|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 10/29/2004 : 13:16:57 [Permalink]
|
Good one, filthy. My favorite is this one:A good scientific theory like ID should be vague and ambiguous, and refuse to propose any specific details about mechanism or history. Some unspecified being "designed" something, somewhere, at some point in time, somehow, is a perfectly good explanation. H. Humbert wrote:quote:
Ok, this is slightly off topic, but it's something I've been thinking about and am finally seeking some clarification on. (I apologize in advance for any incorrect terms or their improper usage, which will have been entirely due to incompetence.)...
Dave pointed out that the current conditions on the planet (I'm assuming such things as ambient temperature, general chemical composition, etc.) are most likely different than they were then. Makes sense...
Ok, so anyway, to wrap up, is it possible that abiogenesis is still occurring on this planet? Why or why not...
It's possible, but the results would most-likely be eaten by the life that's already here and ubiquitous. And I do mean uniquitous, as people keeping on finding livings things in places life is not expected (such as inside Antarctic rocks, or deep inside the Earth). There really is no "safe place" for truly new forms of life to sit for millenia, unmolested, and evolve into something recognizable.
Also, as you point out, the chemistry of the Earth has been drastically changed by both time and life, and is nowhere near the same as the general chemistry of pre-biotic Earth. If "RNA World" (an abiogenesis hypothesis) required much lower oxygen levels, it simply won't happen again until well after all these nasty plants are gone. So, not only would new life get eaten, but its environment is - quite literally - getting smothered with waste products from current life.
On the other hand, there is nothing (so far as I know) which prevents the formation of something really new, other than long odds.quote:
...and would it be theoretically possible to detect it if it was? (i.e. apart from it being somehow fundamentally different from all other life on earth, how could one tell whether a life form was "new.")
One could tell that something was "new," even if DNA-based, by comparing its proteins to what we know. If, for example, it has a completely different method for splitting and replicating DNA, it's probably not related to us through common descent, because (I believe) DNA-replication techniques may vary among current living organisms, but they're not completely different. Or, even more simply, if the three-letter code of DNA were completely different (I'm aware of several species with changes to the standard code, but nothing with more than two or three differences among the 64 possibilities).
Of course, if it's using RNA, it's probably still related to us, but the split would most-likely have occured farther back than the origin of cells. It is highly unlikely that any haven for a tiny version of "RNA World" has existed, intact, over the course of four billion years, given the geological processes which reshape the planet.
So, any truly "new" life would likely be something completely different (not RNA or DNA based), and thus easier to detect as different. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2004 : 13:23:18 [Permalink]
|
******Then what relevance does the SLOT have to the evolution of biological organisms?*******
Every biological process is not spontaneous, but speciations are. Complex macroevolution is where SLOT steps in.
*********But it doesn't show that. Your premise is not true.******
LOL....Is too. Is this what we are left with? I make an assertion and you come back with an "Is not?" If you're not wanting to debate this, then just let me know. If you are, then come back with some math or science to refute what I posit. I'm not going to waste my time with you in an 'is too,' 'is not' argument. They're rather silly and non-productive.
quote:
And it concludes "thus, there must be a designer"? I'm surprised that hasn't been discussed anywhere.
No, obviously papers presented in Nature do not end 'thus, there must be a designer.' You are simply not debating these subjects, you're blowing them off with irrelevant one-liners. I'm going to start deleting the irrelevancy
quote:
Who said anything about Christians? Let's say this again: modern ID began as a political movement, and it is still a political movement. There's no science to it.
Yeah, you keep saying this. But as I throw science at you, you don't seem able to even address it, much less refute it. Do you think if you just keep repeating it every post it might come true?
quote:
Now you're assuming that I can predict the future, since I didn't have a chance to read the article you just linked to.
So you are openly and publically admitting that you are trying to debate something when you never even read the article I was talking about to begin with. *shaking head* I don't feel our discussions are going anywhere, I'm afraid.
quote:
No, they don't. They don't rely on math and "CSI" and arguments from ignorance to "deduce" design.
Do too. 
*******Biology is, indeed, a science, but "designology" is not. Yet.******
Is too.
********Then I submit that it wasn't designed.******
Was too.
quote:
Hey, this is a public forum. If you feel that you must talk to the members here one-on-one, I suggest you take this to email. If you don't want to reply to me, don't. Your choice.
Thank you. I find your posts totally devoid of logic, usually missing every point I've made and coming back with new points that were never made to begin with. Our discussion is over. Thanks for the posts.
|
|
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2004 : 13:38:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
JerryB wrote:
But I have never said that SLOT denies evolution. Or if I did I misstated. Please cut and paste the post and I will clarify.
