SmackdownHotel
Golden Member
- May 19, 2000
- 1,214
- 0
- 0
Irregardless, the proof you seek is in the Genome. Did you know that nearly all animals carry a mutation gene sequence that when activated causes massive mutation rates in the population?
Originally posted by: ValsalvaYourHeartOut
Originally posted by: monotony
Where else in science does order come from disorder? I'm supposed to believe that the longer we wait, the more order is restored in the universe? Things are COMING TOGETHER by chance, just because we've waited long enough? Seem strange to anyone else?
It would only seem strange to someone not well-versed in biology. They teach this in AP/Honors Biology in High School or in any biology class in any half-rate college...even at UC Riverside, I would surmise.
The answer to this question is two-fold:
1) Let's consider two oxygen atoms at a reasonable temperature. When these two oxygen atoms approach each other, the will spontaneously form a covalent bond and become O2. The lay person might argue that this is "order" coming from "disorder" and that this violates thermodynamic laws. In reality, each individual oxygen atom is more stable (at a lower energy state) when bonded to the other -- that is, as O2. In effect, the combined arrangement of orbitals and shared electrons is actually more disorderly. Thus, when you use the terms "order" and "disorder," you have to use them strictly in thermodynamic terms (e.g. Gibbs energy), not in semantic terms.
2) However, more orderly molecules arise spontaneously all the time. How do you think you store sugar as glycogen in your muscles? Our body has a buttload of so-called ANABOLIC pathways that produce substances that are more thermodynamically orderly (less entropy) and at a higher energy state. The reason we are able to do this is something called the coupled reaction. Our biochemical pathways use the energy released from breaking down a complex substance into simpler ones in order to construct more complex ones from simpler ones.
This concept is very basic for anyone in the natural sciences. Thus, an increase in order might seem strange to you, but not to anyone with basic science knowledge (and i'm not talking about anything advanced here.)
Valsalva
My point is this... "Chance" does not cause anything.
Things that are caused by processes that we observe to be "random" we associate with increasing disorder, not more complex design.
Random genetic mutations are claimed to be a key factor by which simple life forms evolve into more complex ones. A scientific hypothesis is tested through laboratory experiment/observation and theoretical analysis. Regarding random genetic mutations being a plausible factor for evolution to occur, we can conclude the following: In a theoretical sense, the claim fails based on sheer probabilities and statistics.
Randomness is associated with disorder, and disorder is not associated with selection.
In an empirical sense, the claim fails, since no one has demonstrated that random genetic mutations have created innovative functionality. They have never been observed to create more complex or functionally different kinds of life forms.
The important thing to remember is that random genetic mutations are the consequence of transcriptional errors and random noise corrupting highly coded information. If we took the binary file of Win 2k, and changed random bits in the code, that we would actually at some point get new features? No. Same deal w/ life, except on another level of complexity.
Ice is not more disordered than water.
So you think that either of those two examples are relevant at all here? Neither of those two examples have anything to do with what I was talking about. I find it interesting that you feel it necessary to be condescending in your post to try to get your point across. So let me clarify...I am not talking about an insignificant O2 covalent bond. I am also not talking about our body BUILDING complex substances that it needs to survive. What our body builds, and the oxygen bonds you speak of, are totally irrelevant to the argument that over time, things move toward chaos and not order.
Regarding random genetic mutations being a plausible factor for evolution to occur, we can conclude the following: In a theoretical sense, the claim fails based on sheer probabilities and statistics. Randomness is associated with disorder, and disorder is not associated with selection.
In an empirical sense, the claim fails, since no one has demonstrated that random genetic mutations have created innovative functionality. They have never been observed to create more complex or functionally different kinds of life forms.
The important thing to remember is that random genetic mutations are the consequence of transcriptional errors and random noise corrupting highly coded information. If we took the binary file of Win 2k, and changed random bits in the code, that we would actually at some point get new features? No. Same deal w/ life, except on another level of complexity.
Originally posted by: DielsAlder
Monotony probably goes here.
Originally posted by: exp
Monotony:
You are plagiarizing the work of another individual. Needless to say, such conduct is highly unethical and intellectually dishonest. It has no place on ATOT or anywhere else. In the future either give credit where credit is due or put some thought into writing your own posts.
Originally posted by: Tominator
New lies, old lies, lies are lies and as I've pointed out science lies all the time.
