Posted on 12/28/2005 3:01:53 PM PST by johnnyb_61820
"Where's the proof of this supposed macro-drift that happened over millions of years?"
Duh. There's not any. That's my point.
"Discerning patterns and making inferences? "
As long as they admit that's they are inferences we have no problem. It's when they go beyond that and refuse to admit it that there is a problem.
Um, where's the "program" in the case of evolution?
Also, can you evos clarify something for me: if I, say, take some OJ and cranbery juice and pour both of them together in a glass and stir it for a while and stop and then I notice that the OJ and CJ are perfectly separated, that would also not be a violation of the second law, right, on a pure energy basis?
But would it be a violation of the laws of entropy? Is there only one kind of entropy? Is there a single well accepted definition?
One more question: can you give me any example of observed natural processes which result in arrangements of matter of both long-term higher potential energy and statistical complexity with no guiding program or blueprint?
Huh?
Are you implying that sensing predators will cause inheritable changes in the phenotype?
"Similarities in DNA prove common ancestry. Ask any family court judge."
I know that. Most of the transitional forms aren't established using DNA, though.
I've posted Ed Blick's work before here, and all it does is stimulate their fear reactions, which causes massive ad-hominem attack against the author (blick in this case) without any basis in knowledge or fact.
Another thing that they hate about Blick is that he is the guy that proved that the Masoretic text had pi accurate to the third or fourth decimal place, by demonstrating the numeric value of the accumulation of characters using the Hebrew number system.
Oh boy. Now you've really done it...
[You:] I know that. Most of the transitional forms aren't established using DNA, though.
The human-chimp relationship is, however.
This is a result allowed by thermodynamics. However, thermodynamics would assert that this result is highly improbable.
But would it be a violation of the laws of entropy? Is there only one kind of entropy? Is there a single well accepted definition?
There are no "laws of entropy", though thermodynamics does describe a bias toward higher entropy under certain constraints. You can remove entropy from one place by putting it somewhere else, which is perfectly permissible in thermodynamics and why your example does not violate the 2nd law.
There is only a single abstract definition for entropy, but most people are familiar with constrained derivative descriptions (like in thermodynamics). There is no specific requirement for any system to increase its entropy in the theoretical abstract; for thermodynamics that bias exists due to intrinsic properties of our class of universe.
can you give me any example of observed natural processes which result in arrangements of matter of both long-term higher potential energy and statistical complexity with no guiding program or blueprint?
Your terminology is laden with assumptions that are not actually valid, making it kinda hard to answer that question. For starters, everything is an algorithm by definition by the simple fact of existence, yet it appears you are trying to posit a case where something exists that is not an algorithm. Trying to separate these concepts is a common example of intuition failing.
I gave this example on FR before in a variant form, so excuse if you have already seen it.
You stop in Manhattan during July. On a walking tour near the Chelsea Piers you stop to watch a street magician. He stands behind a card table and opens up a roll of new pennies. You examine the pennies. All 2005's, heads and tails. He places the pennies in a white thick plastic jug. "The shaker" he says, shaking them madly. He empties the pennies from the jar onto the table, like pouring milk in a cat's saucer. You look at the coins -- every single one is heads up!
My question to you is, what's on the other side of the coins?
Simple question. Simple answer.
Human and chimp DNA have both been fully sequenced, and they show evidence of common ancestry in the same way that DNA of 2 humans shows evidence of common ancestry (except that the last common ancestor of humans and chimps was farther in the past).
You wouldn't know what an entropy was if it slapped you upside the head!
Table.
How is it sequenced to arrive at this conclusion?
You: "Duh. There's not any. That's my point."
So you don't accept continental drift as a legitimate theory? No one actually witnessed it, so its just a ruse foisted on an unsuspecting public by chuckling, devious scientists? (BTW, eyewitness testimony is universally regarded as the least reliable evidence in both criminal and civil litigation.)
"As long as they admit that's they are inferences we have no problem. It's when they go beyond that and refuse to admit it that there is a problem.
Fess up, you fraudulating scientists! You are only drawing inferences from (overwhelming) circumstantial evidence! Admit it, and we'll let you off with a warning. But don't you dare try it again!
Can you believe these braindead creationist hicks making such antiscientific assumptions? Slander them all I say!
For starters, everything is an algorithm by definition by the simple fact of existence, yet it appears you are trying to posit a case where something exists that is not an algorithm.
No offense, but this is such a load of cr@p. Everything is not an algorithm. Unless you're just trying to say that the physical universe is governed by the laws of physics. But if you're trying to say that every physical entity follows some pre-existing set of built-in instructions, then I think you're on your own from here...
You don't like my assumption that there are physical entities that are not following any preprogrammed set of instructions beyond the laws of physics?
i kent hep myselph.
A great deal of mathematics you use everyday depends on you being wrong. You assert it is a "load of crap", but you not given a reason why. And this has nothing to do with the laws of physics, it actually underlies physics.
On the other hand, I dare you to try. It is not every day that someone tries to prove that a core theorem of a very broad section of mathematics is obviously broken despite rigorous proofs to the contrary. It seems kind of disingenuous and hypocritical that you insist that a mathematics is wrong while enjoying and using devices that depend on that same mathematics being correct to function at all.
Any fool can say something is a load of crap, but someone who knows what they are talking about can easily take apart an invalid mathematical construction -- you can actually prove things in math, unlike science. You claim insight, so how about providing some? If my assertion is wrong, you should be able to prove it, in strict terms. I'll be waiting, but I won't be holding my breath. You are not the first person on FR to attack this notion, maybe you should ask the survivors how it has turned out in the past.
Mathematics takes no sides, it is what it is.
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.