OK, clarify this:
quote:
Physics supports ID in that thermodynamics totally 'disses' Darwinism and fully supports ID.
and this:
quote:
The second law states that with any spontaneous reaction, entropy will tend to increase. If S is entropy and 1 and 2 are events, then the second law states as a tendency matter/energy will disorder:
S2 > S1
Macroevolution is the antithesis of this concept in that it states with any spontaneous speciation entropy will tend to decrease and matter/energy order:
S2 < S1
Then please clarify this:
quote:
But I never said that SLOT prohibits evolution. I am an evolutionist.
without contradicting yourself again.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Or better yet, some evidence of any kind that thermodynamics supports ID?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well Gee. It seems to supporting it just fine in this thread.
I must have missed the part where you actually produced some evidence that the 2nd law supports ID. What was it again?
|
The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley
The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2004 : 13:44:57 [Permalink]
|
JerryB wrote:quote:
LOL....Is too. Is this what we are left with? I make an assertion and you come back with an "Is not?" If you're not wanting to debate this, then just let me know. If you are, then come back with some math or science to refute what I posit. I'm not going to waste my time with you in an 'is too,' 'is not' argument. They're rather silly and non-productive.
Actually, that's what I was getting from you, a long series of assertions about what ID predicts, without any support that what you claim is actually what ID predicts.
About that particular article, I'll say it again: the authors, in the abstract, say nothing about deletrious mutations increasing in the human genome. They simply state that they've measured the rate at 1.6 per genome per generation. That rate could be increasing, decreasing, or staying the same. They don't say.
How am I supposed to prove such a negative in this "debate?" All I can do is read and re-read what you've written, and continue to fail to find anywhere the authors claim the rate to be increasing.
On the other hand, all you've done is continue to assert what appears to be a simple falsehood. And you claim to be scientific about this. Go figure.quote:
Every biological process is not spontaneous, but speciations are.
Where is your scientific support for this assertion?quote:
Complex macroevolution is where SLOT steps in.
And what sort of "entropy" does "complex macroevolution" use as a measure. And how is it different from "simple macroevolution" or "complex microevolution?"quote:
No, obviously papers presented in Nature do not end 'thus, there must be a designer.' You are simply not debating these subjects, you're blowing them off with irrelevant one-liners. I'm going to start deleting the irrelevancy.
Apparently, you're missing the point. How are these alleged articles support for ID without explicitly testing ID hypotheses?quote:
Yeah, you keep saying this. But as I throw science at you, you don't seem able to even address it, much less refute it. Do you think if you just keep repeating it every post it might come true?
I haven't seen any science, yet. Tipler's ideas are mostly speculation, even if they are important from a philosophical view. Your ideas on SLOT and macroevolution have yet to be presented, so we're still waiting. Your ideas on the fossil record have yet to be supported, and appear to be incorrect. Where's the science?quote:
So you are openly and publically admitting that you are trying to debate something when you never even read the article I was talking about to begin with.
"To begin with?" Did you link to it twice, and I missed it the first time around? Doesn't change my views on your apparent insistence that "common sense" is applicable to quantum processes, a view which has been wrong for almost 100 years, now.quote:
Thank you. I find your posts totally devoid of logic, usually missing every point I've made and coming back with new points that were never made to begin with.
Indeed, I've seen you say similar things in other places on the web. It seems you think yourself to be the only one capable of logic, while everyone else in the sciences is a "cut-and-paste" hack. If lots of people can't see your logic, perhaps the problem exists with you, and not them.quote:
Our discussion is over.
Bye. Have fun. Let us know when your books are published. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2004 : 14:28:20 [Permalink]
|
*******Bye. Have fun. Let us know when your books are published.*******
Thank you. The book entitled ORIGINS: The Science of Intelligent Design will be pre-released in Feb. 05. |
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2004 : 14:34:03 [Permalink]
|
Starman:
quote:
Example. You have a line of descendant living on earth starting with a first individual [a] to the last [Ab]. The changes in letters represent the changes in the genome, through mutations (additions, deletions and substitutions).
[a] - [aa] - [ab] - [aab] - [Aab] - [Ab]
Please explain where and why this conflicts with thermodynamics.
What is the entropy of the first individual? The last?
What is the entropy of the solar system at the time of the first individual? At the time of the last?
The second law states this: With any spontaneous event or reaction, entropy will tend to increase.
Yet, complex macroevolution, and I want the entire thread to concentrate on this line because I'm not talking about evolution, I'm talking about complex macroevolution; Complex macroevolution states that through billions of speciations, all or at least most resulting in organisms more complex than the progenitor, homo sapiens were produced from a uni-celled critter.
