Evolution

[Edfilho]

The interesting thing about your questions is:
Even if science can't answer them, and even if these ARE the right questions, it wouldn't prove Creationism right in any manner, form or way. It would only prove evolucionism wrong, and that IF they are the right questions AND IF they can't be answered by science.

So, EVEN IF you can prove evolution didn't happen, once and for all, that wouldn't help proving creationism the least bit. I'd say it would be something really difficult to do, because it is 100% based on a particular interpretation of the Bible, one that is not even considered correct by most of christianity. The Pope is ok with evolution, and so is the Patriarch of the eastern Church.

BTW, ID is not creationist because it admits SOME form of evolutionism, AND creationism, by definition, admits ONLY what is written in the Genesis, ipsi litteris.

BTW2, Contemporaneous Science is not about preaching perrfect dogmatic theories supposedly flawless... It's about holding the theory with the least amount of flaws and that explains observed phenomena best. Evolution will be considered the current best theory until someone shows up with something more solid.

In the last years of the 19th century, Lord Kelvin said that most of the theoretical knowledge of the universe (especially Physics) was already obtained, and that it was just a question of organizing it. We knew all there was to know, in his opinion. A few years later, Einstein published the Restricted Treaty of Relativism.

Another point: People who claim that evolutionism denies the existance of God are just as narrowminded as the people who claim that God denies the existance of evolucionism. God and Science ARE NOT mutully exclusive.

 

[Maj.Striker]

I'm sorry...I must have misstated myself because I truly meant (in my last post) to pose these questions about Evolution. Somehow you got the impression I was using this to establish Creation. I assure you, I am not. That is a separate argument and my questions here are limited solely to the common theory of Evolution. In a separate thread or discussion on the theory of Creation I would be glad to discuss. Again, my questions here are solely on Evolution. I hope that clears this up. My apologies again.

 

[Fruitcake]

Well I think they are mutually exclusive, but then I don't really much care about this subject at all. Let everybody believe what they want, you're not going to change any opinions in this discussion.

 

[Lynx]

1. How can a mechanism to capture energy develop?
2. How could lifeless (non-complex) chemicals spontaneously develop into
a complex energy capture system?

1. As far as I understand the question, they don't develop, they've been always there, they are defined by the laws of physics. Those processes don't need a a living being to occur, most of those processes happen without a biological component, i.e. say, some chemical process is fueled by sun energy and creates a compound, and if that compound brakes up the bond energy freed might fuel another reaction.

2. Depends. If chemicals are exposed to a energy source, be it light, heat, electricity and other chemicals or whatever else, they might react and form a more complex compound that either catalyses a process or continues to reacts itself thus capturing and processing inbound energy.
An example. Two chemicals are trapped inside the polar ice. They would react, but they lack the energy to start. Suddenly there's an earthquake, the ice breaks open and the chemicals are exposed to sunlight and heat providing the energy to start the reaction.

Furthermore, as I understand it, these are the major questions/concerns (however you choose to view it) with Evolution:

1. No explanation for why life contains only left-handed amino acids
2. No explanation for how life could start WITH or WITHOUT oxygen in the atmosphere
3. No explanation for how life could start in the oceans (hydrolysis)
4. No explanation for how evolution could occur in harmony with the Second Law of Thermodynamics
5. No explanation for the origin of information.

1. It is supsected that the amino-acids used by the first lifeforms originated from comets that impacted on the young earth. Asteroids and comets feature more left handed aminoacids, since right handed aminoacids since polarized UV-light as it might have occured in the early solar system inhibits the formation of righthanded aminoacids.
Or the first lifeforms may have used only one aminoacid and produced the others themselves based on the first(which may have been lefthanded)

2. The first complex organisms were nitrogen and sulphur-dwelling bacteria to which oxygen was actually harmful. The oxygen then was produced by photosynthesis-capable bacteria and algae which occured later.

Oxygen was always on earth, but it was trapped in numerous chemical compounds, which are broken up during photosynthesis and the O² gets freed.

