Posted on 01/27/2009 6:59:07 AM PST by betty boop
Edited on 01/27/2009 7:16:52 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
[[Thermodynamics cannot be used to argue that life devolves or dies due to degradation of the genome. It is also wrong to cite apoptosis as an argument that things die due to entropy.]]
Oh really? Hmmm- some bacteria live a longtime, yet every other speices is bound to the second law, and htis refutes the idea that seices aren’t bound ot hte second law how? God couldn’t create some species of bacteria to live a long time while requiring htat every other species be boudn to thermodynamics per the natural law?
IF you are going to argue that the second law can’t be used to argue species are boudn to it, then you are goign to have to show that every species that infact IS bound to it wasn’t ‘in hte past’.
We KNOW from genetic tersting (The Mito EVE project’) that species DP infact devolve- Perhaps you think we shoudl all have becoem ‘goo’ in your own prescribed timeline?
Again- you are taking single incidents and tryign to assign the resultsto the entire other species, and htis is a bogus argument. As bogus as trying to point to homological similarities and claim species must hterefor have evovled from one another simple because they have ‘common design’ in just SOME sstems or mophological extremities- ignoring of course the billions and billions of differences which nature can NOT account for.
[[Thermodynamics cannot be used to argue that life devolves or dies due to degradation of the genome.]]
As pointed out- the FACT that these long-lived species shed broken down systems and genetics refutes your statement. It is irrelevent that they gain new codes through splitting, as the old discarded code most certainly WAS bound to hte second law. Everythign living that we know of is bound the second law- it doesn’t matter that some species vary in how long they can live- the fact is that htey are still bound to hte second law as proven out by hte fact that they MUST aquire copies to replace the dying code.
Feel free to post your data supporting this conjecture.
In the meantime, single celled organisms chug merrily along with undimished ability to live and adapt.
Some do and some don't. Amoebas have a genome many times the size of the human genome. There are bacteria having essentially zero non-coding genetic material. Mitochondria have genetic material that is very resistant to change.
It is simply counterfactual to assert that living things devolve due to entropy.
[[It is simply counterfactual to assert that living things devolve due to entropy.]]
None of which you mentioned argues that species are not subject to entropy
[[Feel free to post your data supporting this conjecture.]]
Mine was conjecture- your points however are either fact or they are not- feel free to post about species being eternal and beating entropy
The existence of living things demonstrates one of two possibilities: They have been successfully reproducing for as long as their species has existed, or that new forms of life are continuously being created.
Perhaps in lieu of data, you could cite a passage from scripture that indicates new forms of life are being created to replace old, worn out ones.
[[Perhaps in lieu of data, you could cite a passage from scripture that indicates new forms of life are being created to replace old, worn out ones.]]
Data? What data? You haven’t posted any- Besides- why are you venturing outside the discussions by asking for biblical confirmation of amoeba that live a long time? God didn’t talk about a great many htings- Didn’t talk abotu how pepsi can cause ulcers, coffee stains the teeth- Big deal- The fact the bible doens’;t mention them doesn’t make them any less factual.
[[or that new forms of life are continuously being created.]]
Got any evidence to show this? About as far as you can go in backing this claim up is to point to speciation which is nothign but a dead end discontinuity that falls squarely within species kind parameters. All macroevolutionists have are examples of microevolution that falls fully within species specific parameters as well- Oh, and morphological similarities, and homological similarities- doesn’t impress me as to being macroevolution- it’s nothign but adaptions and common designs.
You have a definition of "species kind parameter"?
I haven’t mentioned evoltion, macro or otherwise, on this thread.
Yep- they are parameters which PREVENT species fro m ,ovong beyond their own kind, and invovle upper limits which are designed to keep the species fit and within it’s own kind- these limits are not unknown to science and breeders- These limits are designed into several systems, and htye all work in unison.
Good enough? Or do you require an impossible to define scientific verbiage? If you wish to argue there are no limitaitons- or were none, then you’ll have to provide evidnece species can and do receive non species specific information that allows them to move beyond their own kinds- We know they do not, and that mutaitons, shifts, translocations etc all work within species specific design parameters, and we know that any ‘changes’ amount to simple microeovlutionary adaptations that work on info already present ie: Beaks are ‘selected for’ (Actually, there is no ‘selecting’ going on) that are longer so as to reach deeper nectar while short beaked birds die off- however, these birds are NOT gainign significant morphological changes not specific to that species- IF they could, then parameters could not be argued- however, since species do not- nay- can not- significantly change morphologically, and any changes witnessed all fal lwithin the parameters, we know upper limits exist and is afact.
[[I haven’t mentioned evoltion, macro or otherwise, on this thread.]]
I never said you did, however, you are intimating that macroeovlution is possible because a species of amoeba has a more varied longevity than all other speices do.
I find it interesting that you mention breeders as evidence against evolution, since Darwin formed his theory of natural selection largely by talking about variation and selection with breeders.
Do you have links to any published papers -- preferably technical -- on the "limits"?
Any reports? Sure- The fruit fly experiments, breeding experiments, practically any experiments that deal with trying to push the paramters past their limits via artificial manipulations. Yuo can search the itnernet to see if there were any experiments which broke those boundaries and began to move a species beyond it’s own kind- I am not aware of one single incident where they were- if there had been- the whole debate woudl be much much different today.
What do you mean by “beyond its kind”? Can you cite a reference that gives an objective definition, so that everyone could agree?
You have, by the way, changed the subject from entropy.
I take that as a concession.
[[You have, by the way, changed the subject from entropy.
I take that as a concession.]]
Lol- concession to what JS? I’ve explained that long lived amoeba don’t mean eternal for the reasons mentioned, as well you apparently don’t care to address whether long lived single cells extrapolate to all species- Shall I take that as a concession?
[[What do you mean by “beyond its kind”? Can you cite a reference that gives an objective definition, so that everyone could agree?]]
Yes, let’s play that game JS- you know, the one where you try to prove ‘species change’ by pointing out dead end speciation, when it is clear enough that kind means species do NOT change beyond their own kinds- You know full well what kind means- but to support your theory- you need it not mean adaptation of species within their own kinds.
I think we can ll agree that you know full well that htere is no evidence of species ever goign beyond hteir own kinds, and I think we can all agree that you’ll continue fienging ignorance of what kind means
[[What do you mean by “beyond its kind”? Can you cite a reference that gives an objective definition, so that everyone could agree?]]
And furthermore JS Kind is farm ore precise than the generalizations given by phyologeny- but that of course doesn’t bother you eh?
Then you will, no doubt tell us what the precise definition of Kind is, and what it tells us to expect in terms of the patterns of similatities and differences in genomes, and what it tells us to expect in yet to be found fossils.
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.