I cannot answer that, but neither can evolution.
I see you know almost as much about the law as you do about evolution.
I’m giving short answers for the time being. I’m not really keen on the discussion starting by you simply cutting and pasting an entire web page and then asking everyone else to put real thought into it. Before beginning, you’d best calibrate your terminology. Evolution is change, this is readily observable, even by the most ardent creationist. It is natural selection, the mechanism that drives this change that you have issue with. That is unless you are certain that nothing does change, in which case you need some real help.
- Science is unsure how matter came to dominate the universe. Immediately after the phenomenon, matter and anti-matter radiated outward. Some amount of matter would have been obliterated by collision with anti-matter, but luckily for us, enough persisted to form the universe as we know it.
What reason do you have to claim that information and order increased? Certainly heavenly bodies formed, but in the system as a whole the laws of thermodynamics hold true. Keep in mind that in this case, the system is the entire universe.
-
These laws were not written, nor did they occur. To borrow from prayer I learned as a child: They were here in the beginning, are now, and ever shall be. They acted upon and shaped the universe, not vice versa.
-
So you would like to rewrite the 2nd law of thermodynamics to include open systems and then point out that after your changes, it no longer works??
-
What does information theory (which you also misunderstand) have to do with evolution? Are you still forcing the system open?
-
What’s a dead vs. living chemical. Amino acid to protein; protein to virus. Life is chemical, and the progression seems straightforward enough.
-
Chance? No; random variation acted on by natural selection, the building blocks being simple sugars.
-
Yep, life is ‘complex’. Evolution is how it became that way, and natural selection is what drove the changes.
-
This makes no sense; there are many fossils which illustrate a progression of characteristics. What’s more, small changes are observable even during man’s short history: witness the various breeds of domestic dogs. It’s a fact that animals evolve, more accurately, you take issue with the ‘why and how’ and not the idea that it happens.
-
Why do you assume all intermediate steps lack use? It’s convenient to picture half eyes and partial wings, but come on now. From light sensitive chemistry (rhodopsin for example), to light sensitive cells, eyespots, pinhole eyes, etc.
-
Prior to reproduction, there was simple asexual exchange of genetic material (conjugation.) Slightly more advanced, fission is still an asexual process, and it progresses from here.
-
Why assume that photosynthesis must either pop into being all at once or not at all? An inefficient form of photosynthesis is practiced by some bacteria. Were you actually picturing an oak tree with no system to take in nutrients?
-
This one is dumb. In certain cases, this behavior was simply selected for. Survival strategy need not always be eating the other guy.
-
Didn’t I answer this in #9?
-
Metamorphosis is not an example of a single organism evolving. It is a simple step in the maturing process for these organisms… on one they adapted through selection. As far as where the ‘directions’ are: it’s built into the genetic code.
-
It is relatively easy. You are just slow on the uptake. It is natural selection as the mechanism by which evolution takes place that has required extensive study.
-
Only if you lack another mechanism…
How come we drive on a parkway and park on a driveway?
Where did that “all your base belong to us” thing come from?
Abortion, abortion, abortion!
Mods are fascists!
Blah. What boring nonsense.
Fair use laws don’t cover it if you take the whole of a document and “quote” it. But that’s not particularly germane to this discussion; we’ll let the mods handle it.
Au contraire. Starting with the first lifeform, there was a sequence of beneficial mutations that led to the wolf. Of course, that’s probably oversimplified, but it’s good enough for right now.
Unlike creationists, Hiyruu, I don’t pretend to be expert in numerous scientific disciplines, so I will address only a few of your points:
3.) If you will read a work on physical chemistry, you will find these assertions are simply untrue. A text on physical chemistry incidentally contains the equations underlying the laws of thermodynamics. You can reverse disorder, or entropy, in one place, providing entropy is greatly increased in another place. The energy from the Sun, contrary to your assertion, is enough to fuel the evolution of life. The solar system is deteriorating gradually as the sun will become a red dwarf in about five billion years, probably destroying Earth and the inner planets in the process. The universe is deteriorating gradually as heat will eventually be distributed evenly and entroyp will be at a maximum.
5.) You want to cite some scientific evidence of these claims? Most of the creationists who make statements like “The probability of the simplest imaginable replicating system forming by itself from non-living chemicals has been calculated to be so very small as to be essentially zero - much less than one chance in the number of electron-sized particles that could fit in the entire visible universe!” assume that chemicals combine randomly. They don’t; they combine according to well established principles. Read some of John Dalton’s atomic theory. Also read about Urey’s experiments.
6.) Give us a break. There are several organisms that have DNA or RNA, but not both.
8.) Cynothagus, icthyostega, archaeopteryx, need I go on? Evolutionists cite the scarcity of the fossil record because fossils are formed only extremely unusual conditions. As for concentrating on bones, these comprise the overwhelming majority of fossils – bone is usually the only material which can be preserved. I would think anyone who understands the concept of fossilization would grasp this.
13.) This is, simply put, a stupid analogy. If I were to lose a finger tonight, my hand would not be complete, but it would still be far from useless. I have written computer programs that do not do everything I wish, but still can be used for some purposes.
15.) All scientists aver that evolution is a process that takes thousands, millions and billions of years. It is simply unreasonable and willfully obtuse to expect that you can measure such changes in days, weeks or even centuries.
