Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Log In

A valid email is required.
Password is required.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 5
Posted: 12/12/2001 4:21:06 AM EST
Quotes from an article by noted biologist Lynn Margulis: ----- [Richard] Lewontin visited an economics class at the University of Massachusetts a few years ago to talk to the students. In a kind of neo-Darwinian jockeying, he said that evolutionary changes are due to the Fisher-Haldane mechanisms: mutation, emigration, immigration, and the like. At the end of the hour, he said that none of the consequences of the details of his analysis had been shown empirically. His elaborate cost-benefit mathematical treatment was devoid of chemistry and biology. I asked him why, if none of it could be shown experimentally or in the field, he was so wedded to presenting a cost-benefit explanation derived from phony human social-economic "theory." Why, when he himself was pointing to serious flaws related to the fundamental assumptions, did he want to teach this nonsense?... The neo-Darwinist population-genetics tradition is reminiscent of phrenology, I think, and is a kind of science that can expect exactly the same fate. It will look ridiculous in retrospect, because it is ridiculous... The practicing neo-Darwinists lack relevant knowledge in, for example, microbiology, cell biology, biochemistry, molecular biology, and cytoplasmic genetics. They avoid biochemical cytology and microbial ecology... From many experiments, it is known that if mutagens like X rays or certain chemicals are presented to fruit flies, sick and dead flies result. No new species of fly appears — that is the real rub... The change... has such a profound implication for every aspect of biology as a social activity that resistance to accept it abounds. -----
Link Posted: 12/12/2001 4:29:43 AM EST
Uh-oh! [b]Renamed[/b] you know you've opened up a real touchy subject with this thread! Eric The(Thanks!)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 12/12/2001 4:33:20 AM EST
Evolution is believed by those who WANT to believe it, as is Creation. I won't say any more than that. My stance is WELL known 'round here.
Link Posted: 12/12/2001 4:36:32 AM EST
UN - NAMED, I see your question to the dude but am I missing his answer ?
Link Posted: 12/12/2001 4:43:32 AM EST
Hey Professor, what's with all the big words? I'm pretty much lost after the word "an".
Link Posted: 12/12/2001 4:53:26 AM EST
Link Posted: 12/12/2001 5:01:36 AM EST
i can't believe people still question evolution! how exquisitely primitive! so because some guy in a lab shot a fly with an x-ray, and killed it, there's no evidence of evolution? WHATEVER! [rolleyes]
Link Posted: 12/12/2001 5:13:53 AM EST
Beekeeper. Did you ever notice that the theory of evolution is just that...A THEORY. In other words we are saying that it is the end all and be all of the question. When that happens we call it a LAW. Do we have all the bugs out of the theory...hell no. I doubt we know 1/1000th of the process. However I am open to new concepts and data as they become available. Creationists on the other hand have closed the book on the subject and better yet the damned "book" is over 1500 years old!! Sorry but I will take modern science over folks who did not know that the earth circled the sun! It always makes me laugh when they use the bible as proof positive that the bible is truth....jus what sort of logic is that??
Link Posted: 12/12/2001 5:23:13 AM EST
fatty, I understand that in head-to-head debate the evolutionist usually lose - too many unconnected links. Please, please this post is without religious connotations. (I've heard the hypothesis put forth by the "Keeper of Bees" and that probably works best for me - personally.)
Link Posted: 12/12/2001 5:24:16 AM EST
The Law of Entropy and the theory of evolution are incompatilbe. The latter clearly exists. The former is a weak theory, growing weaker by the day. In plain English, if all things start from perfection and degenerate or lose energy, then how does life on earth become more complex instead of simpler? Small isolated groups of humans become inbred after several generations, and the gene pool becomes corrupted. It is time the Evolutionists admitted defeat.
Link Posted: 12/12/2001 5:31:02 AM EST
Debunked? What an underwhelming arguement...
Link Posted: 12/12/2001 5:34:36 AM EST
Originally Posted By 5subslr5: Please, please this post is without religious connotations.
View Quote
And what are the chances of that happening?
Link Posted: 12/12/2001 5:37:00 AM EST
Originally Posted By paspecops: The Law of Entropy and the theory of evolution are incompatilbe. The latter clearly exists. The former is a weak theory, growing weaker by the day. In plain English, if all things start from perfection and degenerate or lose energy, then how does life on earth become more complex instead of simpler? Small isolated groups of humans become inbred after several generations, and the gene pool becomes corrupted. It is time the Evolutionists admitted defeat.
View Quote
I'm getting a mixed message here. Entropy (the Second Law of Thermodynamics) contradict evolution. Entropy IS clearly observed today, whereas evolution is NOT. Is THIS what you MEANT to say paspecops????
