Which would come as a total surprise to tens of thousands of scientists who have dedicated their lives to producing all the evidence you refuse to admit exists. Read ANY biological journal article. ANY. Most of these, of course, were religion-derived beliefs before the advent of the scientific method. And the rest were discredited using that method. And to see how they get it, read ANY biological journal article. ANY. Wow. No scientific theory has ever been proven, nor ever will be. Proof is for closed formal systems, not for open empirical explanations. The theory of evolution rests on a larger body of empirical results than every other field of science put together. This is the case because biology is extremely complicated, variable, and messy. Any simple explanation will encounter endless exceptions, indicating that the underlying processes science tries to explain are a LONG way from superficial. But today, the theory of evolution is the most secure theory in all of science. And these zealous bluffers have studied the history and the mechanisms for over 150 years, they have performed many millions of tests and experiments, they have written them up in incredible detail in every journal (and you might try reading one). This is what makes your catechism annoying - you are like Behe on the stand in Dover, who claimed there was NO evidence for the evolution of the immune system. The defense lawyer, prepared for this abject denial, started piling papers and textbooks onto Behe's lap, all of which were specifically about the evolution of the immune system. Eventually the pile got so heavy Behe complained that it was uncomfortable (it was at least three feet high by that time). And Behe admitted he hadn't read a single one of those sources -- and STILL claimed there was no research into the evolution of the immune system! You wouldn't be Behe by any chance, would you? And, not even knowing what your terms mean and not having read a single book or paper or journal, you choose to believe what ignorant people tell you. You call this "skepticism". Except, once again, the scientific method is applied thousands of times a day all over the world, and there are many dozens of biological journals publishing the reports, and findings are being both replicated, and used to created predictions verified by further experiments, as is done in proper science. I'm sorry the scientific method, having been applied so assiduously by so many people for so many years, has produced such an enormous amount of consistent evidence uncongenial to your preferences. But you can keep dreaming (I suggest you avoid antibiotics that bacteria have evolved resistence too, though.)
Entropy: This is a reference to the Second Law of Thermodynamics which states that the entropy (thermodynamic movement toward equilibrium) of an isolated system never decreases, because isolated systems spontaneously evolve toward thermodynamic equilibriumthe state of maximum entropy. Anti-evolutionists, particularly Creationists often claim that evolution must be false because it defies the Second Law of Thermodynamics-- "the principle that everything must go from order to disorder and increased complexity violates this physical law". One of the glaring flaws in Creationist argument can be found in the law itself. Evolution, and biology in general is not an isolated system. Secondly, equilibrium as stated in the law is not interchangeable with disorder. Furthermore the law does not state that a system cannot increase in order or complexity, but that a decrease in one part must be accompanied by a greater increase in entropy in another. Some biological systems which defy entropy. a) the fusion of gametes and the process of deriving a complex organism from more simple cells. i) The complete metamorphosis of some insects (egg-larvae-pupae-adult) ii) Growth & development from non-differentiated cells within a seed, to complex reproductive adult plants.
If evolution defies thermodynamics, then so does the act of babymaking.... After all, you're taking the simple (assorted carbs, proteins, and fats) and assembling them into a new being. POSSIBLE? I THINK NOT!!!! COMPLEXITY IS INCREASED!!!! On another note, OP likes to claim that he is being scientific, but he isn't. There have been demonstrated instances of traits being added via mutation and then selected on by natural processes, resulting in evolution. Some have even been in a laboratory setting. For example: http://www.newscientist.com/article...olutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html#.UjgvHMZ6ZJ8 In this experiment, after about 31,500 generations of E.Coli bacteria lived and died, they spontaneously developed the capability to metabolize the citrate found in their growth medium, an ability which is not present in normal E.Coli. This trait came to be via mutation, and was selected for due to the processes inherent in natural selection, resulting in evolution of the bacteria in the cultures to metabolize a new compound. Bam. Evolution. Demonstrated in the lab. If OP is truthful, he will now examine this evidence logically, and I await his reply. Oh, and before you claim that it's "micro-evolution" or whatever other term you'd like to make up / borrow from Creationist hacks, this is a DEMONSTRATED evolution of a NEW ability not present in any form in the original animal. It would be akin to humans suddenly being able to gain sustenance from leaves and grass. It's an increase in the complexity of this organism via natural processes. By your definition, that is MACRO-evolution.
