Posted on 08/27/2011 10:07:19 AM PDT by fishtank
National Public Radio recently interviewed Trinity Western University biologist Dennis Venema, who stated his belief that humans did not descend from Adam and Eve.1 Venema, an evangelical evolutionist, claimed that genetics studies show "there is no way we can be traced back to a single couple."2 Do the data really contradict the biblical account of human history?
"Given the genetic variation of people today, [Venema] says scientists can't get that [starting] population size below 10,000 people at any time in our evolutionary history," NPR reported.2 But this claim fails for three reasons. First, it relies on the presumption of "evolutionary history," not scientific data. Second, the idea that an initial group of 10,000 humans evolved from primates is mathematically impossible. Third, a descent from Adam and Eve actually does explain the patterns in modern human genetics....
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
Abiogenesis and accident are one in the same but the former sounds more erudite and sophisticated. I know what abiogenesis is but can you tell me?
I’m still waiting for you to tell me why you’re bringing it up in relation to evolution. How does abiogenesis relate to the theory of evolution?
If you don’t know that abiogenesis is a foundational tenet of evolution then there is nothing to discuss.
OK, then point out to me in the theory of evolution where it is a foundational tenet. Please. Or you can run away...
FromTheSidelines: "...How does abiogenesis relate to the theory of evolution?"
Jack Hydrazine: "If you don’t know that abiogenesis is a foundational tenet of evolution then there is nothing to discuss."
FromTheSidelines: "...then point out to me in the theory of evolution where it is a foundational tenet..."
Anti-evolutionists put a lot of effort into confusing themselves and others about just what the word "evolution" means.
In scientific terms, there are the facts of evolution, the theory of evolution, and a number of hypotheses based on the facts and theory.
In scientific terms, a fact is a confirmed observation and evolution consists of two basic facts: 1) descent with modifications and 2) natural selection, aka "survival of the fittest".
The theory of evolution simply projects these facts backward in time millions and billions of years.
And it is a theory, not just some hypothesis, because it is confirmed by, among other things, the fossil record, DNA analysis and many inputs from virtually every other branch of science.
Regarding the very beginnings of life on Earth, several hypotheses have been proposed, including the aforementioned abiogenesis.
Another hypothosis posits that life arrived on earth aboard some comet or asteroid from another world.
Yet another hypothesis suggests that life was first created, and later guided in its evolution, by some Intelligent Designer.
All of these hypotheses can be argued, more-or-less legitimately, but none has been seriously confirmed.
None has yet graduated from hypothesis to theory, much less fact.
Thanks! I know that Jack’s trying to use abiogenesis as a means to drag away from the actual debate, as a strawman for him to attack...
I also assume he recognizes that I’m not falling for it, and thus the reason he’s mute on the subject and doesn’t answer the question I posted about how it relates to the theory of evolution.
Yep!
Human populations are tightly interwoven
Nature | September 29, 2004 | Michael Hopkin
Posted on 09/30/2004 2:17:34 PM EDT by AZLiberty
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/1231661/posts
Polygamy left its mark on the human genome
New Scientist | September 26, 2008 | Ewen Callaway
Posted on 10/03/2008 11:45:01 AM PDT by SunkenCiv
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2096841/posts
Maori Men And Women From Different Homelands
ABC Science News | 3-27-2003 | Adele Whyte
Posted on 09/06/2004 5:15:41 PM PDT by blam
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1208808/posts
Wow - some good stuff there - thanks!
Anyone who tries to ‘defeat Darwin’ with Thermodynamics doesn’t understand the laws of thermodynamics. The Earth is not a closed system; it receives energy AND matter from outside the system, and as such the usual constrictions about entropy and energy conservation are thrown right out.
Anyone who tries to ‘defeat Darwin’ with Thermodynamics doesn’t understand the laws of thermodynamics. The Earth is not a closed system; it receives energy AND matter from outside the system, and as such the usual constrictions about entropy and energy conservation are thrown right out.
My pleasure. :’)
You didn't throw the grenade. You only threw the safety ring. The grenade is still in your own hand . . . . 5 ... 4 ... 3 ... 2 ... 1 ... Bye!
Four irrefutable arguments to evolution were presented.
Every evolutionist ultimately requires outside input, ie the big bang, implicitly affirming the laws of thermodynamics are true.
I think I’ll let these two speak for me.
“Of all the statements that have been made with respect to theories on the origin of life, the statement that the Second Law of Thermodynamics poses no problem for an evolutionary origin of life is the most absurd… The operation of natural processes on which the Second Law of Thermodynamics is based is alone sufficient, therefore, to preclude the spontaneous evolutionary origin of the immense biological order required for the origin of life.” Duane Gish, Ph.D. in biochemistry from University of California at Berkeley
“It is probably no exaggeration to claim that the laws of thermodynamics represent some of the best science we have today. While the utterances in some fields (such as astronomy) seem to change almost daily, the science of thermodynamics has been noteworthy for its stability. In many decades of careful observations, not a single departure from any of these laws has ever been noted.” Emmett Williams, Ph.D
Can you tell me how the laws of thermodynamics relate to life on Earth?
Is the Earth a closed system from either an energy or mass standpoint?
First Law of Thermodynamics
There is a state function, the internal energy E (in some texts U), which has the following properties:
- in an isolated system E remains constant
- addition of work, symbol w, to a closed system will increase the internal energy by the amount of work expended.
Second Law of Thermodynamics
The is a state function, entropy S, which has the following properties:
- For a very small incremental addition of heat to a system, δq, one will obtain a very small increment of entropy, dS, according to the relationship: d S = δq/T , where T is the absolute temperature at the time and place of the heat transfer.
- For an isolated system, any change over time in S is either positive or zero, that is: ΔS > or = 0
Now consider whether or not the Earth is a closed or isolated system - and what that means relative to the Laws of Thermodynamics.
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.