In the third video in the series of Dr. Jobe Martin's Increadible Creatures that (he thinks) Defy Evolution we get a lot more of "I don't see how evolution can explain that". Literally, that's what he says. Again. But, we also finally learn what "evolution's assumptions" are (it's in the bonus material, so perhaps I just missed it the first two times around). I'll let Dr. Jobe Martin speak first, and then get to the rebuttal.
#1 Spontaneous generation occured*: non-living things gave rise to living material.
"Why is this an assumption? Because they can't make it happen."
#2 Spontaneous generation occured* only once.
"The probability of 200 amino acids bonding together to become a simple protein is something like one to the 141st power. That's a minus 141st power, so we're not thinking in fractions. That would be a one with 141 zeros after it. And that's one of the reasons the evolutionists make this assumption, which then leads to the third assumption."
#3 Viruses, bacteria, plants & animals are all related.
To paraphrase: "In textbooks different (living) species are drawn as tips on a phylogenetic tree with lines that lead to the origin of a single cell. But there's nothing on the lines. Well, why is there nothing on those lines? Well, because those are the missing links, see. There's nothing there because there's nothing there. It's an assumption that there something there, when there's not."
#4 Invertebrates gave rise to verebrates*.
"We don't know that, because we can't make it happen."
#5 Fish gave rise to amphibia, the amphibia to reptiles and reptiles to birds & mammals.
"Is there any such thing as let's say a lukewarmblooded, semi-dense boned creature in between reptile and bird? No." Also, "leading evolutionary thinkers now are telling us that archaeopteryx is a pure bird."
"So, this whole idea of big bang, macroevolution is based on a whole series of pure assumptions. It is a faith system."
And those are the so-called assumptions that evolution supposedly rest upon, according to Dr. Jobe Martin.
He is, of course very wrong on several accounts.
First of all, belief that an event took place need not be an assumption of faith just because we cannot reproduce the event today. But, it is true that in science - where we look for natural explanations only - we started by guessing that life arose from non-living matter. Why? Well, because the only other option is that it was always there, and since we have found out that the Earth formed at some point, and there's no evidence of life before Earth, life must have come later. It's an inference: from what we understand of nature, and from the evidence available to us, the only sensible conclusion is that life came from non-life. But, having said that, scientists don't stop there. No, we cannot exactly reproduce abiogenesis in the lab. Yet. But people are working hard on it, and molecules have been shown to self-replicate (Self-Sustained Replication of an RNA Enzyme).
Abiogenesis probably happened only once, yes. It was an unlikely event, and once it happened, that life would be eating other molecules, making the event even more unlikely to happen again. But, so what? It's not an important assumption that means anything. The third "assumption" that all life is related, is not based on that, but on homology. Cells in plants, fungi, protists, animals, archaea, and bacteria (the six kingdoms) are similar on many levels, and the most sensible inference is that they then have a common ancestor. However, Dr. Martin has it wrong that viruses are supposed to share an ancestor with the rest of us. Viruses aren't even cells.
Dr. Martin's claim that there are no transitional fossils is hogwash. It's a tired, boring, annoying claim that has been dealt with sooo many times before. How can anyone claim to know anything about evolution without any knowledge about any of those "missing links"? Answer: only someone either lying about their credentials or about the evidence.
Archaeopteryx is not a pure bird. It has many features in common with reptiles.
Dr. Martin holds that evolution is a faith system, and that his belief in creationism is based on evidence. The evidence that he has presented is that many creatures defy evolution, simple - literally - because he cannot see how they could have evolved. Again, I counter that that's because i) he doesn't know enough about evolution, ii) we don't know everything about evolution, and iii) he wants his faith-based belief (which is based on words in a book) to be true, and it conflicts with the scientific consensus (which is based on evidence).
Here's Tim Minchin on that Good Book. I ♥ Tim.
* As spelled in the video.
If you've never seen the famous peanut butter creationist, then do have a go:
What kind of life did he expect, anyway? Animals large enough to spot with the eye? Animals tasting of something else than peanut butter? I've eaten my share of peanut butter, and while I have never found new life forms in there - indeed, any life forms - I trust there are bacteria in it, and I trust that I wouldn't be able to tell the difference between common bacteria and new peanut butter life forms.
How can you trust non-gardeners?
10 hours ago in The Phytophactor