3. Hydrolysis isn't really a problem. Before the formation of the first life membranes developed, similar to cell membranes as we know now developed. The conist of hydrophob fatty acids. Because of that they formed round globules where the inside was protected from the hydrolysis. These things weren't alive themselves, though.

4. As far as I know the 2nd law of thermodynamics states that entropy increases as time passes. Life would actually fit in there since every form of life is a somewhat unpredicatable factor and therefore increases the entropy.

5. What exactly does that question mean?

 

[Edx]

Don't make it a personal argument...even if the other person is questioning your mental capacity.

I assume you are referring to me. I did not question "Mjr. Whoopass" mental capacity I was simply stating that his points showed an misunderstanding of the science he was critisizing.

As I understand it, there are four (4) things required for evolution to work:

The theory of how livings things first formed is often called Evolution, but it should be called abiogenesis. How life arose is irrelevant to the validity of evolution.

.My questions on this are:
1. How can a mechanism to capture energy develop?
2. How could lifeless (non-complex) chemicals spontaneously develop into
a complex energy capture system?

Spontaneous generation was disproved around 200 years ago, but that is not what abiogenesis is.

In 1953 by Stanley Miller and Harold Clayton Urey conducted the now famous "Urey-Miller experiments". This involved simulating the early earths atmosphere and oceans. They even simulated lightening with an electrical spark. In around a week a brown tar like substance was observed in the simulated ocean bed. It also included a variety of dissolved organic molecules and several biological amino acids. Amino acids are generally regarded as the building blocks of life. Similar experiments have been conducted around the world but as long as the chemical source mixture is chemically reducing, organic molecules form. In 1998 German scienists went one step further and created molecules capable of evolution by copying themselves, becoming more adapt at survival and reproduction.

Before plants and bacteria appeared capable of photosynthesis, there was likely little to no oxygen in the atmosphere. But the sun is not required for life, nor is oxygen. The first organisms would have to be a "chemolithoautotroph" - ie. obtaining both energy and carbon from inorganic sources. Organisms similar to these first chemolithoautotrophs exist on hydrothermal vents (or "black smokers") on the ocean floor. These organisms grow optimally under anaerobic conditions in high salt and in fact they grow completely independent of oxygen and sunlight.

Furthermore, as I understand it, these are the major questions/concerns (however you choose to view it) with Evolution:
1. No explanation for why life contains only left-handed amino acids

Once the preference for one over another gets started in nature, it should be relatively easy to see how this preference is perpetuated. Its natural section that the preferred configuration will carry on to the next generation.

2. No explanation for how life could start WITH or WITHOUT oxygen in the atmosphere
3. No explanation for how life could start in the oceans (hydrolysis)

Sure there is. There are certainly differences of opinion however, just like there should be. The more scientists debate over the mechanisms of abiogenesis the more research will be conducted, more experiments made and the more we will refine our understanding and the more accurate the theory.
Several sites discussing this + molecular biology.
http://www.bact.wisc.edu/Bact303/TheProcaryotes
http://www.bact.wisc.edu/Bact303/MajorGroupsOfProkaryotes
http://www.gla.ac.uk/projects/originoflife/html/2001/abstract.htm
http://www.gla.ac.uk/Project/originoflife/originoflife98/qas.html

The Tree of Life project is also an excellent resource: http://tolweb.org/tree/

5. No explanation for the origin of information.

Define 'information' so we know what you are referring to.

Also, the Second Law of Thermodynamics explicitly states, "...in a closed system...". The earth is hardly closed and gets its energy from the sun. And order comes from disorder all the time in nature.

Please make your answers easy to understand for me as I'm interested in your logic but don't assume I'm a rocket scientist.

As you might expect everything I say is mearly the briefest summaries, as it would be impossible to answer these questions fully in this medium as they need complex answers.

Ed

 

[Nemesis]

Furthermore, as I understand it, these are the major questions/concerns (however you choose to view it) with Evolution:
. . . .