A couple of things. First: I have made no attempt yet to define micro or macro evolution, so describing "my definition of Macro-evolution" seems somewhat odd and far reaching. Secondly, I have not made anything up, nor will I. But I will, as I have done here, with examples, point out the flaws, misconceptions and distortions presented by anti-evolutionists. When I "borrow from creationist hacks" my intent is to dispute their claims, not support them.
Ardipithecus Ramidus is very interesting, & a good example of trying to manipulate data to prove a theory, rather than letting the data speak for itself. There certainly is no overwhelming evidence for many of the claims & assumptions that the discoverers of these fossils. 1. the dating is circular. It was found in strata that is assumed to be 4.4 M yrs old. 2. The conclusions are still a matter of debate, as many assumptions are made, & gaps are filled with speculation. The papers from 'Science' published in 1994 had 'probably' 78 times, & forms of 'suggest' 117 times. These are speculative guesses, not anything that can be construed as proven science. "Is Ardipithecus a hominin?that question will likely dominate the paleoanthropological debate over this fossil taxon for years to come." source So even with the debate over these fossils not having any consensus within the evolutionary community, you are quick to trumpet this as a 'transitional species'. That is a pretty bold move, & smells more of desperation & bluff, rather than anything 'scientific'. All you have is an extinct apelike creature. You do not have a complete fossil skeleton, yet make dogmatic assertions about this find, based completely on assumed dating & fitting it into the evolutionary timeline. This is not proof of anything, except the desperation of evolutionists, & the yearnings of researchers to make a name for themselves. Here is the assumed drawing and the actual fossils. So many liberties have been taken, & assumptions made, i am surprised any self respecting scientists would go along with this fantasy. You may cling to this imagined scenario, if you want, but i see no compelling reason to embrace evolution on account of this fossil. It is NOT a transitional species, definitively. It can be imagined as such, but that is speculation. Do you see the same face as the drawing? It seems pretty plain to me the skull of the creature was much more protruded, rather than flat faced like a human. This is artistic license, used for propaganda, not science. In 1992, the Middle Awash Research Team, co-led by [Tim] White, made a discovery that ended Lucys reign. About 75 kilometers south of Lucys resting place, at Aramis in the Afar depression of Ethiopia, the team found fossils of a chimp-sized ape dated to about 4.4 million years ago. The team named this species Ardipithecus ramidus, drawing on two words from the Afar language suggesting that it was humanitys root species. But skeptics argue that the published fossils are so chimplike that they may represent the long-lost ancestor of the chimp, not human, lineage. The next field season, team member Yohannes Haile-Selassie found the first of more than 100 fragments that make up about half of a single skeleton of this species, including a pelvis, leg, ankle and foot bones, wrist and hand bones, a lower jaw with teethand a skull. But in the past 8 years no details have been published on this skeleton. Why the delay? In part because the bones are so soft and crushed that preparing them requires a Herculean effort, says White. The skull is squished, he says, and the bone is so chalky that when I clean an edge it erodes, so I have to mold every one of the broken pieces to reconstruct it. The team hopes to publish in a year or so, and White claims that the skeleton is worth the wait, calling it a phenomenal individual that will be the Rosetta stone for understanding bipedalism. (Ann Gibbons, In Search of the First Hominids, Science, 295:1214-1219 (February 15, 2002).) Now, for 15 yrs the researchers rebuilt & filled in the gaps of the skeleton with their assumptions, & polish the findings so it would be hailed as a groundbreaking discovery of human evolution. Instead of releasing their findings as they found them, we have manipulated data.. polishing the research & releasing only what they want to produce the desired effect. This is finely tuned propaganda, not peer reviewed science. You can buy this, if you want, but my skepticism won't allow me to swallow this. There is nothing in these fossils to compel the conclusion, imo. This kind of number juggling means very little. Yes, all living things have a genetic blueprint. It is put together in very similar ways. Creationists