Science does not support evolution. There are two distinct signs of desperation from Darwin's Stormtroopers that support the idea that they know their evidence is paltry at best. One is the vituperative and obsessive nature of their attacks on creationists. Since they cannot refute the science that is presented, they seek to demonize people (an exceptionally childish tactic that I find very puzzling indeed, because they have nothing to gain). Ridiculing and defaming people does not make evolution true.
A second sign of evolutionists' desperation is the amazing level of imagination in the "explanations" that they offer.
Instead of using objectivity, actual science and dealing with reality, evolutionists delve deeply into "maybe", "perhaps", "it could be", "scientist think", "could have" and other speculations dressed up and presented as facts to the science-worshiping populace. Meanwhile, they deceive us, and themselves, that they are operating with facts in the real world.
This is glaringly obvious in propaganda of "OOL" (Origin of Life) studies. Astrobiologists present material that would have been rejected from Strange Tales.
Why aren’t philosophers of science shaming origin-of-life researchers out of the science department? OOL theories depend on imagination, not empirical evidence, for their broad-brush conclusions.Instead of fantasizing about how this article ends, you can read the rest of it at "OOLishness: The Imaginary World of Origin-of-Life Studies".
Astrobiology Magazine promised “New Insights into the Origin of Life” but delivered only imaginary inferences. Researchers studied living archaea, assuming them to be ancient, then used “could” and “may have” to conclude that DNA came late in the evolution of cells. But then the article mentioned 526 genes essential to life in a simple archaeal cell, and 121 essential proteins the scientists knew nothing about (see online book for the probability of getting even one gene by chance). Added to that, one of the OOL researchers admitted that DNA without all its complex machinery is useless. “DNA by itself is a rock,” he said. “You need all these other systems to make the DNA become a living cell.” He provided zero evidence that those systems could have arisen from a primordial soup.
Another entry in Astrobiology Magazine promised “Evidence that Comets Could Have Seeded Life on Earth” (the word could being the tip-off for imagination). But the reader will not find the word evidence in the body of the article–only talk of a simulation in contrived lab conditions. Even so, the Berkeley team manufactured nine amino acids and a couple of dipeptides at best, not specifying if the amino acids were used by living cells or were one-handed (see online book). Amino acids by themselves are as far from life as individual letters are from a sophisticated book.