WILL SOMEONE GIVE ME SOME PROOF OF EVOLUTION?

Anonymousmaster
Anonymousmaster's picture
Posts: 16
Joined: 2007-03-10
User is offlineOffline
WILL SOMEONE GIVE ME SOME PROOF OF EVOLUTION?

Anonymous  master


WILL SOMEONE GIVE ME SOME PROOF OF EVOLUTION?
Explain to me what kind of Evolution you are talking about.

I want proof that we evolved from a rock or a tree.or pile of hot  steaming shit.
 I want proof that my great great great great great great etc. grampa was hot soup.

Show me just one example of this mount of evidence please, and I will look at it. Don't link me to a site.
If you can, just take one bit of evidence from off the site, and repost it here, thanks.


Ok, so then if Evolution doesn't try and explain our origin, then why don't you be so kind as to tell me what it does try to explain? Hmmm?
 I can't wait to hear this one

evolution is a set of psycho-physical mechanisms

it explains how we get from state (A) to state (B)

BUT, it says nothing about the origin of state (A)

How does evolution explain the negative/positive feeback inhibition/activiation
pathway exhibited in so biochemical processes? How does nature know how to make,
say, step 6 molecule, allosterically inhibit step 1 molecule? Such precision!
The impetus to make a biochemical pathyway via mutation seems logical for one or
maybe to very lucky oranisms, but how does such a level of complexity happen "by
chance" or by selection.




Anonymous master

  I'M the case against evolution , god ,satan, christiamity,judaism,and islam and or any other bull shit crap ...


MrRage
Posts: 896
Joined: 2006-12-22
User is offlineOffline
If you really are interested

If you really are interested in this, why don't you get involved in this thread.


Noor
Posts: 250
Joined: 2006-11-18
User is offlineOffline
Evolution is about how we

Evolution is about how we EVOLVED, not about how life came about.  Your statement "I want proof that we evolved from a rock or a tree.or pile of hot  steaming shit.
 I want proof that my great great great great great great etc. grampa was hot soup." is so idiotic that I'm not going to even bother responding.


Anonymousmaster
Anonymousmaster's picture
Posts: 16
Joined: 2007-03-10
User is offlineOffline
your thread. do not answers

your thread. do not answers my question sorry  dude
WILL SOMEONE GIVE ME SOME PROOF OF EVOLUTION?
Explain to me what kind of Evolution you are talking about.

I want proof that we evolved from a rock or a tree.or pile of hot  steaming shit.
 I want proof that my great great great great great great etc. grampa was hot soup.

Show me just one example of this mount of evidence please, and I will look at it. Don't link me to a site.
If you can, just take one bit of evidence from off the site, and repost it here, thanks.


Ok, so then if Evolution doesn't try and explain our origin, then why don't you be so kind as to tell me what it does try to explain? Hmmm?
 I can't wait to hear this one



American Atheist
American Atheist's picture
Posts: 1331
Joined: 2006-09-03
User is offlineOffline
Oh no. Not another

Oh no.

Not another moron...


qbg
Posts: 298
Joined: 2006-11-22
User is offlineOffline
Ever hear about antibiotic

Ever hear about antibiotic resistance?


MrRage
Posts: 896
Joined: 2006-12-22
User is offlineOffline
Anonymousmaster wrote: your

Anonymousmaster wrote:
your thread. do not answers my question sorry dude
WILL SOMEONE GIVE ME SOME PROOF OF EVOLUTION?
Explain to me what kind of Evolution you are talking about.

You read the whole thread in under an hour? The original poster is a biologist, go to that thread and ask him your silly questions.

Anonymousmaster wrote:
I want proof that we evolved from a rock or a tree.or pile of hot steaming shit.
I want proof that my great great great great great great etc. grampa was hot soup.
Show me just one example of this mount of evidence please, and I will look at it.

There's no evidence for any of this. You asking absurd questions. Either you're mentally retarded or a troll.

Anonymousmaster wrote:
Don't link me to a site.
If you can, just take one bit of evidence from off the site, and repost it here, thanks.

Whaa, whaa! I'm to fucking lazy to go read a site and do my own research. I want people to try to answer how we came from a rock or shit. Someone answer my damn stupid questions, now!