argue a similarity of design, so i don't see how this is a factor. All matter has similar construction. There are protons, electrons, & similarities in the atomic structure. There is nothing compelling about this to force a evolutionary conclusion. You are behind the times in neanderthal evolution.. for a long time paleoanthropologists have viewed Neanderthals as too dull and too clumsy to use efficient tools, never mind organize a hunt and divvy up the game. Fact is, this site, along with others across Europe and in Asia, is helping overturn the familiar conception of Neanderthals as dumb brutes. Recent studies suggest they were imaginative enough to carve artful objects and perhaps clever enough to invent a language. for a long time paleoanthropologists have viewed Neanderthals as too dull and too clumsy to use efficient tools, never mind organize a hunt and divvy up the game. Fact is, this site, along with others across Europe and in Asia, is helping overturn the familiar conception of Neanderthals as dumb brutes. Recent studies suggest they were imaginative enough to carve artful objects and perhaps clever enough to invent a language. Neanderthals, traditionally designated Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, were not only human but also, it turns out, more modern than scientists previously allowed. In the minds of the European anthropologists who first studied them, Neanderthals were the embodiment of primitive humans, subhumans if you will, says Fred H. Smith, a physical anthropologist at LoyolaUniversity in Chicago who has been studying Neanderthal DNA. They were believed to be scavengers who made primitive tools and were incapable of language or symbolic thought.Now, he says, researchers believe that Neanderthals were highly intelligent, able to adapt to a wide variety of ecologicalzones, and capable of developing highly functional tools to help them do so. They were quite accomplished. source Neanderthals were human. They buried their dead, used tools, had a complex social structure, employed language, and played musical instruments. Neanderthal anatomy differences are extremely minor and can be for the most part explained as a result of a genetically isolated people that lived a rigorous life in a harsh, cold climate. source Since drawing about 60% of neanderthal dna, a lot has been discovered about them. They interbred with homo sapien. ~ 2 Billion people have neanderthal genes in them.. mostly european & asian. What does this tell us? They were the same species. Separate species cannot interbreed. They were merely a 'tribe' of humans that had unique physical features.. like many tribes today. Their genetic 'line' can be traced. They did not evolve separately, nor were they a distinct hominid species. They just 'looked different' than whatever normal 'homo sapiens' looked like. This was a problem for those in the evolution field. We were suspicious of the result, Reich says. We found signals of mixture and then worked very hard to make them go away. He tried for a year, to no avail. Finally, Reich and his colleagues had no choice but to conclude that Neanderthals had mated with humans. They estimated that the DNA of living Asians and Europeans was (on average) 2.5 percent Neanderthal. source We are spoon fed these kinds of images from infancy.. They are the result of a creative mind, but not anything that can be called science. Evolutionists are so desperate to validate their 'theory' that the fall victim too easily to any scammer or self seeking con man looking to make a name for himself. Instead of trying to force the data into the theory, why not try something novel? Use the scientific method. Let the data speak for itself, rather than distorting it into some philosophical propaganda.
Good commentary, Lynn.. but of course, this is a scientific discussion about origins, so the religious element is not really a factor. I do admit, from years of experience, that it ALWAYS comes up in a discussion like this. I agree with you here, flint. I don't mind a debate, if there is meat in the rebuttal, but you seem to be looking for 'gotcha!' phrases & ridicule. I've made my points, & rebutted your posts. There does not seem to be much more to say.
You may quote from ANY biological journal to show how this 'adding traits' & increasing complexity in the dna works. We are not talking about variability within a genetic code, but jumps to new forms & increased complexity. How do you go from 2 to 23 chromosomes, or 24 to 23? We cannot do it scientifically, or observe it ever happening, yet this is asserted as fact. It is sci fi, blurred as science. People watch too many movies & think it is real.