Link Posted: 12/12/2001 5:49:21 AM EST
[Last Edit: 12/12/2001 5:44:14 AM EST by jamon]
Originally Posted By thebeekeeper1: How about this little tidbid that is easier to grasp than explain: life supposedly evolved to more complicated forms. The DNA of humans is much more intricate and contains much more information than that of single-celled organisms. Upon mutating, or changing in any way, where did the increase in genetic information come from? IOW, how can things mutate to a more complex form, thus gaining genetic information that is not present to draw from? The evidence of cataclysmic changes of a young Earth are much more compelling than the notion of hundreds of millions of years of evolution. BTW, my thinking is little influenced by religion, as I am not religious.
View Quote
Your argument is the equivalent to comparing the memories/knowledge of an infant to that of a grown person. If the knowledge is not present in the infant, how can it then be present in a grownup? Simple, the memories are absorbed and assimilated from the persons interactions with their surroundings. As the individual experiences life, these experiences are learned and retained chemically in the brain. The development of DNA occurs the same way. It develops through interaction with a beings surroundings over long periods of time. Put simply, DNA is long term memory, that gets assimulated at the cellular level and passed along from generation to generation. Now if the organism was placed in a vaccuum and never had any outside interraction with anything, and never had any experiences, then yes, your argument would hold true, but this is just not how it is.
Link Posted: 12/12/2001 5:51:38 AM EST
i believe in God AND evolution. remember that in God's perfect world, racism doesn't exist ~ therefore, God gave us a way to avoid inbreeding ~ race-mixing! yep, i'm gonna get it now from some of my "southern" brothers and sisters, but inter-breeding among races is what God had in mind the whiole time. you want to see evolution in fast-motion? look at a child from a black father and white mother ~ the child has evolved away from white purity into a different being of darker skin! those that believe evolution means an "upward change" or "bettering" of a species have attached a human condition (better vs. worse) to a strictly NON-human event ~ science. the Bible, unfortunately, does not separate humanity from ANYTHING. in fact, it labels ALL things in human terms, which is why after reading it 5 times, i must reject its teachings as anything other than a guide for a decent, friendly existence.
Link Posted: 12/12/2001 5:51:41 AM EST
Evolution theory is just as much a religon as Creationism. "Evolution", as Huxley said, "is the first logic an athiest could use to be intellectually fulfilled" Current biological theory can explain microevolution, how populations can fluxuate. No theory on evolution has explained speciation. I have little doubt that speciation is a function of nature (GOD?), but I, along with many in the scientific establishment, seriously doubt that random mutations can account for this. Those who hold onto classical evolution theory, evolution and speciation by random mutation, I argue are doing so not out of genuine scientific logic but out of FAITH. Once theory abandons the constraint of random mutations, the athiest must abandon evolution as an explanation for their beliefs. So what is the truth? In other areas of scientific endeavor, each new discovery does less to explain the nature of god and more to expand the mystery of his creation.
Link Posted: 12/12/2001 6:01:42 AM EST
if you believe that humans are created in God's image, than answer this: is God black? hispanic? no? why not? evolution is nothing more than survival of the fittest. are there any black eskimos? no? why not? are there any albino Ugandans? if no, than why? simple: oriental asians of the "mongoloid" race are shorter, stouter and in general healthier than their taller, whiter cousins of Western Europe. their eyes have EVOLVED into having the shape they do because of millions of years of specialized use. American Indians have dark skin to defeat the effects of the sun, because those with lighter skins all died off of skin cancer. etc., etc., etc.. evidence for evolution? its everywhere, it literally is everyone.
Link Posted: 12/12/2001 6:05:38 AM EST
Post from fatty -
i believe in God AND evolution. remember that in God's perfect world, racism doesn't exist ~ therefore, God gave us a way to avoid inbreeding ~ race-mixing! yep, i'm gonna get it now from some of my "southern" brothers and sisters, but inter-breeding among races is what God had in mind the whiole time.
View Quote
Since you say you believe in God, I must ask you this - WHAT IN GOD'S NAME ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? 'Race-mixing' is what God had in mind 'from the beginning'? Then why didn't is stay that way? Surely from the beginning there was only one race, that diverged into the ones we have now! But since you reject the Bible, how can you explain that God wants 'one race.' BTW, is 'racism' a 'Southern' thing? Is there no evidence of any 'racism' where you live? 'Racism' is an ignorant man's excuse. Eric The(What'sYours?)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 12/12/2001 6:07:46 AM EST
DOLOMITE, the chances are excellent as I am an agnostic as are most of the people here - they just don't realize it. Fatty, there are Albino Ugandans.
Link Posted: 12/12/2001 6:11:08 AM EST
Originally Posted By paspecops: The Law of Entropy and the theory of evolution are incompatilbe. The latter clearly exists. The former is a weak theory, growing weaker by the day. In plain English, if all things start from perfection and degenerate or lose energy, then how does life on earth become more complex instead of simpler? Small isolated groups of humans become inbred after several generations, and the gene pool becomes corrupted. It is time the Evolutionists admitted defeat.