4. No explanation for how evolution could occur in harmony with the Second Law of Thermodynamics

This is a great issue (though not how it’s been posed) because the fact of entropy can offer support for evolution.

As others have pointed out, there are limiting factors to the effect of entropy–the passage of time and the so-called isolation of a given “something” or system. Yes, the sun will eventually die out, but not for quite some time, and a lot can happen in several billion years, in particular life. And a living thing (as well as a small-scale environment, like Darwin’s metaphorical “warm little pond") is not an “isolated” system as the sun is, but instead an open system that continually draws sustenance from the larger environment, replenishing itself (and for long enough to reproduce once or many times over). Indeed, living things can be thought of as “reverse-entropy” machines. What else is food, after all, but the remains of an ordered system that are recycled to become again an ordered system? (In the extreme case, feeding a hen scrambled eggs.)

That said, life as we know it still presents a puzzle vis-à-vis entropy. Specifically, why is life so diverse, both in kind and degree of complexity, and at the same time, by and large, from all appearances, so successful in its survival and continuity? Entropy’s really not that easy to defy where it continually affects everything else too, meaning the environment. So how to explain life’s quite remarkable defiance?

Evolution explains it beautifully. As entropy continually affects the environment, life (as a whole) continually “adjusts”, not merely replenishing itself over time but “redesigning” itself so as to continue to be able to replenish itself.

Also, this issue can be phrased in support of the notion of “intelligent design”, though at the distinct cost of both “creationism” and “irreducible complexity”. Say you are the “intelligent designer” (don’t mean to presume–anything from an omnipotent being who can create and rearrange matter at will, to a little green man who zips down to the uninhabited surface of planet Earth, pours out a brownish goo, grouses “Sure hope this takes!”, and zips back up and away). You want to create new life. Most importantly, though, you want to make sure that that life, once it begins, will continue (barring any planet-ending catastrophes). But you’re aware of entropy, and so it won’t do to produce and plop down a large variety of life forms, or even to simply produce and scatter about a variety of “pre-fab” chemical codes. Any design effectively “written in stone” will almost certainly fall prey to entropy and peter out, and probably sooner rather than later. No, the only solution . . . is evolution. And you’re going to have to “build it into” the chemistry (and maybe the physics too) from the get-go.

Note: I trust people will see this for what it is: not the making of any sort of argument intended to persuade, but merely the sharing of (what I find anyway) an interesting perspective.

 

[Mjr. Whoopass]

Edx, as of this post I'm finished talking to you for reasons that I've already stated in previous posts I've made to you:

...show me even one insult I have ever thrown at you

One thing so many people on this thread have been concerned about is this debate degenerating into personal attacks. I'll list just a few of your personal attacks:

Your criticisms are not valid because they are based on a lack of understanding of the science.

The above quote is one of your personal attacks from your first post. It is asserting that I don't understand the science of evolution. I was an evolutionist from the time I began studying it in advanced Jr. and High School science courses through University courses and up to age 25. Regardless of my knowledge, it is irrelivent to criticize someone's knowledge with a statement like this if your words that were directed at the topic had spoken for themselves. In my response to this, I encouraged you to discuss the topic and ideas rather than stooping to your vein personal attacks. I even warned you that if you made another personal attack, I might bite back. Sure enough you unappologetically and insultingly respond to my appeal with this:

When I said you were muddled and confused, I have only been stating a fact.

Now who couldn't read this as being a personal attack!? If you don't think it's a personal attack, that clearly shows everyone here why I am so fed up with responding to your posts. After this I opened the flood gates and retaliated. I turned the other cheek and you slapped me again.

 

[steampunk]

Well, generally speaking, this is science, especially what’s been formally called “normal science”, as in the “working out” of a preeminent theory. For example, string theory hasn’t been proven (beyond some very impressive mathematics), yet there are a lot of physicists who would happily admit they believe in and are committed to the theory.