You are making it too easy ... Ardipithecus : If you look at the photos you posted it is clear that the bones found include most of the skull and the pelvis . There is only one difference that throws a species either in the chimp or in the human line and this is bipedality ! humans are the only bipedal ape ( in the past there was another line known as paranthropus that was bipedal but it didn't survived) . The way leg bones and the skull attack to the spine shows that this girl was bipedal and this makes it human line . "Monkey like" means absolutely nothing and if you knew what you are talking about you wouldn't even think of mentioning protruding face because ALL of our ancestors had one , even modern species who were not our ancestors had a protruding face like for example the Neanderthals . Tree of life : You still don't get it ! it is not about numbers , i just show you that the species with jaws are very few when compared to the overall variation and for sure have common ancestry, same goes to the species with eyes . If you lived in a town with 5.000 people and 100 of them were from 5 to 10 meters tall with skin in all the shades between green and blue and from 100 to 120 limbs while all the rest are 10 centimeters tall without limbs or skin you will not draw the conclusion that those 100 people are somewhat connected? I couldn't care less what creationists say Neanderthals : Where did i say that they were stupid of clumsy ? i know they had all the potential to be around today and become "better" than us but fact is that they were different. How different? enough to endure injury after injury during their lifetime because they never invented projectile weapons and because their blades were round instead of pointing . They had the same gene for language and the voice box so i don't see why they couldn't have a language . In case you don't know one of the first HS languages is still alive in South Africa and it is a whistling one , Neanderthals could whistle as well. Oh and by the way we coexisted with Homo Erectus in China and the Hobbit in Indonesia both hominids but very very different from us. Evolution : A theory is a comprehensive , tested , tried and thought scientific argument so you can never put it in brackets . The data is available to anyone and it is indeed speaking for itself . There is no such thing as "Evolutionists" , there is the reality of evolution and those who deny it because it conflicts with their wizard in the sky nonsense . I understand that you read as you go and this is commendable but you are obviously unfamiliar with a subject and it is a huge one , i feel kind of uncomfortable posting against people in complete ignorance over a topic so please take it as a chance to learn
Interesting points. But that is not the precise topic.. it is related, it can be argued, but if we want to examine the scientific aspect of entropy, we should begin another process. Make your hypothesis, support with data, & form your conclusions. The rest of us can examine both your science & your reasoning. This particular topic is more genetic.. if you want to use the entropy arguments within the dna discussion, it can connect. Well, in spite of the polemical tone of your post, you have some good points. I enjoyed the link, & it had some interesting conclusions. Not all of them are compelled by the evidence, but they are valid scientific conclusions, nevertheless. But first, a growing baby is not evidence of evolution. That is evidence of life, unless you are redefining evolution as life. We are examining evolution as a process of increasing complexity in living things.. that is how it is presented in almost every human institution. The growth of offspring has a mechanism.. the dna has the blueprint for life. It is followed, & the baby grows. But the blueprint seems to be hard wired.. it does NOT allow variation outside of its inner parameters. That is what we observe. Your example needs a bit more examination, which i will do as i have time. Others might chime in as well. I am curious why the 'bacteria suddenly acquired the ability to metabolise citrate' is assumed to be an acquired trait, or if it is definitely a mutation. I am also curious about the significance of this 'trait' whether it is acquired by mutation, or was inherent in the genes, somehow. But it is at least good data, & a REAL experiment, unlike most of the dogmatic assertions being made here. I also think you touched on the most obvious conclusion in your disclaimer. This does seem to be merely 'micro' evolution. It is very similar to some fruit fly experiments, where millions of generations were able to attain reproductive isolation. That is a pretty narrow definition of 'speciation', though it is very common. I find it ironic that it is used selectively with fruit flies, yet with neanderthals it is not. They are somehow a distinct species, even though they could & did breed with other humans.