View Quote
I think you misunderstand the Second Law of Thermodynamics almost as much as you misunderstand it's relation with evolution. First off, energy is NEVER lost! It simply changes states. What the Second Law of Thermodynamics says is elements in a closed system tend to seek their most probable distribution; in a closed system entropy always increases. The second law says that if a closed system is in a state with low entropy, it will naturally find a state with high entropy, IF there is one available. A closed system is a system to and from which no energy (especially heat) and matter (atoms and molecules, etc.) can flow. It's a system which has no interaction with anything outside it. This is sort of an idealization, since nothing in the universe can be completely shielded from its surroundings. One cannot use the Laws of Thermodynamics to argue against evolution because they are incompatible. Evolution AND/OR creation did not occur in a closed system.
Link Posted: 12/12/2001 6:15:07 AM EST
Originally Posted By garandman:
Originally Posted By paspecops: The Law of Entropy and the theory of evolution are incompatilbe. The latter clearly exists. The former is a weak theory, growing weaker by the day. In plain English, if all things start from perfection and degenerate or lose energy, then how does life on earth become more complex instead of simpler? Small isolated groups of humans become inbred after several generations, and the gene pool becomes corrupted. It is time the Evolutionists admitted defeat.
View Quote
I'm getting a mixed message here. Entropy (the Second Law of Thermodynamics) contradict evolution. Entropy IS clearly observed today, whereas evolution is NOT. Is THIS what you MEANT to say paspecops????
View Quote
The second law of thermodynamics (entropy) does NOT conflict with the theory of evolution. Entropy is constantly increasing for any CLOSED system. Earth is NOT a closed system - it is gaining energy input constantly from the sun. Localized decreases in entropy are allowed, else the refrigeration cycle that allows us to cool our homes and cars could not occur. However, it takes energy to make the refrigeration cycle occur, and the result is waste heat (increased entropy) dumped to the external environment (rest of the system). On a larger scale, if the second law of thermodynamics meant that nothing could become more complex anywhere, then there would be no formation of galaxies and stars in the universe - obviously more complex than a uniform distribution of hydrogen gas at a temperature of 3 degrees Kelvin throughout the universe. The constant influx of solar and other energies (cosmic x-rays, etc.) to Earth provide the necessary ingredient to allow constantly increasing complexity (reverse entropy) in our localized area, while not violating the total increase in entropy universally. Entropy and Evolution are NOT mutually exclusive. That's one argument that illustrates just how poorly we educate the public in science.
Link Posted: 12/12/2001 6:17:02 AM EST
Originally Posted By jamon: Your argument is the equivalent to comparing the memories/knowledge of an infant to that of a grown person. If the knowledge is not present in the infant, how can it then be present in a grownup? Simple, the memories are absorbed and assimilated from the persons interactions with their surroundings. As the individual experiences life, these experiences are learned and retained chemically in the brain. .
View Quote
OK, I can't stay away. Now you are comparing the human mind, the singlemost complex organism EVER known to man, with a single cell. Hardly a fair comparison. I doubt you are telling us that a single cell can think, reason, emote, compare and contrast, recall IMMENSE databanks of information, or block from its memory information that generates negative emotion. SO I REALLY don't think the action and interaction of the human mind can be used hypothetically to predict DNA mutations of a single cell.
Now if the organism was placed in a vaccuum and never had any outside interraction with anything, and never had any experiences, then yes, your argument would hold true, but this is just not how it is
View Quote
The "open vs. closed universe" discussion you go into has been done to death. Suffice it to say, a "closed universe" DOES NOT EXIST. Everything has outside forces acting upon it. ONLY in that context can this discussion really move forward. Presently, EVERYTHING that DNA can come into contact with is in an open universe, that is everywhere exhibiting the Law of Entropy. Thus, DNA only interacts with other DNA that is devolving. Accordingly, DNA can only learn "devolution" from its surroundings, NOT evolution. In essence, the evolutiuonary theory of DNA contacting other DNA actaully disproves the theory of evolution. Humans devolve because their DNA is devolving (from the momnet we are born, we are progressing toward death) This hypothesis of DNA "gaining information" by interaction with its surroundings is contrary to observed phenomenon EVERYWHERE. That is why they call it the [size=6]LAW [/size=6] of Entropy.
Link Posted: 12/12/2001 6:20:22 AM EST
Why do all life forms contain the same four bases of DNA? My intellectual mind believes in evolution but when you consider that only a very small amount of DNA seperates humans from other animals it makes you wonder. The potential for things to go wrong seems to great unless there was some touch of divine intervention.