Let's not go here in depth. The problem with String theory is that it cannot be tested. We just don't know how, if it is even possible. The general acceptance of it seems to be historical: the math is 'elegent' and many current theories have very elegent mathematical descriptions. So they think that they have some of it right. ut some critisize string theory for being more philosophy than science. But bad example. This is very very new ground.

In any case, with real science, there is no manipulating of the facts. If experiment does not match theory we trash the theory. "Creation Science" does not do this. They have already assumed 6 day creation to be true regardless of experimental evidence.

And can we please, please, get the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics right.

"In terms of entropy, the second law can be stated:

Processes in which the entropy of an isolated system would decrease do not occur: or in every process taking place in an isolated system the entropy of the system either increases or remains constant"

Underlining mine.

If conditions are such that no energy interchange with the surroundings can take place, the system is said to be isolated.

From:
"Thermodynamics, Kinetic Theory, and Statistical Thermodynamics" Third Ed., Sears and Salinger.

The Earth is not isolated. This is simple to test. Go out on a sunny day. Feel the heat? 2nd Law remains intact as it always has.

 

[Mjr. Whoopass]

Now if you wanted to argue that the probability is I’ll die before I break 500, I might agree with you.

I can see we're on the same page. I'm also approaching a promotion (150=1st Lieutenant I think- with this I'm at 149). I want to see you hit that, and since our posts will continue to get longer and longer exponentially if we continue to respond to EVERY sentence while adding others, I'll simply try to address your main question.

Mainly it seems you wonder how I can be so sure of the irreducible complexity of organisms and the necessity for intelligent design. As you can see from my post above I use to accept the theory of evolution throughout advanced Jr. high, H.S., and University courses and until age 25 for lack of a better theory (just like you mentioned, it can seem that the sun revolves around the earth without scientific, mathmatical, and astronomical evidence). When I heard arguments showing the increadible order and complexity of so many aspects of our (and other organism's) biology, I became convinced that you could not break them down into chance mutations no matter how many years, planets, stars, etc. exist.
This can be seen in so many various aspects of biology. After generations of scientific study, we still haven't grasped the complexity and order behind alot of our biological systems. To break even what we know about a single system down to chance mutations on the atomic level would require complete books only to give a basic idea of potential gradual progressions- many of which would require multiple areas of biology mutating by chance at the same time (i.e. Irreducible Complexity- or as you've called it, Athena- which, as you say, evolution doesn't allow for). I think you mentioned a baby starting from a single sperm and an egg. Our current scientific understanding suggests this is guided from various codes in our biology (i.e. DNA), and not exclusively (if at all) chance mutations + natural selection. The fact that a complex code is believed to govern this process simply shows even more order and complexity of our biology. Each aspect posted individually gives strong enough evidence that ID and IR are aspects to condend with (to say the least). To add more power to this evidence, also consider that EACH posted as well as unposted biological organ/system require increadible fortune taking books of steps (many of which contain multiple aspects that would need to happen at the same time- IR/Athena). Even if that's not enough, also realize that the development of many individual systems have to coincide with the development of others (i.e. brain and heart are interdependant- in response you stated the WHOLE brain isn't necessary, but even the protion that regulates the heart must have developed with the heart [again, it's only ONE example of interdependence]).
IR becomes even more obvious as you delve into irreducibly complex microscopic aspects. Here's the Bacterial Flagellum: http://www.arn.org/docs/mm/flagellum_all.htm
Other irreducibly complex items are on that site, click and read about whichever you'd like: http://www.arn.org/behe/mb_ic.htm
The next is a link which describes what scientists know of the anatomy and physiology of the visual pathway up to the striate cortex. As you flip through with the arrows (starts in the middle), view the diagrams, and read the captions, imagine the difficulty of explaining this process as chance mutations followed by natural selection (again this is only ONE aspect): http://neuro.med.harvard.edu/site/dh/b18.htm

 

[Maj.Striker]

And can we please, please, get the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics right.