To add just a note: The 2nd Law of Thermo also is actually more of a special case rather than an inviolable "law." While the exceptions are few, they are significant. Remember, entropy is an extensive property of physical systems (i.e. a measurable quantity). It is an energy divided by a temperature (usually measured in Joules per Degree Kelvin; J/K). Stepping back from biological to cosmic evolution, any passage of matter/energy through a singularity will have to also pass through a state of infinite temperature. All entropy in such a state is divided by infinity, and therefore reduced to zero. The singularity that demarcates the transition between what came before a "big bang event" and what came after would therefore "reset" universal entropy to zero regardless of what preceded. This is the key detail that invalidates entropy as evidence for a "beginning" of the universe.
No. It is not evidence of evolution per se, as that would actually be a red herring in terms of the argument offered. It is instead evidence (in fact an explicit demonstration) that biological systems are capable of increasing complexity without violating the second law of thermodynamics. It therefore elegantly refutes the claim that the latter prohibits the former. It does not. What an odd assertion; "the blueprint seems to be hard wired." That is actually not what we observe. What we observe is that the "blueprint" is mutable and fluid... even "identical twins" do not turn out identically. At least part of this is environmental or an accident of contingent and divergent embryology. But a vast amount of it is simply a result of DNA's incapacity for perfection. Every individual human being possesses somewhere between 100 and 200 unique and original point mutations (this counts only those within the active genes, and not those that take place in "junk DNA," in endogenous retroviruses or in "fossilized genes" that no longer express). Even me. Even you. We are all of us mutants. IIRC, about 40% of all such mutations are completely silent, since the DNA code is redundant. But the remaining 60% do nothing more than alter a single amino acid on a single protein... replenishing the genetic variation otherwise lost via natural selection. But point mutations, while replenishing genetic variation, do not account for increased genetic complexity. That is primarily generated by a replication error at the chromosomal level called a "gene duplication." It is among the more common replication errors, and of course in most cases it merely duplicates stretches of "junk DNA" or fails to encompass a complete active gene and so has no actual effect. But on those occasions when a complete gene is duplicated, the foundation has been laid for evolutionary innovation. One copy of the gene remains conserved for its original purpose, while the other is available for adjustment by point mutations for other uses; what Stephen Jay Gould called "exaptation." A great example is the tricolor vision found in Humans, Apes and Old World Monkeys. We can perceive a tricolored world because we possess three different opsin proteins in the cones of our retina, each "tuned" to a different frequency of visible light. Our relatives among the New World Monkeys (and most other mammals by the way) possess only two opsin proteins; resulting in a perceptive capacity akin to red-green color blindness. Human red-green color blindness is in fact the failure of one of our three opsin genes to express normally. How is it that we have three opsin genes while most of the rest of the class Mammalia has only two? About 40 million years ago (shortly after the primordial super continent had split into what became the Western and Eastern Hemispheres), an old world monkey experienced a replication error; one of the two preexisting opsin genes was duplicated so that this individual and its direct offspring would from then on have three. We can identify exactly which of the two preexisting genes was duplicated, since the replication error carried with it segments of junk DNA on either side of the opsin gene, and we can match the replication codon for codon. And we can date the mutation since that junk DNA carries the effects of the genetic clock more completely than do active genes as there is no conservative pressure to remove deleterious point mutations. Now... the gene duplication itself is by definition an increase in genetic information and complexity. Where before there were two functional opsin genes, afterwards there were three; a 50% increase in opsin genes. But that was merely an increase in quantity. It is the subsequent qualitative change that comprises evolutionary innovation. A total of 8 (yes... a mere 8 ) point mutations allowed the third gene to gradually "tune" that protein to a different, third frequency of light while conserving the previous two without interruption. Tricolor vision was born. And the profundity of the innovation had cascading effects across the rest of the genome/phenome. For example: Tricolor vision allowed the affected primates to identify food sources at a distance far more effectively than previously when they depended on smell. As smell became less important, selective pressure to maintain