Link Posted: 12/12/2001 6:23:09 AM EST
Originally Posted By EricTheHun: 'Race-mixing' is what God had in mind 'from the beginning'? Then why didn't is stay that way?
View Quote
because people perverted religion into racial superiority. do the words "Make the world England" mean anything to you? why didn't it stay that way? because people still drag people of different color behind trucks!
Surely from the beginning there was only one race, that diverged into the ones we have now!
View Quote
not one, MANY the apes, the baboons, the gorilla. the strongest survived by any means necessary, became humans through inter-breeding, and the weakest died off.
But since you reject the Bible, how can you explain that God wants 'one race.'
View Quote
i never said that. i said He never wanted prejudice.
BTW, is 'racism' a 'Southern' thing? Is there no evidence of any 'racism' where you live?
View Quote
i put it in quotes for a reason ~ lack of time and better word [:)] sorry southerners! quote respectfully withdrawn (but left for posterity)
'Racism' is an ignorant man's excuse.
View Quote
ok, what the hell are YOU talking about? 5subslr5, thank you! yes, of course there are, but are they the MAJORITY? no. why? because the harmful effect of the sun's rays make their existence dangerous at best ~ impossible at worst. people, get your heads out of the 21st century! try and think back a few thousand years. if there was a black eskimo born to its indiginous parents, he/she probably would have died off, leaving the strong to survive and perpetuate their race. the same goes for any albino Ugandans, they probably would not have survived long, (no sunscreen, no hospitals etc.) therefore their occurence in nature is less, and less until non-existant. in other words, Darwin's theory of evolution.
Link Posted: 12/12/2001 6:29:04 AM EST
Originally Posted By KBaker: The second law of thermodynamics (entropy) does NOT conflict with the theory of evolution. Entropy is constantly increasing for any CLOSED system. Earth is NOT a closed system - it is gaining energy input constantly from the sun. The constant influx of solar and other energies (cosmic x-rays, etc.) to Earth provide the necessary ingredient to allow constantly increasing complexity (reverse entropy) in our localized area, while not violating the total increase in entropy universally. Entropy and Evolution are NOT mutually exclusive. That's one argument that illustrates just how poorly we educate the public in science.
View Quote
Not being a product of the public schools system (graduated from a Christian school) I was actually taught in thse matters. The "closed system" argument is irrelevant. "Closed systems" are STRICTLY hypothetical, and do not exist in reality. So why do evolutionists CONSTANTLY bring them up?? Might as well introduce the Tooth Fairy into the discussion. Observed phenomenon CONTRADICT the "energy from teh sun" thoery. Most notably, radiation from teh sun produces destruction, NOT increased complexity. Look at sunburn induced skin cancer. But the "energy from the sun theory" is the perfect hideout for the evolutionist - it can really NEVER be disproven. Or porven for that matter. All I can tell you is that in EVERY sysytem, open systems which we observe, or hypothetical closed systems, Entropy is observed. NOT evolution.
Link Posted: 12/12/2001 6:36:15 AM EST
Originally Posted By garandman:
Now if the organism was placed in a vaccuum and never had any outside interraction with anything, and never had any experiences, then yes, your argument would hold true, but this is just not how it is
View Quote
The "open vs. closed universe" discussion you go into has been done to death. Suffice it to say, a "closed universe" DOES NOT EXIST. Everything has outside forces acting upon it. ONLY in that context can this discussion really move forward. Presently, EVERYTHING that DNA can come into contact with is in an open universe, that is everywhere exhibiting the Law of Entropy. Thus, DNA only interacts with other DNA that is devolving. Accordingly, DNA can only learn "devolution" from its surroundings, NOT evolution. In essence, the evolutiuonary theory of DNA contacting other DNA actaully disproves the theory of evolution. Humans devolve because their DNA is devolving (from the momnet we are born, we are progressing toward death) This hypothesis of DNA "gaining information" by interaction with its surroundings is contrary to observed phenomenon EVERYWHERE. That is why they call it the [size=6]LAW [/size=6] of Entropy.
View Quote
Dude! What the hell are you talking about??? Have you ever studied genetics??? DNA does not change from the moment of conception until the moment of death. In fact, your DNA is EXACTLY the same until it is completely destroyed. This is why we can study the DNA of such things as ancient Egyptian mummies. To say that DNA "devolves" causing death is saying that you know very little about genetics,science,medicine, etc... Also, you cannot say that in an open universe the second law of thermodynamics hold to prove creation. First off, the universe may or may not be a closed system. This is being argued every day. Second, thermodynamics laws ONLY hold in a closed system. You seem to be saying that monkeys came from man. Or that the protist were once great white sharks.