Either Carnot, Clausius, Boltzman, Kelvin, Gibbs, Schrodinger, Shannon, Feynman and Prigogine, some of them Nobel Prize winners are all wrong, or Darwin who was not even a scientist was wrong. I know who I will run with.
quote:
The entropy of thermodynamics is not the same as in information theory.
There is no such thing as "The entropy of thermodynamics" in science. There are several different entropies in thermodynamics, one of them being thermodynamic entropy, but no single entropy of thermodynamics.
quote:
The entropy of thermodynamics is not about complexity. It is about energy flow and energy distribution in a system.
This is true for one of them.
quote:
It is appeal to false Authority that is fallacious.
Examples: The authority speaks outside his field (Dr Safarati on anything other than superconductor chemistry).
The experts are divided on the subject or the referred authority holds a minority view (Dr. Alan Feduccia on bird evolution).
The expert was joking (Sen. John Glens appearance on the Frasier show).
Sometimes the false Authority can be correct, but to appeal to them as authorities is fallacious.
I simply let my arguments stand via math and science. I don't particularly care that someone agrees with them or does not. Can they refute the science and math? Then do it. 
Ricky:
quote:
Come on, the heart came way before lungs. This is because the heart came about in creatures that lived in the sea, and they either used gills or defused oxygen through a thin cell membrane (their skin is thin enough such as in the flatworm). Lungs developed later, first appearing as gas pocket to help the buoyancy of the fish, later becoming partially functioning lungs in fish such as the lung fish, finally becoming full lungs in amphibians.
And the evidence you have that my heart came from fish would be....um....what? Don't you know this goes against everything we know in science? I hate to break this to you, but species can only give birth to the same species. Fish do not have litters of squirrels. You guys seem to be living in a fantasy-land.
quote:
Excluding hemoglobin, the heart came first. As said before, this came before vessels in an open circulator system. I am not sure about the kidney, fish have them but I'm not sure if they first appeared in fish or were also in earlier life forms. The lung came next, as said before first acting as an air pocket to help a fish stay buoyant and then developing into lung sacs in the lungfish, and finally becoming full lungs in amphibians. I am not quite sure on the evolution of blood itself, I will ask around and see what I can find.
Ricky, this is not science. How can you support this experimentally? How could you ever falsify it or satisfy the strict rigors of the scientific method? You cannot. You're reading way too much talk-origin and not near enough text-books that teach real science.
fershur
quote:
Great, we have a prediction from ID. Evidence to back up this prediction - Zero.
Only that this is exactly what the fossil record shows. I hate to break this to you, but there is not a single shred of evidence to show one species magically morphing into another.
quote:
Oh please... All of these organs were present in the animals that EVOLVED into mammals.
And this would mean what? They are still present in organisms today. I don't see them morphing into mammals and you have never seen this happen either. You believe it only because you want to believe it, not because you can show it experimentally.
quote:
Mammals (or any other species) did not *pop* into existence fully formed. Where is your evidence?
It's called the Cambrian explosion. You might want to Google it.
Siberia
quote:
If it truly were such, do you honestly think every single (serious) physicist in the world is deluded? Wouldn't they have yelled 'Wolf!' a long time ago? What is the cause of their confusion? Sheer misunderstanding? Are you implying the vast majority of physicists in the world are ignorant of biology, that they don't care, or that they're simply wrong?
You're a young guy so I'll let you by with this as you have probably not taken the required philosophy 105 course called: logic.
You have not met nor surveyed "every single (serious) physicist in the world" therefore you have no premises from which to draw a logical conclusion. I know several very able and serious physicists who do not believe in macroevolution at all.
quote:
Again, why? We've seen many species evolve. We've seen species go extinct. We've seen the fossil record. If the design is slow and the design is constant, if the design is discarded and another's created from it... then what's the logical different it has from evolution as we understand it, |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2004 : 15:25:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mammals (or any other species) did not *pop* into existence fully formed. Where is your evidence?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's called the Cambrian explosion. You might want to Google it.
There were mammals in the Cambrian? Do elaborate.
 |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2004 : 15:35:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Siberia
quote:
And if this experiment showed anything, it showed that particles must be observed in order to act in certain ways.
I'm afraid I don't get this. Maybe I missed something.
If we observe something, we can see it happen. If we don't, we don't see it happen - which doesn't mean it can't happen or that it isn't happening.
I really am trying to understand... but I'm failing miserably here.
If we leave a tape recorder by the tree in the forest, and make sure no one will hear the tree fall, then the recorder won't record the sound of the falling tree.