Wrong, you must be thinking of your flawed and backwards religious scriptures.
you and all the scientist on the globe STILL cannot claim that life originated from one or even a hundred creatures.
THAT was the purpose of the theory of evolution in the begining and that has not changed.
Wrong again. Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, but the origin of speciation. Again it does not surprise me that you still fail to grasp that simple concept.
You and I do not know how we got here and are really no closer than we were ten years ago or a hundred.
True, but evolution never set out to answer that question anyways, so it's a moot point.
Biblical scolars
An oxymoron.
Science travels blindly on!
Hardly. Keep marching on, Christian soldier and keep listening to your "biblical scholars." LOL, the blind leading the blind.
Unless I'm mistaken, the ultimate source of monotony's posts is a series of essays by one Garth D. Wiebe.Whose work is he plagiarizing?
Your posts display some small differences from Wiebe's original arguments, suggesting that you changed the wording intentionally. OTOH, perhaps some intermediate is responsible for the alterations. Regardless, you were not merely using Wiebe's work as inspiration for your arguments--they are almost word-for-word identical to the source from which they were stolen. At that point "citing references" would not even be sufficient, you are obligated to use quotations.I apologize for not posting this earlier, but as soon as I cite the reference, people do not want to listen to the facts. I won't lie, all this research isn't mine.
Even if that were true it would not give you the right to pass his writing off as your own. But at any rate there was more than "facts" in that post of yours. The statement that "evolution requires an expanding gene pool", for example, is categorically false. Evolution can occur in a shrinking gene pool. I don't feel like reentering this debate right now so I will stop there. Suffice to say that Wiebe's work is hardly undisputed and on the contrary is chock full of errors. Read it at your own risk.But the facts are still not disputed.
Originally posted by: monotony
Most of the information posted comes from http://www.icr.org I apologize for not posting this earlier, but as soon as I cite the reference, people do not want to listen to the facts. I won't lie, all this research isn't mine. But the facts are still not disputed.
Originally posted by: monotony
Originally posted by: DielsAlder
Monotony probably goes here.
Way to contribute to the thread DielsAlder. I'm sure everyone is now more informed about evolution because of your post.
This is just another example of Christian hypocrisy...but wait, the Bible doesn't say anything about plagiarism, so I guess it's okay then.
I've tried to read the book _Darwin's Black Box_, which was written by a microbiologist. . .
Originally posted by: Babbles
I've tried to read the book _Darwin's Black Box_, which was written by a microbiologist. . .
I love how people try to cite that book when arguing against evolutionary theory. The guy that wrote that book has basically been laughed at and ridiculed in many circles. Back a few years ago when I was still an undergrad, he came to our university to talk about his book. The faculty and students just about ripped him a new one. He really just doesn't 'get it'.
Here is an interesting site I found that cites sources reviewing and critising Behe.
http://www.world-of-dawkins.com/Catalano/box/behe.htm
One of the things that gets me the most when people try to debunk evolutionary science is how clueless you guys really are. Obviously haven't taken any upper level biology/biochemistry in an university. Maybe took some in biology or some freshman college biology, maybe read a book and think you actually understand it all. Really shows when people throw out the Second Law of Thermodynamics; they read it in some book or some website, think they understand it but obviously just don't get it.
Heck, if you understood it, most of you folks wouldn't be posting half the stuff you do.
If you all think you are just so smart and can defy standing scientific theory, where are your credentials? You folks have the PhD(s) and laboratory experience to disprove what already has been proven?
The audacity that some of you guys and gals display on a messageboard thinking that you have all the answers and science and scientists are for the most part aethists and liars, just making stuff up.
Get a degree(s), do some research then you will have the credentials and experience to make a solid arguement to disprove scientific facts and theories.
:| I assume that you did not see monotony's post before it was deleted. I did, and I can assure you that it was copied almost word-for-word from another individual. You can debate "who actually 'owns' a thought" all you like--there is no excuse for plagiarism. Period.I should start a thread on intellectual property. Who actually "owns" a thought?
clearly follows from most of your post but it does not follow from this:I'm actually stating that people who only plagiarize material should be easy to hammer with logical arguments.
The implication of this second statement of yours (actually first chronologically) is that plagiarism is no big deal. This is reinforced by your cursory dismissal of monotony's transgression with the phrase "So he plagiarized."I should start a thread on intellectual property. Who actually "owns" a thought?