Link Posted: 12/12/2001 6:39:13 AM EST
[Last Edit: 12/12/2001 6:36:23 AM EST by jamon]
Originally Posted By garandman:
Originally Posted By jamon: Your argument is the equivalent to comparing the memories/knowledge of an infant to that of a grown person. If the knowledge is not present in the infant, how can it then be present in a grownup? Simple, the memories are absorbed and assimilated from the persons interactions with their surroundings. As the individual experiences life, these experiences are learned and retained chemically in the brain. .
View Quote
OK, I can't stay away. Now you are comparing the human mind, the singlemost complex organism EVER known to man, with a single cell. Hardly a fair comparison. I doubt you are telling us that a single cell can think, reason, emote, compare and contrast, recall IMMENSE databanks of information, or block from its memory information that generates negative emotion. SO I REALLY don't think the action and interaction of the human mind can be used hypothetically to predict DNA mutations of a single cell.
View Quote
You state the obvious, but miss the obvious at the same time. No, a single cell organism does not have the mental capacity of a human, but the point is that it does ABSORB and ASSIMILATE stimulus from its surroundings.
Now if the organism was placed in a vaccuum and never had any outside interraction with anything, and never had any experiences, then yes, your argument would hold true, but this is just not how it is
View Quote
The "open vs. closed universe" discussion you go into has been done to death. Suffice it to say, a "closed universe" DOES NOT EXIST. Everything has outside forces acting upon it. ONLY in that context can this discussion really move forward.
View Quote
Try reading what I said again. My point was that a closed system was NOT REALITY. So thanks for verifying for me that I was right in saying that it was NOT REALITY
Presently, EVERYTHING that DNA can come into contact with is in an open universe, that is everywhere exhibiting the Law of Entropy. Thus, DNA only interacts with other DNA that is devolving. Accordingly, DNA can only learn "devolution" from its surroundings, NOT evolution.
View Quote
This is just assinine. So mankind is devolving? Is that your point? Maybe where you come from the DNA gene pool is degrading due to inbreeding, but not here.
In essence, the evolutiuonary theory of DNA contacting other DNA actaully disproves the theory of evolution. Humans devolve because their DNA is devolving (from the momnet we are born, we are progressing toward death)
View Quote
DNA genetic makeup devolves over the course of ones lifetime? Where do you get this bs from?
This hypothesis of DNA "gaining information" by interaction with its surroundings is contrary to observed phenomenon EVERYWHERE. That is why they call it the [size=6]LAW [/size=6] of Entropy.
View Quote
Hmmm... The observations that I know of would seem to say otherwise. Everywhere in nature you see plants/animals with specialized adaptations to their surroundings. from the fish that live in deep waters who glow in the dark, to bugs that look like sticks, to birds that blend in to the foliage indiginous to their region. These are all 'learned' responses that developed over many many years. I really have no clue where you get your logic from, but it seems a bit flawed. Oh, and Garandman, please try READING the posts you are disputing, it would make your responses seem a bit more believable.
Link Posted: 12/12/2001 6:42:35 AM EST
Here is the whole thing. [url]http://www.edge.org/documents/ThirdCulture/n-Ch.7.html[/url]
Link Posted: 12/12/2001 6:47:35 AM EST
Holy crap! You're spouting off faster than I can counter your ridiculous claims.
Originally Posted By garandman: Observed phenomenon CONTRADICT the "energy from teh sun" thoery. Most notably, radiation from teh sun produces destruction, NOT increased complexity. Look at sunburn induced skin cancer. But the "energy from the sun theory" is the perfect hideout for the evolutionist - it can really NEVER be disproven. Or porven for that matter.
View Quote
I can't believe you said this! I see radiation enduced changes in DNA almost EVERY SINGLE DAY! Let me give you an example. My wife is trying to isolate one particular pathogenicity island in infectious gononorrhoeae. Her work was just published in the August volume of the Journal of Bacteriology, volume 183, number 16, page 4718, titled "Insertion-Duplication Mutagenesis of Neisseria: Use in Charaterization of DNA Transfer Genes in the Gonococcal Genetic Island" One of the processed that they are using to mutate genes (DNA) is radiation. They use tritium just like what is used in night sights to produce genetic mutation and variation. Almost NEVER does this kill the organism. It produces (usually random) changes in particular DNA base pairs which they map and study. Depending on how the DNA is changed, the organism reacts differently in how it infects a host and how it reacts to treatments. Many times, this radiation produces an organism that is much more virulent and resistent to antibiotics. What you are saying is that my wife is producing magic with smoke and mirrors. You are totally wrong.