Is that a fair analogy of the university-experiments that JerryB points to in this link: http://www.geocities.com/sunjara/ProphesyingParticles.html
(the link does not have any references to any publications of real experiments, so how can I as a layman in quantum mechanics be sure this is not something someone dreamt up during an acid trip?) |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2004 : 16:37:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
No, this is incorrect. There is software programmed to copy itself over and over ad nauseum like computer worms and the like similar to reproduction in organisms.
No, my statement was absolutely correct, and you're changing the goalposts. You were the one who likened genetics to Windows 98, not to a worm or virus program. You put the analogy forward. The analogy fails.
The analogy fails on more than one level. A worm or a virus program does not evolve, because there is no process that mutates the code, and there is no selection process that select slightly more fit instances for a next generation copy. Selection process in nature is analogue, selection process in a computer is binary.
Of course, there are specific programs that mutate, that are run in an operating environment that is specifically designed to allow programs to mutate in order to resolve a specific pre-defined problem. Those programs don't start out with complex designs to later mutate into chaos according the the second law of thermodynamics. That's what selection, natural or otherwise, prevents.
quote:
(Hey, folks, at least this is a diversion while waiting for "the debate" to take its next step.)
Indeed it is. For a while I was so absorbed by the discussion I forgot about it. And you were right about a savant version of Verlch.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2004 : 16:46:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JerryB
And the evidence you have that my heart came from fish would be....um....what? Don't you know this goes against everything we know in science? I hate to break this to you, but species can only give birth to the same species. Fish do not have litters of squirrels. You guys seem to be living in a fantasy-land.
This is pure Hovine rubbish. Reminds me of filthy's signature. Whatever you're trying to argue against, Jerry, it isn't evolution or Darwinism.
And thanks for the explanations, Dave. Yeah, the ubiquitousness of life was sorta what I was trying to get at when I said "biological saturation," I just couldn't think of a good way to phrase it. Thanks for taking the time to go over it.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 10/29/2004 16:55:32 |
|
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2004 : 16:46:55 [Permalink]
|
Very good reading, Jerry. I thank you for that. But I'd like to ask you about another thing you've said (btw, I'm a girl ).
quote:
An aggregate does not really do anything to aid the function of the rock. In fact, what is the function of a rock?
I ask you one simple thing. I don't have time to read it all and 'digest' it all now, but this thing catched my curiosity instantly (I promise I'll read it more carefully later!). Anyway, what I ask is:
What is the function of life? Why anything in particular has to have a function? I can't see any particular function in life per se. |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2004 : 17:06:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JerryB
And the evidence you have that my heart came from fish would be....um....what? Don't you know this goes against everything we know in science? I hate to break this to you, but species can only give birth to the same species. Fish do not have litters of squirrels. You guys seem to be living in a fantasy-land.
This is THE classic Creationist anti-evolution argument. 
Now there is no doubt at all that this is a savant Verlch.  |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2004 : 18:01:50 [Permalink]
|
Siberia:
I don't think that life in itself is a function, either.
All things and/or concepts do not have a function. A function is defined as object A working either alone or with other parts, causing object B (or could be another letter depending on how many parts are causing it) to actively do something (or in information theory, communicate something).
A hammer laying in the bushes has no function. But when I pick it up to drive a nail, it begins to function with me. I am object A, the hammer is object B and the nail going into the wood is object C. Object A provides the energy necessary for object B to cause object C to actively do something: go into the wood.
Remove either functioning part, me or the hammer and the nail cannot be driven.
When a part has a specific function, or plays an important role in that the overall system could not function as a system, reduces the function of that system without that part, or causes the system to be unable to communicate a message as complex as it did before the part was removed it is said to be specified. It is when these kinds of parts grow in number that specified complexity increases.
There is a concept in science called an upper probability bound that calculates just how much information nature can generate. Before Dembski came along, mathematician Emil Borel mathematically set that limit at 10^50 meaning that anything with less of a chance than 1 chance in 10^50 of occurring cannot occur in reality.
Bill Dembski came along and based that upper probability bound on both math and science:
Dembski bases the UPB on the number of elementary particles in the observable universe, the duration of the universe until its heat death and Planck time. He writes: "Accordingly, specified information of complexity greater than 500 bits cannot reasonably be attributed to chance. This 500-bit ceiling on the amount of specified complexity attributable to chance constitutes a universal complexity bound for CSI."
Here is Dembski's reasoning: the number of elementary particles in the known universe are estimated to be 10^80. The smallest physically meaningful amount of time is Planck time, 10^45, roughly the number of Planck-time intervals in one second, and 10^25 is more than ten million times the age of our Milky Way galaxy in seconds:
______1______ __1__
10^80 x 10^45 x 10^25 = 10^-150
So, given this universal probability bound, anything with a probability less than 10^–150 (Also interpreted in the positive as 1 chance in 10^150) can be safely dismissed as too unlikely to ever happen in reality given any credible length of time.