"In terms of entropy, the second law can be stated:

Processes in which the entropy of an isolated system would decrease do not occur: or in every process taking place in an isolated system the entropy of the system either increases or remains constant"

Bolding mine.

Just because it can be stated as such doesn't necessarily mean it should be...


This is much better:
The first law of thermodynamics says that the total quantity of energy in the universe remains constant. This is the principle of the conservation of energy.

The second law of thermodynamics states that the quality of this energy is degraded irreversibly. This is the principle of the degradation of energy.


Note the importance of the second law combined with the first...

 

[Nemesis]

The general acceptance of [string theory] seems to be historical . . . But bad example. This is very very new ground.

In any case, with real science, there is no manipulating of the facts. If experiment does not match theory we trash the theory.

We don’t really disagree in the main. Certainly critical experiments are a critical difference separating good science from bad science (and wishful thinking and fantasy). And I agree that so-called creation science falls woefully short (oh, it crashes and burns) on that score.

But there’s really nothing exceptional about the acceptance of string theory. History shows that’s how much science unfolds. A lot of physicists were already “on board” regarding relativity too prior to any critical experiments being carried out.

The only quibble I have is your statement about “manipulating” facts. Scientific theory always manipulates facts because theory is always about the interpretation of facts, among other things positing which facts are important for understanding some aspect of reality and which facts are not. For example, when we see the sun travel the sky, we can say either “why yes, the sun is moving, and thus orbits the Earth”, or “why no, the sun only seems to be moving, and thus does not orbit the Earth”. It all comes down to perception and how our brains are wont to “find”, and more precisely discriminate, patterns in our surroundings. The perception of color is another kind of manipulation of facts. And by the same token I daresay quantum mechanics stands as the “ultimate” manipulation of facts.

When I heard arguments showing the increadible order and complexity of so many aspects of our (and other organism's) biology, I became convinced that you could not break them down into chance mutations no matter how many years, planets, stars, etc. exist.

Thanks for sharing your views. I respect your faith and your skepticism.

Returning the favor, I would say that what impresses me about the theory of evolution, apart from the amount of empirical evidence that supports it, is how it complements what I see as the incredible power of chemistry, certainly attested to in no small way by the intricacies of reproduction and the diversity of life. By contrast, it strikes me that the claim of “intelligent design” in tandem with “irreducible complexity” begs the question. Specifically, given an “intelligent designer”, especially an omnipotent one, why would there be “irreducible complexity” at all? For surely such a “designer” could craft a process (chemical and biological) that produces such complexity.

In sum, I’m content with the science so far.

 

[Edx]

Edx,

Mjr. Whoopass, I am truly amazed considering this is presumably the best you could come with with. Even after this I will still remain civil to you and anyone else, even though you personally dont appear to deserve it. If you intend to reply please do me the courtesy of reading the entire thing first something which you have not done in the past.

Originally Posted by Edx
Your criticisms are not valid because they are based on a lack of understanding of the science.

The above quote is one of your personal attacks from your first post. It is asserting that I don't understand the science of evolution.

<snip>

I wouldn't have made that statement if I couldnt have backed it up. Your post DID show a lack of understanding of Evolution. It doesnt matter what courses or qualifications you say you have taken, or even how many degrees you may or may not hold, as I do not know that nor would that mean your description of evolution was any more true. I am simply going by what you write. And the fact remains the things you were saying about evolution were based on a strawman. ie. Evolution doesnt suggest a virus would ever work the way you describe, and how an eye develops is nothing like the stawman you were were making out. Your mistakes are exactly the same as those made who really do not understand evolution. Therefore I am forced to think that if you have actually taken college courses you must have failed to learn even the basics, as this really is basic. And that is a demonstrable fact. You cannot possibily claim to disprove a theory however partly, if you dont know what the theory really is.

For example; will you finially admit you were in fact totally wrong when you said the following?
"How will a virus develop an eyeball? Will it gradually gain rods one by one, then cones? How many years will it be carrying such parts that are ineffective without others? Would this virus reproduce successfully while it carries this strange and useless eye-like growth that's waiting and hoping for other parts to randomly develop so that it can become effective?"
Will you admit that it is a complete misunderstanding/misrepresentation of how evolution is supposed to work?

