Posted on 08/02/2004 3:58:04 PM PDT by Renfield
"Matter and energy are created and destroyed and we see it in action"
Example please...
"Error #2: Life as we know it was not created from nothing
Error #3. Nothing shows "life comes from life". The definition of life itself is rather fuzzy for modern biologists."
The law of biogenesis and simple observation (something that science is supposedly driven by) show that rabbits come from rabbits and people com from people.
Error #4: No, life has not always existed. Nor is such a proposition negated by your poor understanding of the laws of thermodynamics.
Life has not always existed! Wow, we agree on something. Secondly, how is my understanding of "things go from order to disorder" poor? If life had always existed then the universe would be static. Since that is not the case, then Life had a beginning which (per the 1st Law of Thermodynamics) came from matter that must have been created by something outside our closed system universe.
Error #5 While possible, there is no reasons to presume so and, most importantly, it is not relevant to the Theory of Evolution.
See above, and it abosolutely is relevant to the Theory (by the way, nice to see some still calling it a theory) of Evolution.
Why are you providing proofs for macroevolution? Just an obvious question.
On the plus side, he's not posting in colors yet.
The objection is that the organism had to exist before it evolved a means to protect its RNA.
And of your examples, the longest is 46(23) residues, not much of a life precursor.
If you can't get even the simple stuff right, there is no hope of discussing more difficult matters with you.
Same thing happens on religion threads. If you're doing too much obvious damage, there is a predictable list of usual suspects that magically appear and drive the thread into an uproar to bury the discussion and take it off course and throw things into confusion. It's a standard tactic.
Adaptation to surroundings is done in the individual and in the population. There are built in responses to conditions. When it gets really hot, My cat sheds. When it gets really cold he doesn't. So the system has built in response to environment. Genetics makes up the change in the larger poplulation when those with traits allowing them survive in a given environment pass there genes on from one generation to the next allowing the dominant surviving trait to control the poplulation. The trait existed in the gene pool to begin with. Death of those not strong enough to survive determines what traits survive; but, this isn't persay a change in an animal species. It is merely a dominance of one or a group of that species' traits in a given area.
This is built in and doen't denote "evolution" or a change in the species. It merely reflects a dominance of a group of traits in the overall pool available to the animal in this population.
Natural selection is something I have no argument with. But expression of traits within a gene pool is not evolution. It does show the flexability of diversity and specificity provided for in the genetic code. And that is worth noting as a remarkable feature; but, one that is shared across life systems.
Answering a question with a question... very clever... now back to my question...
so how do you get from a self replicating asexual Bacteria, to a sexually reproducing Blue Whale via a loss of information?
The ole ad hominem approach...
Since no one I have asked directly has stepped up to answer, I will ask ALL
so how do you get from a self replicating asexual Bacteria, to a sexually reproducing Blue Whale via a loss of information?
I gave up on Havoc when he used the words "tin foil" to my e=0 post. I then provided links which he never addressed.
Zero-point energy. Particles pop into and out of existence all the time. This does not violate Thermodynamics because the sum total of energy in the system remains constant.
What you have failed to do is show me how the initial matter and energy (that creates the "sum total") came into existence. If it always has been, then everything would be static. If it was created, then that violates Thermodynamics.
You have proven that particles can pop into existence without affecting the sum total, but you have not shown how zero-point energy partciles create life.
Before very long, everyone will have a tale to tell beginning with that phrase. I, however, being true to my position as enemy number one with the DesignedUniverse gang, can proudly say that I had given up on him by the time I pinged you guys to this thread.
You stopped trying to defend your ground after postulating the energy of the universe =0 in the midst of a discussion that was starting to head off in directions having nothing to do with evolution. Just as I whacked off the debate on global floods.. I'm not arguing multiple topics on the same thread.
This is a debate tactic I've encountered with people from other religions - intentionally proliferating topics and heading off in all directions till the subject they were getting creamed on was forgotten. I tend to call it staying focused. And yeah, I think the whole evolution theory needs several rolls of foil.
Correction, you haven't proven antything, you've simply asserted something which may or may not be true.
Off topic? ROTFLMAO! It was a reply to your question.
Somebody has to lighten it up in here. For cryin out loud it's a debate, not an inquisition.
The creation of the universe has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution. However, there are a number of theories as to where the initial energy of the Big Bang originated; the current favorite is a variation on branes with a cyclic meeting of our universe and another every trillion years or so that starts the whole thing going again.
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.