But the simplest organism has many times this amount of specified complexity showing it to be designed.
|
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2004 : 19:30:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JerryB
Thank you. The book entitled ORIGINS: The Science of Intelligent Design will be pre-released in Feb. 05.
Oh, you're still talking to me? Which publishing house will be offering your book?
By the way, I found it particularly amusing that you dismissed as "irrelevancy" my suggestion that your premise of current-day conditions existing in pre-biotic times is fallacious. It's the very basis of your entire chirality argument, and you call it irrelevant. Absolutely amazing.
But to continue...quote:
The second law states this: With any spontaneous event or reaction, entropy will tend to increase.
Yes, but you've conveniently not defined the term "entropy." In thermodynamics (which is the T in 'SLOT'), "Entropy is merely the way to measure the energy that spreads out in a process (as a function of temperature)." This applies to "complex macroevultion" how, precisely?quote:
Yet, complex macroevolution, and I want the entire thread to concentrate on this line because I'm not talking about evolution, I'm talking about complex macroevolution...
And yet, you talk about so many others things, as well - can't you stay on your own topic?quote:
...Complex macroevolution states that through billions of speciations, all or at least most resulting in organisms more complex than the progenitor, homo sapiens were produced from a uni-celled critter.
No, that's the definition of "common descent," at best. Evolution, of all sorts (complex, macro, or otherwise), only states that a change in the proportions of genes in populations will occur over time. But, even common descent doesn't talk about "more complex" descendants, because it's not necessarily true. After all, the other great apes (chimps, orangutans, and gorillas) have 48 chromosomes to our measly 46. Which species is more complex?quote:
Either Carnot, Clausius, Boltzman, Kelvin, Gibbs, Schrodinger, Shannon, Feynman and Prigogine, some of them Nobel Prize winners are all wrong, or Darwin who was not even a scientist was wrong. I know who I will run with.
Sorry, but it is you who are wrong. Shannon knew well that his 'entropy' is not the same thing as Carnot's 'entropy'. In fact, only Carnot, Clausius and Kelvin, it seems to me, talk about precisely the same kind of entropy. Shannon's entropy is measured by a completely different formula than Clausius', for example. And Prigogine's entropy "addresses what is called far-from equilibrium thermodynamics which looks at nonlinear dynamic processes and self-organizing systems such as the cells of our body... The important effect of Prigogine's Entropy is that the total system, entropy change of any open system, dST, can be positive, negative, or zero. Systems for which dST < 0 (i.e., where entropy is decreasing) are said to be self-organizing (Çambel, 1993)." Ah, self-organizing systems - like biological ones - can have negative entropy change.
Darwin doesn't appear to have mentioned entropy in his work. How are his theories - ages old by now - comparable to energy, statistics and/or information?quote:
There are several different entropies in thermodynamics, one of them being thermodynamic entropy, but no single entropy of thermodynamics.
Really? Can you present evidence of more than one type of thermodynamic entropy?quote:
I simply let my arguments stand via math and science. I don't particularly care that someone agrees with them or does not. Can they refute the science and math? Then do it.
But all you do is sit there and claim that the refutation doesn't exist, or you move the goalposts. Neither is scientific or mathematical.quote:
And the evidence you have that my heart came from fish would be....um....what? Don't you know this goes against everything we know in science?
And your evidence for that claim is what, exactly?quote:
I hate to break this to you, but species can only give birth to the same species. Fish do not have litters of squirrels.
Nice straw-man argument you've got there. Evolutionary theory does not predict that fish will bear squirrels, or anything close to squirrels.quote:
You guys seem to be living in a fantasy-land.
Hey, you're the one claiming (without providing evidence) that the genetic content of DNA follows some version of some sort of "second law" at some unknown level of complexity change, but not below that level.quote:
Ricky, this is not science. How can you support this experimentally?
Nice straw-man you've got there. Since when is all science supported through experimentation. I'd enjoy seeing how you support your argument that "complex macroevolution" defies the "second law." I believe, by your own words, you've shown your argument to not be scientific.quote:
How could you ever falsify it or satisfy the strict rigors of the scientific method? You cannot. You're reading way too much talk-origin and not near enough text-books that teach real science.
Unfortunately, it is only the scientifically naive who believe that science is restricted to deduction and experiment.quote:
I hate to break this to you, but there is not a single shred of evidence to show one species magically morphing into another.
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