Anonymousmaster wrote:
Ok, so then if Evolution doesn't try and explain our origin, then why don't you be so kind as to tell me what it does try to explain? Hmmm?
I can't wait to hear this one

No evolution doesn't explain the origin of life on earth. That's another subject. But you're too much of a moron to go research yourself, and I'm not going to waste time all my time on you.


Anonymousmaster
Anonymousmaster's picture
Posts: 16
Joined: 2007-03-10
User is offlineOffline
my case against evolution the myht

my case against evolution the myht

  has it ever occured to you that evolution takes hundreds of thousands of years?HO REALLY?
So my case against evolution: I've also tried to evolve as well. But seems Evolution hates me.
*"Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless"
Science has been challenged to proove OR disprove the existence of GOD. But must we really light a candle to see the sun? . . .

Since evolutionists claim that the transition from one species to a new one takes place in tiny, incremental changes over millions of years, they acknowledge that we cannot observe the process taking place today. Our lifespans simply are too short to directly observe such a change.
Instead, they say, we have to look at the past-the fossil record that shows the many life forms that have existed over earth's history-to find transitions from one species to another.

Darwin's theory predicted that countless transitional forms must have existed, all gradually blending almost imperceptibly from one tiny step to the next, as species progressively evolved to higher, better-adapted forms.
Indeed that would have to be the case. Well in excess of a million species are alive today. For all those to have evolved from common ancestors, we should be able to find millions if not hundreds of millions of intermediate forms gradually evolving into other species.
It was not only fossils of transitional species between apes and humans that would have to be discovered to prove Darwin's theory. The gaps were enormous.
*

If evolution is the guiding force in human development, how is it that higher forms of life evolved with male and female sexes? If humans are the pinnacle of the evolutionary process, how is it that we have the disadvantage of requiring a member of the opposite sex to reproduce, when lower forms of life—such as bacteria, viruses and protozoa—are sexless and far more prolific? If they can reproduce by far simpler methods, why can't we? If evolution is true, what went wrong?
*

Furthermore. If humans are the result of evolution continually reinforcing characteristics that offer a survival advantage while eliminating those that hinder perpetuation, how can we explain a human infant?
*

If evolution is true, and humans are the pinnacle of the evolutionary process, why does a process as basic as human reproduction fly in the face of everything that evolution holds true?
*

Among thousands of species the newly born (or newly hatched) are capable of survival within a matter of days or, in some cases, only minutes. Many never even see their parents. Yet, among humans, an infant is utterly helpless—not for days but for up to several years after birth.
*

A human baby is reliant on adults for the nourishment, shelter and care he or she needs to survive. Meanwhile, caring for that helpless infant is a distinct survival disadvantage for adults, since giving of their time and energy lessens their own prospects for survival.



Which is the myth, God or evolution?


qbg
Posts: 298
Joined: 2006-11-22
User is offlineOffline
Please check out: An Index

"What right have you to condemn a murderer if you assume him necessary to "God's plan"? What logic can command the return of stolen property, or the branding of a thief, if the Almighty decreed it?"
-- The Economic Tendency of Freethought


Anonymousmaster
Anonymousmaster's picture
Posts: 16
Joined: 2007-03-10
User is offlineOffline
The Talk.Origins Archive:

The Talk.Origins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy is loaded with bull shit.
 do not answers my question dude  .And you have not refuted any of my points. I have refuted yours and refuted your counter refutations. Can he get back to the debate or don't you have any counter-counter refutations left?


qbg
Posts: 298
Joined: 2006-11-22
User is offlineOffline
Anonymousmaster

Anonymousmaster wrote:

Since evolutionists claim that the transition from one species to a new one takes place in tiny, incremental changes over millions of years, they acknowledge that we cannot observe the process taking place today. Our lifespans simply are too short to directly observe such a change.
Instead, they say, we have to look at the past-the fossil record that shows the many life forms that have existed over earth's history-to find transitions from one species to another.