an excellent sense of smell concomitantly fell. A point mutation that "broke" one of the 1000 or so genes for smell became less likely to be selected out of the population. Hence, the 1000 or so olfaction genes present in most mammals was eventually winnowed down to a mere 400 such functional genes in Humans, Apes and Old World Monkeys. Do not mistake me... we still possess all 1000 of the genes. But about 60% of them don't work at all anymore. They are completely nonfunctional; fossilized genes left as remnants of a past when humans could smell like bloodhounds. Now... there is an exception among the New World Monkeys. While almost all of the 53 or so species of New World Monkeys posses bicolor vision (and retain the full suite of 1000 functioning smell genes) one species also experienced a gene duplication that gave it a third opsin gene, and hence tricolor vision. The ancestor of the modern Howler Monkeys experienced its own gene duplication about 10 million years ago. We know it was a different event and took place much more recently for the same reasons we can identify and date that of the Old World higher primates; the junk DNA that was carried along by the mutation. And guess what... the Howlers are also well along the path (though not as far as we are) to losing most of those now unnecessary olfactory genes as well. Most proteins actually have a readily identifiable evolutionary tree of their own, allowing evolutionary geneticists to identify which proteins split off from others through an act of gene duplication and when. The human blood clotting cascade is just one example of how gene duplications have driven an increase in complexity over time, fully refuting even the most specific ID claims regarding "irreducible complexity." And all without a single violation of the second law of thermo. His example is widely published. You should have no trouble following up. And yes... the capacity to metabolize citrate is conclusively shown to be a new mutation. In point of fact, any distinction between "micro" and "macro" evolution is entirely arbitrary. This is why the concepts are so flaccid, and receive scant attention among real researchers. Ignoring that as with many other chronospecies the specific relationship between modern humans and neandertals is more a matter of opinion than objective definition, evolution demands that there be continua of differences between populations undergoing an evolutionary transition. This is demanded as much by geometry as by biology. All irony is human irony. Nature does not care.
What was really interesting about Lenski's experiment (which is still ongoing, by the way) is that the ability to metabolize citrate was NOT the result of a single lucky mutation. The way the experiment was structured, and populations from every generation preserved, it was possible to identify the mutation after which citrate was metabolized, which happened after about (if I remember right) about 33,000 generations. But this mutation occurred also in populations who didn't get this new ability. Tracking backwards, Lensk found that a different mutation occurred at about 20,000 generations. That initial mutation was also not unique; other populations experienced it (or close enough). But at the time it occurred, it was a "neutral" mutation, neither helping nor hurting the bacteria. Because it was neutral, there was no conservation pressure, and most lineages lost it. The second mutation, by itself, was also neutral and also tended to be lost. But BOTH mutations together (occurring in either order) conferred the ability to metabolize citrate. And for the bacteria, this was indeed a "jump", because within their environment, it made them enormously more competitive and suited (or fit). (And notice the artifical distinction between whether this mutation was a mutation, or whether it was "acquired". Most of this discussion is like trying to discuss astronomy with someone who denies there's any "scientific evidence" of a telescope, announces that he simply refuses to read ANY linked references to telescopes, greets every presented description with "nyah nyah, you haven't proved anything" and THEN says "I've refuted all your arguments". Any sane astronomer would simply back slowly away, taking care not to back into his telescope!)
Once being a young earth creationist (before I went back to school) I had assumed that if evolution were wrong simple animals and plants would have less genetic material (therefore less possible genetic combinations) because genetic material would be lost simply because genetic material is not added as an organism becomes more complex. But guess what???...I soon found that bacteria and less "complex" forms of life have more possible genetic combinations than more "complex" organisms including humans. So there is a loss of genetic combinations as an aninmal (or plant) becomes more "complex". With this little bit of knowledge I soon understood that evolution is at least possible because all the genetic information is contained in less "complex" organisms. lets face it... an organisms genetic code is written (DNA) in four letters and the only difference is the way the "words" (protiens) are spelled. Follow???
