[[Even if it does violate thermo, who says it has to obey such a law when it obviously doesn’t?]]
I’m tired RightWhale, but briefly, The law states that it does. There is NOTHING in nature that can violate this law beyond certai nstatic examples that are irrelevent to the law itself, as the law applies mostly to dynamic living systems. Folks have tried suggesting that because metal shows organization, that dynamic systems could too ‘in an open system’- and htis simply isn’t true. The evidence is clear- dynamic living systems must obey this law- it takes energy to create, energy produces entropy, which negatively affects the overall creation, the more creation, the more entropy, the quicker the system expires due to overhwelming entropy.
To suggest that life didn’t have to obey this basic law trillions of times, all in ever icnreasing, self-organizing complexities, is just putting a blind faith in a process that we know MUST obey these laws.
A pile of wood bakign under the sun, isn’t capable of creating higher and higher complexities. Everythign synamic and living in nature shows that it obeys these laws.
[[Even if it does violate probabilities, that only points out that it isn’t mechanical.]]
I’m afraid you will find many scientists that dissagree with your claim- The scientists that discovered these improbabilites looked at many many different angles to come up with this statement of fact, and we’re not talking about ‘mechanical improbabilites’, we’re talkign about biolgical facts. AND don’t forget, that we’re not just talking about one impossibility, we’re talking about Macroevoltuion havign to violate this impossibilites trillions of times- And we’re not talkign about lotto odds of just one instance, here- We’re talking trillions of instances having to violate it at 10 to the 500+ odds againt it- thisw is huge- this isn’t insignificant in the whole overall priocess= it’s so big that it makes it impossible- For just one instance! Forget about trillions!
[[Even if it violates bio truths, why should it not since it establishes bio truths?]]
Egads- No- I’m sorry- it doesn’t establish bio ‘truths’ by violating bio truths- Truth is truth- it’s not subjective- it’s an objective truth- one doesn’t replace a basic bio truth by substituting it with a bio- non truth. No matter how many years and mutatiosn you throw at the issue, it’s still impossible for them to tmove a species beyond it’s own kind biolgically- the info simply isn’t htere to do so- and all that science has to suggest it coudl, are adaptive alterations in small numbers that htey claim couyld ‘prodeuce the necessary new non species specific info NEEDED to move hte species beyond it’s own kind’ but htis is false-
Again- I’ve covered this many times- and ma tired- will post more later- but wow- you don’t establish bio truth by presenting non truths that don’t hold up biolgically. Egads!
Perhaps we will continue this later when you are rested and more receptive. As for myself, I am not receptive to either evolution as presented or to ID as presented.