Evolution can and does happen in our lifetimes.
Quote:

Darwin's theory predicted that countless transitional forms must have existed, all gradually blending almost imperceptibly from one tiny step to the next, as species progressively evolved to higher, better-adapted forms.
Indeed that would have to be the case. Well in excess of a million species are alive today. For all those to have evolved from common ancestors, we should be able to find millions if not hundreds of millions of intermediate forms gradually evolving into other species.
It was not only fossils of transitional species between apes and humans that would have to be discovered to prove Darwin's theory. The gaps were enormous.
Quote:

Fossil formation is rare, and given that some species exist for only a short time, so therefore an apparent lack of fossils is no surprise.

If evolution is the guiding force in human development, how is it that higher forms of life evolved with male and female sexes? If humans are the pinnacle of the evolutionary process, how is it that we have the disadvantage of requiring a member of the opposite sex to reproduce, when lower forms of life—such as bacteria, viruses and protozoa—are sexless and far more prolific? If they can reproduce by far simpler methods, why can't we? If evolution is true, what went wrong?

Sexual reproduction is favored because it allows for greater variance -- the thing evolution feeds off of.
Quote:

Furthermore. If humans are the result of evolution continually reinforcing characteristics that offer a survival advantage while eliminating those that hinder perpetuation, how can we explain a human infant?

I don't see how an infant plays into this...
Quote:

A human baby is reliant on adults for the nourishment, shelter and care he or she needs to survive. Meanwhile, caring for that helpless infant is a distinct survival disadvantage for adults, since giving of their time and energy lessens their own prospects for survival.

Once the parents have reproduced they have passed on their genes so their role is done in that respect. They would care for their young now because it increases their chance of having their genes live on. Once the parents have reproduced for their last time, it is not about their survival but their children's.

"What right have you to condemn a murderer if you assume him necessary to "God's plan"? What logic can command the return of stolen property, or the branding of a thief, if the Almighty decreed it?"
-- The Economic Tendency of Freethought


qbg
Posts: 298
Joined: 2006-11-22
User is offlineOffline
Anonymousmaster wrote: The

Anonymousmaster wrote:
The Talk.Origins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy is loaded with bull shit.
 do not answers my question dude  .And you have not refuted any of my points. I have refuted yours and refuted your counter refutations. Can he get back to the debate or don't you have any counter-counter refutations left?

So you wish to continue the foolish act of debating something you are ignorant about? The links I provided are two good resources.

"What right have you to condemn a murderer if you assume him necessary to "God's plan"? What logic can command the return of stolen property, or the branding of a thief, if the Almighty decreed it?"
-- The Economic Tendency of Freethought


Anonymousmaster
Anonymousmaster's picture
Posts: 16
Joined: 2007-03-10
User is offlineOffline
the Anonymous master case

Anonymous master

  I'M the case against evolution , god ,satan, christiamity,judaism,and islam and or any other bull shit crap ...


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Ummmmm O.K. :stares blankly:

Ummmmm O.K. :stares blankly:


Anonymousmaster
Anonymousmaster's picture
Posts: 16
Joined: 2007-03-10
User is offlineOffline
and your point

and your point is???

 

Ummmmm O.K. :stares blankly:


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
I want proof that we

I want proof that we evolved from a rock or a tree.or pile of hot  steaming shit.

Are you on acid? I trust you are referring to the primoridal soup. Fucking idiot. It isn't a "pile of hot steaming shit", shit comes from animals, and three billion years ago there were no animals. You are referring to abiogenesis. 

 

One of the greatest mysteries in all of science is how the first life arose. Of course, here it is important to define life. Life is a set of autocatalytic chemical processes aimed at reproduction of the self. Unlike other chemical complex systems like crystals, biochemical molecules are remarkable for the reproductive capabilities. I suppose, by that definition, that Ribonucleic Acid is probably life. It is the building block from which all life was originally based, before being gradually phased out by DNA, although obviously RNA still retains a critical place in biochemistry.

The attempt to answer that has come in the form of a hypothesis known as abiogenesis . How did the organic polymerated strings of nucleic acids or indeed any necessary function of life arise? Whoever answers it will probably receive a Nobel prize from every field imaginable, although I imagine the awards will have to go to a great many people. There are numerous hypotheses out there, autocatalysis, RNA world, lipid-based world.