For the sake of the everyone else that had to read your reply I am honestly sorry that my comments have affected in this way, but your inaccurate knowledge of evolution is hardly my fault.

Sure enough you unappologetically and insultingly respond to my appeal with this:
Originally Posted by Edx
When I said you were muddled and confused, I have only been stating a fact.
Now who couldn't read this as being a personal attack!? If you don't think it's a personal attack, that clearly shows everyone here why I am so fed up with responding to your posts. After this I opened the flood gates and retaliated. I turned the other cheek and you slapped me again.

All it does is show that you are unwilling to accept that you were wrong as I have backed up everything I have said. There certianly isnt any comparison in your unwarrented attacks to myself. And I felt no 'spite' I was simply reading your post and had to point out your representation of evolution was wrong. Im sorry you cant seem to accept this, or even debate it civilly (which would have been fine) but were reduced to attacking me personally.

Im sure it is clear to anyone monitering this discussion that my comments were backed up and certianly did not deserve the kind of virulent sarcastic responce that consituted of the most of your reply (see below). The worst part is you insulted me and my source making out the only honourable mentions talkorigins had were irrelevant webawards, and from UFO fanatics. Both of which arent true, but you werent conserned enough with accuracy to read enough to find out. And I honestly dont believe you read the rest of my reply to you, long though it was.

Below I have cut out all the content and left JUST the insults from your post . This is what we are left with. There is so much of it I even broke it down into paragraphs so its easier to read. Now try and tell me this is anyway comparable to anything I have said on this forum? I should expect an apology for this whole matter, but I doubt I would get one.

I feel guilty about responding... I'M HAVING A BATTLE OF WITS WITH AN UNARMED MAN. I hardly know where to begin picking apart your self contradictory and obviously flawed arguments.!!?? Did you actually write that!!?? I don't even need to go any further. .. ), Perhaps I should move on right now to respond to posters with more intelligent and educated statements. That link was good for a laugh! "Cool Site of the Day"... "Dr. Matrix Award" HILARIOUS!!! Who's Dr. Matrix? Is he the same type of doctor as Dr. Phil!? I also got a chuckle seeing his links to UFO sites. These are supposed to lend the site credibility!? [I have since demonstrated this is either a lie or lazyness so I include it here-Ed] You again made an ass of yourself . This is simple logic that is not open to debate by rational people. You've once again made an ass of yourself by not comprehending my previous post which responded to this same complaint.

Now I'm starting to feel bad for you, this is like kicking you when you're unconscious. This is yet another situation where you have made an ass of yourself. Please don't post again in response to my statements out of interest for my time, for your own good, and for the interest of logical discussion. I say this to encourage you to make better posts that challenge me intellecually rather than posting something you believe because the site was listed as winning "Cool Website of the Day" and such nonsense.

Your first sentence yet again makes an ass of yourself (follow the same logic in the previous "you're making an ass of yourself" clarifications). I don't doubt that this may be true, I'm just trying to help you sound like less of an ass. , I feel that pointing out that you are making yourself out to be AN INCOMPETENT ASS OF GRANDE PROPORTIONS is also not an insult, but a fact. If you did I could explain it and show that the confusion was from your poor comprehension [It appears you wont admit any error, only talk around it-Ed].

 

[Edx]

I dont know if you will respond to this, but atleast everyone else can see.

in response you stated the WHOLE brain isn't necessary, but even the protion that regulates the heart must have developed with the heart [again, it's only ONE example of interdependence]).