16.) Go look at the Grand Canyon from its north rim. Go into a cavern and look at a helicitite. Incredibly simple forms from simple processes and nary a hint of intelligent design.
You’re wrong.
Even if you indicate the name of the author in 2 inchs high bold characters and sing his praises in verses, a copyrighted material is still copyrighted. You’ve no right to reproduce it, except if he allowed you to do so (and you have a proof of it) or if he stated clearly that his work was free from copyright.
You seem to be leaning heavily on established scientific principles to support your position. Since it appears that you at least acknowledge as valid the method of establishing theories, what explanation do you offer as being superior to evolution? (Hint: remembver, your theory has to be in accordance with the same fundamental physical laws of the universe that you used as amunition to “debunk” evolution.)
Sorry, folks, I meant to say incredibly complex forms from simple processes in the last post. Must do a better job of proofreading.
It is perfectly reasonable to believe that DNA and RNA were able to work together once they both appeared. Look up the teleological fallacy.
Hiryuu:
If you are really interested in knowing the answers to those questions, spend an hour on http://www.talkorigins.org. I’ll just say that because no one has yet.
Your list has been debated over hundreds of times on this board. A reposting of the same list verbatim lends nothing new to the debate. Those of us who have been here longer than a week (since the last big evolution thread) will not reply to the points in depth.
Here’s a suggestion. Pick out one of these points. Do the appropriate creationist background reading, and then read the corresponding evolution arguments on talkorigins. Come back with a new take on things and we will be glad to debate.
In short, though, most of your arguments are the same. “Evolution is impossible because it defies common sense.” We don’t see things becoming more ordered, we don’t see macroevolution over night. This is the same as arguing that nobody won the Powerball this week because the odds were too slim. Given enough time, given enough energy, given enough different permutations, we have evolved. We are the winners of the Powerball. It has happened. Evolution is our only coherent theory to explain how it happened, without invocation of something extraneous to the system. Our entire science is based on the fact that we don’t need anything extraneous to the system.
ultrafilter wrote:
It is also now hypothesized that RNA appeared first, and DNA evolved later. There are apparently a few extremely simple bacteria out there that have no DNA, and use RNA exclusively for storing their genetic “plan.”
[hijack]
Wecome back, Coyote. Where have you been?
[/hijack]
Yeah, I had heard that before. It certainly seems reasonable.
[Slight hijack]
Jab1, I have been busy with other things. Thanks, I would never have thought anyone missed me.
**1. Something from nothing? **
“The “Big Bang”, the most widely accepted theory of the beginning of the universe, states that everything developed from a small dense cloud of subatomic particles and radiation which exploded, forming hydrogen (and some helium) gas. Where did this energy/matter come from? How reasonable is it to assume it came into being from nothing? And even if it did come into being, what would cause it to explode?”
This is the third or fourth thread in as many weeks to state something like this.
Why is it that the “scientific theory”, IE, ‘The Big Bang’ has to not only know, but prove where the energy/matter came from, or what “exploded” to produce the Big Bang, yet when I ask “Where did God come from?”, I’m told, in effect, He is eternal, He has always existed, He created the Heavens and the Earth and therefore Trancends the Universe, therefore our concept of ‘where He came from’ has no meaning.
In other words, apparently, a scientist has to account for the Big Bang energy, then, I’m sure, account for where it was before that, and then where it came from before that.
Yet to a creationist, it’s perfectly acceptable to simply say “God has always existed unto eternity.”
Am I missing something?
[sub]::: Ahem :::[/sub]
Hitler!
[sub]::: thank you :::[/sub]
Others have replied point by point, so I am adding this:
-
Something from nothing?
If you look at atomic theory and the evidence, one can make the point that that is the case. We are, at the atomic level, almost made of nothing. -
Physical laws an accident?
New theories do take that into account. But this is the problem of being in a universe were the rules allow life to arise: only in a universe were those laws exist, intelligent life can arise that will ask those silly questions. -
Order from disorder?
An eternal Hell is impossible when we consider the second law of thermodynamics
Seriously: we are not in a closed system, and we do pay our debt to the second law: it is called death. Have you ever put strings or cables in a box in an orderly fashion only to find out later that they are organized in annoying tangles? Well, for us that disorder is bad, for biological functions that disorder is an opportunity, That goes for RNA and DNA.
………
8.Where are the transitional fossils?
Many examples but lets look at the whale: There were until recently no transitional fossils for the whale, but now two, from different ages, showing different stages of turning into an aquatic beast, were found.
Again, transitional fossils will be hard to find, but once paleontologists had a theory of were they could had lived (in the coastlines before the whales became aquatic) the scientists concentrated there and, it took awhile, but here they are.
- Could an intermediate even survive?
See #8
10.Reproduction without reproduction?
Several creatures do reproduce without males when there are none around, but the offspring do return to sexual reproduction.
………
-
It should be easy to show evolution.
You forget your wisdom teeth. -
Complex things require intelligent design folks!
And also an intelligent producer, an intelligent script writer, an intelligent second unit. etc. I always thought that argument was good only to polytheists.
GIGObuster wrote:
And don’t forget the appendix, the coccyx, and the little toe! Oh, and those people born with extra vestigial nipples below their “normal” nipples.
Applause
Exactly. I’m here to fight ignorance, not bang my head against a wall.