All The hypotheses begin with the Earth’s hydrogenesis, the formation of the oceans. Due to the polar nature of water, dissolving free ions with its slightly polar configuration, it is an ideal “primordial soup” to use the phrase, for the formation of simple self-replicating abiotic molecules. Due to the atmospheric difference of the Earth at the time, the Primordial Soup was very different. It was much warmer, an ideal incubator for the development of simple biomolecules. Experiments have shown that these simple amino and nucleic acids can arise in a hydrated anoxic environment provided there is sunlight. Molecules like Cytosine and Adenine are reasonably simple and will reassemble. This is not probable, but considering the vast size of the ocean and the span of time, the Law of Averages states it will eventually happen. The first abiotic reassembling molecules will vastly increase the chance that they will form life components like RNA; this is the basis of the RNA world Hypothesis.

 I want proof that my great great great great great great etc. grampa was hot soup.

You got it. Trace the common descent right back to proto-cells and eubacteria and it probably was.

 Show me just one example of this mount of evidence please, and I will look at it. Don't link me to a site.
If you can, just take one bit of evidence from off the site, and repost it here, thanks.

The evidence is massive, but I feel there is one piece that stands above the rest. Four words: Endogenous Retroviral Gene Insertion 

 Ok, so then if Evolution doesn't try and explain our origin, then why don't you be so kind as to tell me what it does try to explain? Hmmm?
 I can't wait to hear this one

The evolution of life begins when self-replicating biomolecules like ribonuecleic acid arise. So I guess it explains everything from RNA to man.

evolution is a set of psycho-physical mechanisms

it explains how we get from state (A) to state (B)

BUT, it says nothing about the origin of state (A)

That is like saying that gravity is false because it cannot tell us about how to make a ham sandwich.

 How does evolution explain the negative/positive feeback inhibition/activiation
pathway exhibited in so biochemical processes?

By precisly that, feedback loops. Glycolosis, Respiration, transcription, translation bla bla bla, none are irreducible processes that can be explained by autocatalysis. Evolution is dependent on the Autoctalytic cycle (I trust you know what that is).

 

 How does nature know how to make,
say, step 6 molecule, allosterically inhibit step 1 molecule?

What do you mean "know", it's all based on feedback loops. I strongly doubt by this statement that you have ever studied biochemistry.

 but how does such a level of complexity happen "by
chance" or by selection.

Autocatalysis

 

Read my essay called: My answer to creationist nonsense (different from the link MrRage gave you) and read the whole thing please. Not just the bits you like.

 

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/yellow_number_five/evolution_of_life/5274 

 

 

 

 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


MrRage
Posts: 896
Joined: 2006-12-22
User is offlineOffline
Anonymousmaster

Anonymousmaster wrote:
Anonymous master

I'M the case against evolution , god ,satan, christiamity,judaism,and islam and or any other bull shit crap ...

and your point is???


Anonymousmaster
Anonymousmaster's picture
Posts: 16
Joined: 2007-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Anonymous master

Fucking idiot.
One of the greatest mysteries in all of science is how the first life arose. ho really??

Ok, so then if Evolution doesn't try and explain our origin, then why don't you be so kind as to tell me what it does try to explain? Hmmm?I did  ask you  first    punk  so  "answer me"  nigga













Anonymous master

  I'M the case against evolution , god ,satan, christiamity,judaism,and islam and or any other bull shit crap ...


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
has it ever

has it ever occured to you that evolution takes hundreds of thousands of years?HO REALLY?

I think you mean billions of years.

furthermore, define evolution in such a context. The evolution of bacteria to a dangerous mutagen can take place in months, the evolution of multicellular Eukaryota to a speciatice split can take tens of thousands of years.

 So my case against evolution: I've also tried to evolve as well. But seems Evolution hates me.

What the fuck are you talking about? Are you on acid? Evolution takes thousands of generations. You cannot try to "evolve". Doesnt work like that, acid-shooter. That is quite possibly the stupidest comment I have ever seen.