Link Posted: 12/12/2001 6:56:20 AM EST
[Last Edit: 12/12/2001 6:53:38 AM EST by Renamed]
Gee... I didn't expect to stir up [i]this[/i] much trouble! [:K] I posted the excerpts from Margulis's article (which can be found at [url]http://www.edge.org/documents/ThirdCulture/n-Ch.7.html[/url] ) to illustrate the way that disagreements between scientists can be presented to "debunk" evolution, even though the scientists on both sides agree on the basics of the theory and are only arguing over the details. Read the full article and you'll also see statements such as these: "The fossil record begins nearly four thousand million years ago" "Although I greatly admire Darwin's contributions and agree with most of his theoretical analysis and I am a Darwinist, I am not a neo-Darwinist. One of Darwin's major insights is the recognition that all organisms are related by common ancestry. Today direct evidence for common ancestry — genetic, chemical, and otherwise — is overwhelming." "The fact that all the organisms that are born or hatched or budded off do not and cannot possibly survive is natural selection. Observable inherited variation appears in all organisms that are hatched, born, budded off, or produced by division, and some variants do outgrow and outreproduce others. These are the tenets of Darwinian evolution and natural selection. All thinking scientists are in complete agreement with these basic ideas, since they're supported by vast amounts of evidence." The theory that Margulis criticizes is [i]Neo[/i]-Darwinism. She contends that the main force behind variation isn't mutation, but symbiogenesis: "The importance of symbiogenesis as a major source of evolutionary change is what is debated. I contend that symbiogenesis is the result of long-term living together — staying together, especially involving microbes- -and that it's the major evolutionary innovator in all lineages of larger nonbacterial organisms." Finding flaws in old ideas and offering new ideas to patch or replace them is just part of the scientific process.
Link Posted: 12/12/2001 6:59:15 AM EST
Originally Posted By Renamed: Gee... I didn't expect to stir up [i]this[/i] much trouble! [troll]
View Quote
Heh, its no trouble at all. Its just a way to pass the long hours at work. [beer]
Link Posted: 12/12/2001 7:01:35 AM EST
Originally Posted By jamon:
Originally Posted By Renamed: Gee... I didn't expect to stir up [i]this[/i] much trouble! [troll]
View Quote
Heh, its no trouble at all. Its just a way to pass the long hours at work. [beer]
View Quote
[:)]
Link Posted: 12/12/2001 7:07:40 AM EST
She contends that the main force behind variation isn't mutation, but symbiogenesis: "The importance of symbiogenesis as a major source of evolutionary change is what is debated. I contend that symbiogenesis is the result of long-term living together — staying together, especially involving microbes- -and that it's the major evolutionary innovator in all lineages of larger nonbacterial organisms."
View Quote
aka: Long term LEARNED responses. Is it so hard to comprehend? Humans evolve during their lifetime thru experiences. Why is it so difficult to see that these experiences are passed from generation to generation via DNA? What are memories? chemical compounds stored in the brain. What is DNA. Chemical coumpounds stored in all cells of the body. Yes i know she is talking about microbes and such, but the concept is the same regardless.
Link Posted: 12/12/2001 7:26:47 AM EST
Rather than type in a lengthy explanation as to why creationism is total crap, I've included a link that wraps the whole subject up in a very logical way. Also, those inclined to the truth will be the only ones "burdened" with this information, rather than subjecting the fundamentalists[0:)] to something they've been programed not to accept anyway.[;)] [url]http://www.atheists.org/bone.pit/creationscience.html[/url]
Link Posted: 12/12/2001 7:46:51 AM EST
Muad_Dib, arguing religion is a waste of bandwidth. Recent studies have shown the the religious impulse is a brain hormone issue. In other words God fearing folks can't help feeling that way. It's inherited, it's not by choice. Trying to change their minds is pointless. They just "know" they're right. They "feel" right. A sound logical argument is wasted on them. You may as well tell a skunk to smell better. It can't help it and neither can they. I pity them.
Link Posted: 12/12/2001 8:01:52 AM EST
I'm done for now. I realize that this is a fruitless experience for most of us.
Link Posted: 12/12/2001 8:07:38 AM EST
And if ya'll don't believe that something infinitely more complex can evolve from things that are simpler, just take a look at Windows XP. [:D]
Link Posted: 12/12/2001 8:15:25 AM EST
Originally Posted By Muad_Dib: I'm done for now. I realize that this is a fruitless experience for most of us.
View Quote
Or put another way: Arguing on the Internet is like running in the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you are still retarded ;)
Link Posted: 12/12/2001 8:29:43 AM EST
Originally Posted By garandman: [All I can tell you is that in EVERY sysytem, open systems which we observe, or hypothetical closed systems, Entropy is observed. NOT evolution.
View Quote
So the formation of stars, solar systems and galaxies in the universe are not examples of localized decreases in entropy? Want to try that thought process again?
Link Posted: 12/12/2001 8:32:33 AM EST
[sleep]
Link Posted: 12/12/2001 8:37:57 AM EST
Originally Posted By KBaker:
Originally Posted By garandman: [All I can tell you is that in EVERY sysytem, open systems which we observe, or hypothetical closed systems, Entropy is observed. NOT evolution.