You really need to stop telling lies. The image you posted showed "Nebraska man" Nebraska Man was proven wrong by the second scientist to examine the tooth. Note the important word their "Scientist" The total time Nebraska man was considered legitimate was 5 years. But no you present it here as proof of your claims. When the reality is if your claims were correct the discovery of the error would have been covered up and Nebraska man would be now part of our view of evolution. You constantly challenge evidence, but admit not being acquainted with the evidence enough to explain why it wrong. Very early on, before Darwin, naturalist studying fossils realized the value of teeth. If nothing else of a creature is available, teeth are by far the most direct indicator of what a creatures probably looked like. One vertebrae is enough to tell the height and length of a creature. How? because modern examples are studied and data points created. You find a neck with 7 vertebrae , and nothing else. You have a mammal. Humans have 7 neck vertebrae, giraffes have exactly the same. How the differences in the construction of those vertebrae, tell a lot about the creature we are dealing with. By constantly building on these similarities we find the associations of organisms. The evolution of the whale is one of the most complete we have. Why? Because the entire line of creatures collectively have a unique arrangement of ear bones. No other mammals have the same arrange of bones the same way. Dig up a skull you think is related to whales, look at the ears and that gives you the answer. And this is how it works over and over again. No one looks at a fossil, packs them in a cupboard and forgets about them. Hundred year old fossils are pulled out looked at constantly. Each new generation of researchers wants to be the one to spot something others have missed. Wants to be the one to understand what this or that means about the particular fossil. Over the years some of the greatest paleontologist have been proven wrong by young guns coming into the game, wanting to make their own reputation.
Kind of. Many organisms have far more genes than humans, but these genes produce fewer proteins or cell types. Does that mean all those genes are wasted? Not exactly, it means they are organized differently (spelled differently is close enough). If there were some equation like one gene=one protein, we'd need a mind-boggling number of genes. But in fact, the relationship isn't one to one, it's many to many. Which means, each gene might be involved in the ultimate production of many different proteins, and each protein might result from the actions of many different genes. And of course, genes do far more than produce proteins. Humans have a very large number of regulatory genes, which tell other genes when to turn on and off. Larger systems with more moving parts need more such regulation in order to develop. It is worth pointing out that bacteria and archaea have been evolving for almost 4.5 billion years, and eukaryotes for maybe 600 million years, so you'd expect the former kingdoms to be more complex. And unsurprisingly, some bacteria are more different from other bacteria genetically than humans are different from jellyfish.
Entropy is #4 in the 5 issues you raised in the op and cited it as one of those 5 reasons why evolution does not "provide scientific & logical explanation for the origins & complexity of life". Let's review. So casting it now as "not the precise topic" seems somewhat evasive of the very issue you yourself raised. You've been given examples which clearly demonstrate that biological systems including evolution have no regard for entropy. (For your convenience post #103 & #112.) Now, would you care to address these observations? or avoid them and continue to play science teacher?
Evolution, Micro & Macro. If for the sake of our anti-evolutionists there is to be a distinction between the two then definitions, at least for the sake of discussion would be beneficial. Microevolution: Evolution involving small-scale changes, i.e. within the species level, occurring over a short period of time that results in the formation of new subspecies. Macroevolution: Evolution happening on a large scale, e.g. at or above the level of species, over geologic time resulting in the formation of new taxonomic groups. Now on the surface these definitions would seem quite simple and absolute. It seems simple enough to understand that one occurs within and the other occurs above the taxonomic level of species. Easy peasy? No. As was mentioned earlier (thanks Perilica grad Ameriku) they are quite arbitrary. Arbitrary in that these simple definitions are dependent upon the abstract nature of the definition of species. This definition of species: "A species is often defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring." (wiki) is fine among sexually reproductive and compatible organisms but is inadequate to distinguish asexually reproducing organisms. Not to get too philosophical here but I think it's important to understand that biology does not often have the luxury of absolutes.
