Posted on 12/20/2010 7:19:04 AM PST by SeekAndFind
You know. There are some people who know they are wrong but insist they have a 'right' to continue posting misrepresentations of Scripture and science without being challenged. You are one of them.
It is not I who have a problem discussing subjects with you. It is you who has a problem discussing subjects with me. You are trying to make it my problem, however you do not have the 'right' to continue posting misrepresentations and errors unchallenged.
If you prefer that I do not ping you, I will respect your wishes. I will simply refute your errors without a ping. Just don't whine about not being pinged because that is how you wanted it.
Since entropy is by definition the amount of energy not available for useful work, adding energy available for work into a system is decreasing entropy (considering that the existing entropy in the system is radiated out as waste heat).
You are positing that entropy invalidates it, so you need to show how.
Entropy on Earth increases all the time.
And is dissipated as waste heat, to be replaced with more usable energy from the Sun.
And heat from the Sun isn't going to unscramble eggs much less spontaneously generate life.
I see, you're talking about entropy as a decrease in order, not the pure thermodynamics definition. You might like to know that the term entropy is not necessarily synonymous with a decrease in apparent (you see it you know it) order as opposed to statistical (what they are really talking about). Put a piece of glass in the fridge, you have increased its entropy since it has less energy usable for work. It it remains exactly the same structurally, it has lost no apparent order. The disorder you're looking for is more statistical in nature, especially when referring to a gas (around which the 2L was originally formulated). Be careful about overly-simplistic applications.
No it isn't. A sauropod dinosaur would be crushed by its own weight in today's world and that's an easy demonstration. Same simple square/cube thing which prevents 200-lb athletes from competing in gymnastics.
And they'l still all be bacteria of the same kind, possibly with some minimal loss of genetic information.
They put the idea of macroevolution to an outright test over a space of decades in the 1900s with tests on fruit flies, and the test utterly failed. Fruit flies breed new generations every other DAY so that running such a test over decades involves more generations of fruit flies than there have ever been of anything even remotely similar to humans on this planet. They subjected those flies to heat, cold, every sort of radiation, blast, chemicals and everything in the world known to cause mutations and recombined the mutants every possible way. All they ever got was fruit flies, sterile freaks, and individuals which returned, boomerang-like, to the norm for fruit flies after two generations.
That was because our entire living world is driven by information and the only information they ever had in the picture was that for fruit flies. Evolution is a bunch of bullshit and its basically the stupidest ideological doctrine ever devised by the mind of man. It is presently being defended by academic dead wood and by people with too much ego investment, tenure investment, and lifestyle investment to let go. Nobody with brains or talent is defending it at this point.
Is there any doubt? America, at least, is in a falling away.
Where did I posit that entropy invalidates it? You need to show that.
"I see, you're talking about entropy as a decrease in order, not the pure thermodynamics definition."
Actually the 2LoT has been found to apply in both ways.
"You might like to know that the term entropy is not necessarily synonymous with a decrease in apparent (you see it you know it) order as opposed to statistical (what they are really talking about). Put a piece of glass in the fridge, you have increased its entropy since it has less energy usable for work. It it remains exactly the same structurally, it has lost no apparent order. The disorder you're looking for is more statistical in nature, especially when referring to a gas (around which the 2L was originally formulated). Be careful about overly-simplistic applications."
The entropy decrease you are looking for, however, is exponential orders of magnitude greater than anything that has ever been observed anywhere at anytime.
Again, the fallacy of the negative proof asserts that you get to believe what you want until someone proves you wrong. That is, was and always will be a logical fallacy.
Isn't this whole thing about how evolution is supposedly incompatible with the 2L?
The entropy decrease you are looking for, however, is exponential orders of magnitude greater than anything that has ever been observed anywhere at anytime.
From which orifice does that statement come? Looks like a simple claim with absolutely nothing behind it.
Again, the fallacy of the negative proof asserts that you get to believe what you want until someone proves you wrong
Sounds like creationism and intelligent design. Neither can be disproven. You say God did it, and that's it.
In science if you come up with a theory and I say I have evidence that invalidates it, it's up to me to provide that evidence. Me just saying so doesn't invalidate your theory.
I knew you didn't have the post. You're just trolling for a bite.
"Sounds like creationism and intelligent design. Neither can be disproven. You say God did it, and that's it."
You're saying that evolution sounds like creationism and intelligent design and cannot be disproven? You say nothing did it and that's it?
"In science if you come up with a theory and I say I have evidence that invalidates it, it's up to me to provide that evidence. Me just saying so doesn't invalidate your theory."
From which orifice does that statement come? Re-stating the fallacy of negative proof over and over does not mean it stops being a logical fallacy.
And no, there is no “loss” of information. The information that is there is changed. Not gained or lost, changed.
A bacteria under stress expresses DNA polymerase that is error prone.
Idiotic creationists insist that selection of variation is NOT a productive means of dealing with the environment, but the little bacteria ‘knows’ better.
A bacteria, of course, ‘knows’ nothing; but the presence of error prone DNA polymerase in its genome shows that having a working and expressable copy is a survival advantage.
So why would a bacteria on the brink of destruction start a process that will DELIBERATELY mutate its DNA?
No creationist has ever provided an answer to that simple question.
“Why do bacteria have error prone DNA polymerase and express it at times of cellular stress?”
Evolution has an answer.
Creationism, as usual, has nothing.
"No creationist has ever provided an answer to that simple question."
The bacteria is simply hyper-mutating as a method to search a design-space before it dies. Not difficult to understand in a creationist model. Much like the human immune-system hyper-mutates to search a design-space to generate antibodies against a new disease threat. And yes, I have provided this answer to you before. Didn't stop your disingenuous claim then and it won't now.
