Not sure this is even worthy of the time it’s going to take me to post this, but I have a few minutes before I get on with the business of my day. I just want to hit on two things, first this whole idea of macroevolution being a “biological impossibility.”
Think about this for a second. I promise it won’t hurt. Someone with Down’s syndrome has 3 copies of the 21’s chromosome as opposed to the normal two (there is also a secondary mode where a portion of one of the 21st chromosomes becomes entangled with part of chromosome 14). Before you dismiss this as another example of microevoloution look where I’m going with it. If it is possible to have an extra copy of a single chromosome, is it REALLY that impossible to take the next step and say that there’s an extra chromosome pair? Now I’m not suggesting that this IS the way evolution works because I’m not a biologist by trade and it isn’t my field of study, but I’m throwing it out there as a possibility. There are MANY different ways of approaching this and I’ve just suggested one. My hypothesis is probably rather easily disproved, but it’s a starting point. But if you think about the time scales involved here, we’re talking millions of years, with a major extinction event in between.
My second issue comes with your morphing of the term “cognitive dissonance” into “cognitive disconnect.” Disconnect implies an insult, which you will not find in my post. Dissonance refers to the fact that science puts ideas out on the table that do not agree with your worldview and so because you do not understand them, you dismiss them rather than trying to examine them further.
Alright, now I’ve gone and done it so I’ll just go on to refute the rest of your post. I’d like to know which part of the second law that the theory of macroevolution violates. Where is the isolated system? The planet? If we take our measly little world here and call it our “isolated system” (even though by definition it isn’t anywhere near isolated), then we can say that for any process to take place that the entropy of the system must increase. So by sitting here and typing this I’m contributing to the heat death of the universe. Hell, as soon as my cells started dividing I started to contribute to the heat death of the universe, but that’s not what we’re talking about. Take a human being for example. Say we are now in our simplest state (we aren’t but in science you have to make some simplifying assumptions). Any evolution in our species tends to increase disorder rather than decrease it. If you think of the smallest microorganism as being the most ordered, it takes the smallest possible number of molecules to support its own functions, and then we go up to complex mammals that increase the chaos in their own cells because of the sheer number of molecular interactions happening every fraction of a second.
Something else that I don’t like about these threads is that even though I’m not a biologist, I always end up arguing the evolution side. Only because us “Darwin-approved scientists” get painted with a very broad brush here. But I will say one more thing, nobody is being helped by this idea that “the end times are near” and we should all just kneel down and pray for salvation. People have been predicting the end of the world forever, and it hasn’t come to pass yet. I’m afraid that what will happen though, is because of all of our infighting (and a few other things, like this whole idea that government exists to rob from the successful and give to the lazy) will cause us to become stagnant as a species. If we want to escape the fate of the dinosaurs (I think their brains were a little small to believe in God, but then again, we don’t have any life specimens to study, and never could have) then we need to get the HELL of this rock. But I digress...
Pong.
Kev- Macroevolution isn’t just a biological impossibility at the higher levels of life, it’s a biological impossbilitlity all the way down to the cell level- do you even understand just how intricate a single cell is and just how many steps are needed between the cell and the next level? There are literally trillions of intermediary steps- What was once thouight to be nothign more than ‘simple cells’ turns out to be highly complex, irreducibly complex fien tuned machines with very specific designs- And oyu’re telling me that a single copying mistake makes the trillions of intermediary steps in the process of Macroevolution just go poof? You tell me you have all this proof of Macro- yet you throw out hte extra Chromo question as the supposed proof? Riddle me confused on this one I guess, as I thought you’d present something ligitimate.
[[and so because you do not understand them, you dismiss them rather than trying to examine them further.]]
Lol- that’s precious coming from someone hwo just suggested what you just did as a ‘possible example’ of Macroevolution- If it makes you feel better- why you just go on beleiving that I’m the one that doesn’t understand, and when we pass in tyhe halls, we’ll each give a wink and a nod and pretend we’re non the wiser to the facts- (and P.S- we’ll just not mention the extra Chromo thingie either- just twixt you and me)
[[Alright, now I’ve gone and done it so I’ll just go on to refute the rest of your post. I’d like to know which part of the second law that the theory of macroevolution violates. Where is the isolated system? The planet? If we take our measly little world here and call it our “isolated system” (even though by definition it isn’t anywhere near isolated), then we can say that for any process to take place that the entropy of the system must increase]]
Wow! You ‘rebuttle’ by verifying that in order for Macroevolution to work it needs to be the antithesis to the second law? Lol. I see you’re going to use Stroble’s convoluted and easily refuted ‘open system’ argument over on talkorigins, but I must warn you that if you do so, Stroble was made to look quite the fool and showed quite the lack of both understanding and lack of credibility by writing what he did- Heck- Even secular scientists have had to embarrasingly distance themselves from him after his two little tirades over there. stroble was both dishonest, and ignorant in his thesis and did more harm to the argument for Macroevolutio nthan he did help. But if that’s the line you’re going to trodd, I thought I’d just warn you ahead of time- (P.S- entropy worsens in open systems and is even more devestating [if that even possible] for Macreovolution)
[[People have been predicting the end of the world forever, and it hasn’t come to pass yet.]]
I’ll let God know you’re on a time Schedule, and to drop what He’s doing and speed up His predestined timeline then sdeeings you’re anxious for an immediate answer to when He’ll annihilate the world and start over- when it happens thouigh, I’m guessing it will be too late for second chances, but if you’re in a hurry, well then...