rates in different species and though the fossil record is used to calibrate the clock, the clock otherwise disputes and contradicts the fossil record.
Michael Behe himself has explained to Orr the error of his position. Orr doesn't understand IC. We print Behe's private response as a footnote.
The nylon bug's an interesting study, but misses the point. Creationists don't state mutations cannot exhibit novel characteristics. We reject the following: New information is generated; New species are generated; and Speciation mutations are spontaneous and random. NDT states that mutations and changes must be random and spontaneous. If a creature responds and changes to outside stimuli, it is not NDT.
Bacteria Klebsiella aerogenes, was prompted to metabolize a synthetic sugar (Xylitol) similar to (ribitol or D-arbitol). Denying its normal food causes a series of point mutations by turning on a repressor gene normally inhibiting the formation of RDH. The gene lost information, became less specific; used the synthetic sugar2. The bacteria were still Klebsiella aerogenes.
This is a form of microevolution that creationists readily agree to. Neither of these supports NDT, however. Claims of using molecular enabling the trace of lineage of viruses and bacteria dosn't prove anything. Creationists agree that changes demonstrate micro-evolution. But they are still viruses and bacteria.