I know how much you dont like me saying this, but this is not accurate because it does not give the whole picture. A heart is mearly an advanced circulatory system, a system that varies considerably from species to species. A brain of any sort is not essential for such a system. Simple circulatory systems without hearts do exist, while there are also some with simple "hearts" that are hardly more than twitchy contractile areas of a blood vessel. The same goes for other organ types. There are many animals that have relatively simple nervous systems but without brains, animals that are eyeless but with light-sensitive skin, small animals that lack gills but absorb oxygen over the surface of their body. No one suggests the actual theory says complex and highly specialized tissues and organs you keep referring to developed suddenly.

Here's the Bacterial Flagellum: http://www.arn.org/docs/mm/flagellu... like: [url]http://www.arn.org/behe/mb_ic.htm[/url]

This is the kind of thing that makes me suspect you have not done much, or perhaps any, outside reading other than from Intelligent Design. Michael Behe is either guilty of the same thing, or his statements of falsehood and misinformation is deliberate.

On Michael Behe:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html

Responding to the Bacterial Flagellum argument:
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html

The next is a link which describes what scientists know of the anatomy and physiology of the visual pathway up to the striate cortex. As you flip through with the arrows (starts in the middle), view the diagrams, and read the captions, imagine the difficulty of explaining this process as chance mutations followed by natural selection

This sounds familiar. You say "imagine the difficulty of explaining". This implies there is no good explanation. Again you are also talking only about the advanced eye.
Here are a few links:

Evolution of the lens-equipped eye
http://www.mbl.edu/animals/Limulus/vision/Wald/vision.html

Also: Notes on the structure and evolution of eyes.
http://soma.npa.uiuc.edu/courses/bio303/Ch11b.html
A molecular and physiological background in eye evolution.
http://www.maayan.uk.com/evoeyes1.html


And these are exactly the kinds of misunderstandings created by the Intelligent Design movement. ID is a religious philosophical argument (Argument by Design) taken to Creationist extremes by not only distorting the facts, but distorting the science they claim to disprove. If someone didnt do any outside reading and just believed their claims of unbiased scientific honesty its no wonder that person could get thoroughly muddled when presented with the actual science.

One Behe's BioChemical Argument from Design
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design1/article.html

Ed

 

[Edx]

The first law of thermodynamics

<snip>

I do not understand why you keep holding to this argument. Earth is not a closed system. And in nature order does come from disorder eg. snowflakes and salt crystals. Self organization does occur. Im also afraid you dont appear to understand the law.

You see thermodynamics isnt really about complexity but about the behavior of heat and energy in general. This is why it is called "thermo" dynamics. What the actual law says is that everything is nature is tending towards the same temperature. So if you put a cold object in a warm room and the room will get a little colder and the object will get warmer. The heart of the mystery is that air conditions cool down the air and make the surrounding area warmer which seems to violate it.

Ed

 

[Mjr. Whoopass]

Your criticisms are not valid because they are based on a lack of understanding of the science........ When I said you were muddled and confused, I have only been stating a fact

The above quotes are personal attacks from your first 2 posts to me. They are asserting that I don't understand the science of evolution and that I'm muddled and confused.

I wouldn't have made that statement if I couldnt have backed it up.

You still haven't acknowledged that these quotes ARE indeed personal attacks. If you understand this, it is ME who deserves an apology (I'll also appologize for the personal attacks in retaliation, but it's hard for me to continue taking such assaults without retaliating- especially when the warning I gave you only intensified your assault). You can imagine how frustrated YOU would be if you knew the theory of evolution- someone claimed you didn't- then claimed that calling you muddled and confused was a fact (all without provocation). Of course a fact would be saying I DO know the theory and that I'm not confused- I merely have a different opinion than you. I hope that you see that insulting someone's intelligence IS a personal assault. If you can't acknowledge this, how can we even begin to communicate on a much more complex topic such as evolution!?

 

[criticalmass]

It wasn't a good idea to export this post from another one that went horribly wrong - there must have been bad DNA passing along into this one...

 

[Bandit LOAF]

If evolution doesn't exist, how does a Pikachu turn into a Raichu? Answer me *that*, smart guys?

(Seriously, though, this thread has gone on long enough. I'm putting it out of its misery.)