Posted on 01/26/2006 1:47:10 PM PST by jennyp
Q.E.D. Where is the evidence of the energy? Does the needed higher temperature remain low enough to allow a double helix, or does the required temperature result in the molton world shown in your pictures? The "random" in random selection is defined as haphazard or without definite method or purpose. Spontaneous is defined as acting without compulsion, constraint or premeditation. I stand by my statement.
Wow! I didn't know anyone was still following this thread...
That's not really how natural selection works - initial changes & mutations are random, but the mechanism of natural selection forces the propagation of only traits that are favorable to continued reproduction - this is a very definite method/purpose and not haphazard at all.
Of course there are still many open questions about the thermal conditions necessary for the chemical evolution of life (particularly earliest life), but just because we can't identify all these parameters, doesn't mean we don't have other evidence in support of evolution. (I don't know the temperature & thermodynamic conditions on the night OJ killed Nicole, I infer that it happened from other circumstances.)
My point is that thermodynamics does not prove evolution impossible (or even unlikely, for that matter - order from disorder in thermodynamic subsystems is oberved all the time). We just simply don't know (and for the moment, can't know) the thermal boundary conditions specific to isolated biological systems millions or billions of years ago and have to search along other lines of inquiry for evidence. Thermodynamics just doesn't help much, either in a positive or negative way here.
I remember seeing a graph that order from disorder occurred at above .3 the speed of light and with micro processes. These are all macro processes moving slowly. When I see pictures of this subject debated there are two people at podiums and no chalk board for derivations or measurements. The debate over Evolution seems limited to observations, and to assumptions about what they mean. The best science includes observations, measurements, and derivations. At the other end, one criticism of String Theory as a theory of everything is that it can only be described mathematically. There are many unconvinced theoretical physicists who say proponents are moving into the area of philosophy. If evidence for Evolution is at the other end of the spectrum, then I think it should be subject to the same sort of criticism. How much of its utility is scientific and how much is philosophical?
I was gone for a couple weeks driving across country with my son and am still catching up.
Or: People's brains are wired to respond to and create order because an orderly world is easier to control and thrive in, and our ancestors who weren't able to create order very well tended not to thrive.
"King David (try reading the Psalms)"
Wasn't he the guy who saw his neighbor's wife bathing on the roof and had her husband sent to the war front so he could nail her?
BTW, which post of mine *were* you responding to, there? (Long thread)...
Cheers!
"BTW, which post of mine *were* you responding to, there? (Long thread)..."
That was responding to 1253. You know you can see which thread it is responding to on the bottom? You can also click it an be taken back to that thread.
I like the names in the bible. "Uriah the Hittite:. lol I guess I would be something like "SaveUS the FReepite".
Poor choice of words on your part, I knew which thread it was responding to, but not the post *within* the thread.
There is a "View Replies" button which I haven't tried. I don't know if that button only goes "downstream" though.
Cheers!
Even from *that* point of view (adulterer/murderer) David provides something of a counterexample to the earlier claim--when he "took a Bath" (bad pun) he certainly wasn't being motivated by any craven fear of afterlife-type consequences.
But of course the whole issue hinges on whether the "afterlife" stuff is true. If it is, of course it is reasonable to take it into account when considering current actions; but if there is no afterlife, then the short-term good for our fellow-man right now would take more weight than concern for one's soul.
Cheers!
Just did the whole empirical thing. According to my momentous experiment on the leaning tower of FReeper, the button DOES only go "downstream".
Cheers!
Check out Genesis. What kind of name is "Arphaxad" anyway?
"Check out Genesis. What kind of name is "Arphaxad" anyway?"
Maybe that means something like, "Man who condensed God's word so it could be carved on a rock." lol
Yep. I've always said, even even none of it were true, and Jesus were just a regular guy, it still isn't a bad way to live one's life. As long as we understand that science uses facts to makes presumptions, and that is totally a separate thing from faith. That way, we don't drive our neighbor nutty with the scripture screaming. Makes it easier to have a peaceful dialog and debate too!
"even even none of it were true,"
Dang, I've got to proofread.
A little bit of an overstatement. Science does more rigorous checking than other things--but on the other hand, with historical figures, you're always going to be more limited in what you can check.
On an offbeat note, try reading J.R.R. Tolkein's essays Tree and Leaf and On Fairy Stories...
Cheers!
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.