 "Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless"

Actually we need the theory in antibiotic manufacture, genetic engineering, virology and bacteriology to be on our guard against lethal mutagens. We need it in epidemiology to understand how mutations can protect some people against vicious killers like malaria and HIV. We need it in genetics to understand how to turn the tables on terrible genetic defects like adrenoleukodystrophy, Lesch-Nyans syndrome, cystic fibrosis and beta-thasselemia. Evolutionary genetics can not only explain how to remove this ghastly ailments, but explains the gene flow patterns that are crucial to epidemiologists who are attempting to track the carrier patterns.

  Science has been challenged to proove OR disprove the existence of GOD. But must we really light a candle to see the sun? . . .

Which, of course, is in direct confliction with your signature.

Furthermore If God is omnipotent, who cares whether it created the Universe 10, 000 years ago or 10,000,000,000 years ago? Who cares whether he snapped his fingers and “poof” life appeared, or allowed it to develop naturally? It seems to me that creationists are grasping at ancient straws in a modern world. Evolution has been proven beyond doubt.

ince evolutionists claim that the transition from one species to a new one takes place in tiny, incremental changes over millions of years, they acknowledge that we cannot observe the process taking place today. Our lifespans simply are too short to directly observe such a change.
Instead, they say, we have to look at the past-the fossil record that shows the many life forms that have existed over earth's history-to find transitions from one species to another.

Wow, you finally got something correct.

  ndeed that would have to be the case. Well in excess of a million species are alive today. For all those to have evolved from common ancestors, we should be able to find millions if not hundreds of millions of intermediate forms gradually evolving into other species.

You are such an idiot. you said yourself "the blends are imperceptible".

A very popular and odd argument is “transitional fossils” and “missing links”. I had one guy tell me that if evolution is true we should see “bird-reptiles” or something along those lines. That is ridiculous. Those two Orders are separated by 200 million years of divergence. Evolution does not work along such broad lines. These three groups used to live in primordial single cell communities, promiscuously exchanging genes. This is how the foundation genes of all life were selected. But as the three groups went their separate ways, the gene flow pump shut off, and now, it is a rare occurrence when these groups exchange genetic material. By the same logic as the “bird-reptile” fallacy, molecular biologists should see weird Eukaryote-prokaryote hybrids. The divergence occurs long before different Orders proliferate. For instance, let us take the split on the level of Kingdoms. Plants and Animals, these are both Eukaroyta, yet their fundamental differences are much more then genetics. All plants have deep within them the result of an ancient symbioses, chloroplasts as well as Mitochondria, which have the astonishing ability to metabolize light (well, they don’t actually metabolize light, they just use it as a catalyst, but it’s still impressive) The truth is, all 300,000 species of plants are extremely closely related, and all have one thing in common How do we know this? Amino acid tracking. Evolution is dependent on homologous sets of genes called orthologs and paralogs. Genes in multiple organisms that obviously descended from the same common ancestor (anyone who bothers should check the amino acid tracking branching tree of hemoglobin evolution as an example) are called orthologs, while genes which occurred as the result of mutation descended from a single gene (thereby producing two or more new genes) are called paralogs. Both of these are called homologs.

The gene flow pump is shut off long before the divergence at order level. How can these groups interchange genetic material when only within a species can organisms breed? Obviously we are not going to see bird-reptiles or anything ridiculous like that. The different paths of evolution go their different ways.

Onto the issue of “transition fossils” or “missing links” or whatever you call them. There is no such thing. What on earth do they mean “transitional”? If they mean the “bird-reptile” hybrid or something along those ridiculous lines, they need to study classification biology. If they mean that the fossil record is incomplete, well of course it is! Fossils are almost never formed. When nearly all animals die, anoxic layers of silt pile on top of them, converting their organic remains into hydrocarbon sludge…that’s where we get our oil from (How do creationists explain oil anyway?) There are so many steps in evolution lost forever because the fossil record is not complete.

 

  It was not only fossils of transitional species between apes and humans that would have to be discovered to prove Darwin's theory. The gaps were enormous.

You idiot, we have twenty five species of  transitional fossils between homo sapiens and the pan genus.