View Quote
So the formation of stars, solar systems and galaxies in the universe are not examples of localized decreases in entropy? Want to try that thought process again?
View Quote
You could pick ANY localized example (like a baby who is growing up) and claim decreasing entropy. Just like if you only looked at the first three quarters of the Football game, Tennessee actually beat LSU in the SEC championship. But when you look at the WHOLE GAME, you know that Tennessee lost (I am still in mourning [>Q] ) When you look at an entire life (Not just the portion of a life that supports your theory) you see Entropy is King. Same is true of planets, galaxies, solar systems etc.
Link Posted: 12/12/2001 8:38:26 AM EST
Many born again Christians believe the world is only about 6,000 years old, man and dinosour(biblical dragons) lived side by side, and God literally made the universe is 6 days (144) hours.
Link Posted: 12/12/2001 8:40:18 AM EST
[Last Edit: 12/12/2001 8:34:58 AM EST by M4]
Originally Posted By Astrogoth: Muad_Dib, arguing religion is a waste of bandwidth. Recent studies have shown the the religious impulse is a brain hormone issue. In other words God fearing folks can't help feeling that way. It's inherited, it's not by choice. Trying to change their minds is pointless. They just "know" they're right. They "feel" right. A sound logical argument is wasted on them. You may as well tell a skunk to smell better. It can't help it and neither can they. I pity them.
View Quote
After garandmans post, I figured this was worth posting one more time. [url]www.atheists.org/bone.pit/creationscience.html[/url]
Link Posted: 12/12/2001 8:42:35 AM EST
Cant evolution simply be natural selection on a larger scale/longer timeline?
Link Posted: 12/12/2001 8:50:35 AM EST
Originally Posted By garandman:
Originally Posted By KBaker:
Originally Posted By garandman: [All I can tell you is that in EVERY sysytem, open systems which we observe, or hypothetical closed systems, Entropy is observed. NOT evolution.
View Quote
So the formation of stars, solar systems and galaxies in the universe are not examples of localized decreases in entropy? Want to try that thought process again?
View Quote
You could pick ANY localized example (like a baby who is growing up) and claim decreasing entropy. Just like if you only looked at the first three quarters of the Football game, Tennessee actually beat LSU in the SEC championship. But when you look at the WHOLE GAME, you know that Tennessee lost (I am still in mourning [>Q] ) When you look at an entire life (Not just the portion of a life that supports your theory) you see Entropy is King. Same is true of planets, galaxies, solar systems etc.
View Quote
And if the universe is to end at some distant point in the future at a uniform temperature of 3 degrees Kelvin, then why is evolution any less of a "natural" LOCAL phenomenon than the formation of stars and planets? The net entropy of the universe is increasing, is it not? Then how does the second law of thermodynamics contradict evolution? You're not making sense.
Link Posted: 12/12/2001 9:08:47 AM EST
Originally Posted By KBaker: You're not making sense.
View Quote
He's making perfect sense IF you first understand that he doesn't actually care about scientific facts. It is necessary to his worldview that evolution be wrong, ergo he will accept no evidence that it is factual. I have BTDT with Garandman several times before...you may as well forget about using factual arguments with him, it's a waste of your time. To paraphrase the Bible, "They have Darwin and Gould and Dawkins...let them hear them."
Link Posted: 12/12/2001 9:09:24 AM EST
Originally Posted By garandman: When you look at an entire life (Not just the portion of a life that supports your theory) you see Entropy is King.
View Quote
Kbaker- here's an interesting fact for you - Under Jewish law, male children were to be circumcised the 8th day. Just recently, we learned medically that the 8th day after birth an infant has the FASTEST rate of blood coagulation and the greatest ability to fight infection that teh body will EVER have in the course of its lifetime. From day 9 and foward, the healing and infection fighting powers of a child ebb and flow, but always on a downward curve, until its death. Put aside for the moment this (commanding circumcision be done at the MOST opportune moment) gives evidence that the God of the Bible created us and knows us better than we know ourselves..... THIS FACT proves that EVEN while a young child is growing brain cells, increasing musculature and growing in stature (which some might want to call decreasing entropy) , its is dying. Even the temporal examples of localized decreasing entropy are marred by every living organisms march toward death.
Link Posted: 12/12/2001 9:16:53 AM EST
Originally Posted By garandman: Kbaker- here's an interesting fact for you - Under Jewish law, male children were to be circumcised the 8th day. Just recently, we learned medically that the 8th day after birth an infant has the FASTEST rate of blood coagulation and the greatest ability to fight infection that teh body will EVER have in the course of its lifetime. From day 9 and foward, the healing and infection fighting powers of a child ebb and flow, but always on a downward curve, until its death. Put aside for the moment this (commanding circumcision be done at the MOST opportune moment) gives evidence that the God of the Bible created us and knows us better than we know ourselves..... THIS FACT proves that EVEN while a young child is growing brain cells, increasing musculature and growing in stature (which some might want to call decreasing entropy) , its is dying. Even the temporal examples of localized decreasing entropy are marred by every living organisms march toward death.