I don't think tecoya is claiming time as a causation, or that time, in and of itself directly affects sequential evolutionary events resulting in increased complexity. Time does however facilitate those processes and events.
you need to lighten up. I saw that image on the web, & posted it as an example of hoaxes & the desperation that SOME evolutionists seem to have. I'll have a civil conversation, & deal with evidence & logic. But i'm very accustomed to the cries of 'Blasphemy!' when sacred cows are threatened. If that's all you have, i'll begin to ignore your contributions. Insults & ad hominems seem out of place in a scientific discussion..
Well, if you actually read the OP, you would see that i posted my old critique to show my earlier contribution, & to lament the devolution of these kinds of threads into religious bickering. I proposed a NEW concept.. the scientific method, & made the question, the hypothesis, & we have been examining the evidence & conclusions since. But if looking for logical 'gotcha!' statements is what you want, that's fine too. The nice thing about forums is it is easy to go back & see what was actually said, & not be subject to those who distort views or statements. This was the first paragraph in the OP: Inevitably, discussions about origins, & any critique of evidence for or against ANY view of origins, ALWAYS seem to devolve into petty bickering, nit picking about what was said, or the intent. I tried to make it clear in the OP that this was not the purpose of this thread. There are hundreds of petty, bickering threads about origins & religion, for those who want to name call & get pissy & personal. Almost every thread devolves into that, eventually, but i had hoped for a more civil, rational discussion about this subject. But like i said in my earlier reply, if you want to include entropy in this discussion, go for it. It is topical, as it relates to origins. Make your points, support them with evidence, & draw your conclusions. The rest of us will examine your findings.
Good posts.. thanks for your reasonable response. One of the bigger problems for a 'big bang' theory is HOW did everything get organized in the first place? Theistic evolutionists can claim a deity who started it all. But a naturalist has a problem. What mechanism is there to explain HOW all the matter in our universe got packed together so it could go 'bang!'? The 2nd law is not exempted in this case, as you still need some kind of organizing power to bring everything to a head. That is NOT a naturally observed phenomenon. We may speculate that it DID happen, or theorize how, but we cannot really explain it, scientifically. The universe is not working this way, now, how can we ASSUME it did somehow, 'back then'? The 2nd law is not like obamacare.. you can't just get a waiver from it.
I saw the image on the web and posted it. Good job, so you did not even examine the information you were given. You assumed it correct because it matched your world view. But rather than take the moral high ground, why dont you address the core point of that part of the post. A scientist (the second to examine it) proved Nebraska Man was none of the things claimed. If evolution is a faith and researchers its high priests they should have covered up the error and incorporated the data into the wider theory of evolution
This is a great post, & deserves more attention than i can give it right now.. unfortunately, i do not have a juicy grant to enable me to laze about & post on the 'net. But my statement about dna being a blueprint is still accurate. We ARE hard wired. Genetically, offspring are the same as their parents, with only the variability from the parent genes to draw on. If your parents both have black hair, & you come out a red head, someone in your line was carrying that gene. It did not spontaneously generate, that we can see. That might be speculated, or assumed, but like you said in the last statement, things like this are more a matter of opinion than objective science, be it definition or experimentation. Neanderthals were trumpeted as a different species, & still are thought that by many people. Yet recent studies of dna have shown that homo sapiens mated with the neanderthals, & their lines continued. This would be like a scandinavian going to africa & interbreeding with pygmies. If the rest of the pygmy population died off, leaving only the mixed progeny, you might think the very different looking pygmies were a different species. This is a more logical, occam's razor way of looking at neanderthals, now that we have more evidence about them. The notion that they were stupid brutes, backward & lower on some evolutionary scale is all conjecture, with NO backing from scientific enquiry. more later.. thanks for the discussion..
I didn't direct the post at you, I was really directing it as USFAN. I love your comments on that experiment, as well. - - - Updated - - - Species can and do interbreed, and sometimes the offspring is fertile... it depends on how different they are. Check it out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liger http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species For some lay reading