"Why do bacteria have error prone DNA polymerase and express it at times of cellular stress?” Evolution has an answer. Creationism, as usual, has nothing."
As usual, you are wrong as I pointed out above and previously. Assuming that artifacts of the system actually created the system is simply the fallacy of affirming the consequent yet again. You haven't learned that lesson either, I see.
So you admit that “searching the design space” with mutation will lead to novel information that leads to survival advantage?
So much for the entire creationist argument that mutations=bad and never = good. Time leads only to loss of information never a gain.
I have never heard a creationist model that said that mutation could find a SOLUTION to a problem. Nor does the notion that all species were formed from nothing nearly simultaneously lead one logically to the belief that mutation would be something that a living thing would ‘SEEK OUT’ in times of stress in order to..... EVOLVE.
Yes, because that is what something “searching the design space” is doing, it is EVOLVING!
So you admit that God could have created organisms with the ability to search design spaces through hyper-mutation and that this has been explained to you before?
"So much for the entire creationist argument that mutations=bad and never = good. Time leads only to loss of information never a gain."
So much for your claim that no creationist has ever explained this to you before.
"I have never heard a creationist model that said that mutation could find a SOLUTION to a problem. Nor does the notion that all species were formed from nothing nearly simultaneously lead one logically to the belief that mutation would be something that a living thing would ‘SEEK OUT’ in times of stress in order to..... EVOLVE."
You apparently understood then concept when you were posting to Fichori here.
"Yes, because that is what something “searching the design space” is doing, it is EVOLVING!"
Again, this is the fallacy of affirming the consequent. The bacteria could equally have been created with this ability and this is no unique evidence in favor of evolution.
Earth’s gravity is determined by the size and mass of the planet, which has not changed.
The then Cardinal, now Pope, is right: it took the discovery of cosmic background radiation for Science to learn what Judeo-Christians have always known . . . that there was a beginning.
You still have not explained how this feature is AT ALL compatible with the usual creationist paradigm of mutation = bad, and that everything is getting worse since the fall, and that evolution can only lead to loss of information.
Saying, ‘that fact fits perfectly within the creationism model’ doesn't explain HOW it fits within the creationism model or how it is AT ALL compatible with what seems to be the VAST MAJORITY of creationists who insist that all mutations are always bad and always lead to a loss of information.
No unique evidence in favor of evolution? It is DEMONSTRATING evolution right in front of your eyes! Evolution is the change in the DNA or allele frequency of a population over time. A bacteria having a system to deliberately change its DNA during stress shows that EVOLUTION through natural selection of genetic variation works better in bacteria when the population PRODUCES variation by introducing mutation.
But maybe you have your own Humpty Dumpty definition of evolution that doesn't include what scientists call evolution, that being the change in DNA or allele frequency of a population over time.
That's wrong. Gravity turns out to be an electrostatic dipole effect and has changed substantially in the recent past as evidenced by sauropod dinosaurs and in fact has been shown to be subject to attenuation via the Podkletnov experiment which ESA has in fact reproduced.
Not into other kinds of creatures. God does not use broken tools; an idiotic theory which requires trans-finite sequences of zero-probability events and outright mathematical and probabilistic miracles is a broken tool.
Which is indistinguishable from God created all life with the ability to adapt. Using the word 'evolve' is designed to imply that 'evolution' is uniquely supported. It is not.
"You still have not explained how this feature is AT ALL compatible with the usual creationist paradigm of mutation = bad, and that everything is getting worse since the fall, and that evolution can only lead to loss of information."
Don't have to. You are just trying to put me into your own little irrelevant box so that you can invoke your favorite fallacy of affirming the consequent.
All this is really about is you saying "So why would a bacteria on the brink of destruction start a process that will DELIBERATELY mutate its DNA?" I explained why that ability is there from a creationist viewpoint.
You then said, "No creationist has ever provided an answer to that simple question." I reminded you that I had explained this to you before and you have also discussed this very issue w/ Fichori. Your statement was, is and always will be false and you know it.
"No unique evidence in favor of evolution? It is DEMONSTRATING evolution right in front of your eyes!"
Apparently you do not understand the meaning of the word 'unique'. What you attempt is the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent. Life could just as easily have been created with this ability to adapt and there would be no observable difference. You apparently can't tell when you cross from science over into philosophy.
"But maybe you have your own Humpty Dumpty definition of evolution that doesn't include what scientists call evolution, that being the change in DNA or allele frequency of a population over time."
It is your Humpty Dumpty definition of evolution that cannot be put back together again. No matter how much you protest, deceive and misrepresent. You were busted on this in the past, are busted now and will be busted every time I see you do this going forward.
Wrong, the creationist paradigm is that mutations are bad and lead to a loss of information; NOT that the lead to novel biological solutions to problems.
If mutations lead to novel biological solutions to problems, then evolution is a powerful mechanism to derive novel information = what creationists almost universally insists cannot happen.
You explained nothing, you said that if fit within the creationist model because God created life with the ability to adapt (through finding novel biological solutions through DNA mutation); but did not explain why this explanation after the fact is unique to creationism or even favored by creationism and while completely IGNORING the fact that the vast majority of creationists insist that mutations are bad and lead only to a loss of information.
Life being created has nothing to do with the subject at hand, only how it evolves/adapts via change in its DNA in order to better survive its environment.
So if mutation of DNA can lead to novel biological solutions to environmental stresses, what is the so called ‘barrier’ that would prevent a carnivorous species from differentiating into feline and canine lines? What ‘barrier’ would prevent a 2% genomic difference from accumulating between humans and chimpanzees?
And how do you explain the nested hierarchy and predictability of the presence of ERV sequences without common descent? You “explain” it by saying ‘that fits into the creationist model’ as much as you want; doesn't make it so, and doesn't really ‘explain’ ANYTHING.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.