View Quote
I left the entire post just to illustrate - that's not an answer to the question I asked. How does anything you've stated illustrate that the second law of thermodynamics contradicts the theory of evolution? And what does the circumcision of an eight-year-old have to do with anything? You're losing it, Garandman. When in doubt, change the subject?
Link Posted: 12/12/2001 9:18:18 AM EST
Originally Posted By garandman: Just recently, we learned medically that the 8th day after birth an infant has the FASTEST rate of blood coagulation and the greatest ability to fight infection that teh body will EVER have in the course of its lifetime. From day 9 and foward, the healing and infection fighting powers of a child ebb and flow, but always on a downward curve, until its death.
View Quote
and how many boys were butchered to figure that out? its not Divine intervention, it's called [blue]trial and error[/blue]
Put aside for the moment this (commanding circumcision be done at the MOST opportune moment) gives evidence that the God of the Bible created us and knows us better than we know ourselves.....
View Quote
but God didn't write the Bible ~ man did! so it seems that nobody knows men better than men...
Link Posted: 12/12/2001 9:20:09 AM EST
Originally Posted By RikWriter:
Originally Posted By KBaker: You're not making sense.
View Quote
He's making perfect sense IF you first understand that he doesn't actually care about scientific facts. ."
View Quote
I suppose in your little world.....me not caring about scientific facts would be evidenced by ....my references to Entropy, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, closed vs. open systems, blood coagulation and infection fighting capability, DNA mutations, etc. You're funny man. No question I am ideologically committed to my ideals and beliefs. The funny part is that you think you are scientifically pure as the driven snow, and hold NO bias, or slavishness to evolutionary ideology. Its like the homeless gutter drunk bum soaked in his own vomit calling the drug addict a loser. BWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!! [:D]
Link Posted: 12/12/2001 9:33:51 AM EST
Originally Posted By KBaker:
Originally Posted By garandman: Kbaker- here's an interesting fact for you - Under Jewish law, male children were to be circumcised the 8th day. Just recently, we learned medically that the 8th day after birth an infant has the FASTEST rate of blood coagulation and the greatest ability to fight infection that teh body will EVER have in the course of its lifetime. From day 9 and foward, the healing and infection fighting powers of a child ebb and flow, but always on a downward curve, until its death. Put aside for the moment this (commanding circumcision be done at the MOST opportune moment) gives evidence that the God of the Bible created us and knows us better than we know ourselves..... THIS FACT proves that EVEN while a young child is growing brain cells, increasing musculature and growing in stature (which some might want to call decreasing entropy) , its is dying. Even the temporal examples of localized decreasing entropy are marred by every living organisms march toward death.
View Quote
I left the entire post just to illustrate - that's not an answer to the question I asked. How does anything you've stated illustrate that the second law of thermodynamics contradicts the theory of evolution? And what does the circumcision of an eight-year-old have to do with anything? You're losing it, Garandman. When in doubt, change the subject?
View Quote
Its NOT changing the suject. Its evidence that even in cases where decreasing entropy might be claimed, the fact is that entropy is present. Its evidence that teh Second Law of thermodynamics IS in fact a LAW, and that evolution flies in the face of the observed Second Law of Thermodynamics. Comparatively, evolution is observed NOWHERE. NOWHERE. I can give you ten thousand examples (seen, observed, proven and universally accepted), all illustrations of entropy. All you can give me in unproven, and worse, UNPROVEABLE and NOT capapble of being scientifically measured or observed, hypotheticals of decreasing entropy. I mean really - how is ANYONE but God supposed to be able to tell if the universe is exhibiting decreasing entropy. And what kills me is since I can't disprove decreasing entropy in the entire universe, you think you have me over a barrel. Worse, I give you TEN THOUSAND evidences that disprove the evolutionary theory, and your dismiss them all due to your single (decreasing entropy in the planets) hypothetical which only God Himself could disprove. THIS is what makes me say evolution is at its heart, unscientific, and those who want to beleive it believe it. And explains my initial objection of broaching the subject. Especially considering teh arrogant condescnsion I must endure by the RikWriters of the world, EVEN when I attempt to discuss this OUTSIDE of Scriptural texts, using ONLY scientific arguments. He STILL has to come in here and accuse me of being "religious" when my arguemnts in this forum have been everything BUT religious. (Not a flame of you - you have been relatively civil)
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 5
Top Top