 

 If evolution is the guiding force in human development, how is it that higher forms of life evolved with male and female sexes? If humans are the pinnacle of the evolutionary process, how is it that we have the disadvantage of requiring a member of the opposite sex to reproduce, when lower forms of life—such as bacteria, viruses and protozoa—are sexless and far more prolific? If they can reproduce by far simpler methods, why can't we? If evolution is true, what went wrong?

Half wit. We can. Every day the cells in our body undergo mitosis millions of times. The reason multicellular Eukaryota require two sexes in not known, but it is obvious we cannot simply divide. The amount of energy, time, and it would simply be impossible to constrct a mechanism where a multicellular organism could divide by binary fission. you know why, retard? Because it would be irreducible. And nothing in biology is irreducible or evolution would not work.

  Furthermore. If humans are the result of evolution continually reinforcing characteristics that offer a survival advantage while eliminating those that hinder perpetuation, how can we explain a human infant?

Oh, God, not the imperfect organisms argument.

“well, humans have really poor noses and crappy eyesight compared to other animals, if evolution is survival of the fittest, shouldn’t that have been fixed”? Well, no actually. Evolution is the result of trade-offs. It takes a huge amount of free energy for evolution to go through the amount of trial and error to construct new mechanisms. Does a burrowing mole need vision? No. Are the pressures of natural selection going to give it vision? Will it give the mole an advantage? No. Evolution works with trade-offs. For instance, if you rip off a salamander’s leg, it will grow back. Deep within the active genetic code of the salamander, or indeed any amphibian, are twisting strands that encode for a protein cascade that will create a new leg. Evolution left us Mammals in the dark on that. Think about the priorities. Evolution is all about trade offs and compromises. A perfect organism cannot be built, after all, evolution is not a drive with foresight or design in mind, but rather survival. Pure probability and mathematics without marring, wholly uncaring and ruthless. This is what makes it so good at shaping life.

The example of amphibian regeneration is an example of such a trade-off. Mammals cannot do this. They cannot even regrow the tip of a finger if severed. Regeneration is an awesome biological feat that belongs to the amphibians. The reasons, when we think about it, are obvious. Take man for example. We have some patchy trauma responses given to us by evolution. In the event that a limb is severed, chances are that the Paleolithic man on the African Savannah would bleed to death. But if not, some ancient mechanisms kick in. Blood pressure lowers allowing the fibrin meshing to work it’s magic and patch the spurting arteries, body temperature lowers to keep metabolism low which prevents necrosis and apoptosis of cells starved for oxygen as blood is diverted to the most vital functions (hence the pale pallor of the face, skin is not important for the time being). In time, the wound heals and the skin grows around it, and a stump is formed. But why can we not regenerate the leg? For a mammal, the evolutionary-trade off would be too great a price. It would take utterly vast reserves of energy to do so, probably more than an animal in the Spartan world of the Paleolithic could spare, the animal would need to rest for weeks, an easy target for predators, and it would probably not regain full function of the leg until axongenesis fully kicked in. In short, it is not a worthwhile path for evolution to pursue. On the other hand, in low-metabolism small Poikiothermic animals, it works quite well.

There is actually another explanation which I will pursue because I like this example. A few years ago, molecular biologists tagging mice for transgenics were using a holepuncher to punch a hole in their ear to tag. When they came back, they noticed that the mice in question had filled the gaps in the ear with cartilage. That was odd. Mammals should not be able to regenerate. A quick check revealed that these were no ordinary mice…they were MRL mice, specially bred with no immune system. This led the researchers to hypothesize, could the immune system represent a trade off between regeneration and survival of the fittest? It makes sense, the Immune system, led by the hunter killer T-cells, is extremely ruthless and kills everything that is not tagged by MHC tissue, even it’s own cells if it is convinced it is foreign. Undoubtedly, the immune system would need to shut down such regenerative projects. We have traded our ability to grow limbs back with the ability to fight pathogens.

Evolution does not build perfect organisms, only a designer could do that. And since life has no designer…

  If evolution is true, and humans are the pinnacle of the evolutionary process, why does a process as basic as human reproduction fly in the face of everything that evolution holds true?

Youve already asked, Ive already answered.

Among thousands of species the newly born (or newly hatched) are capable of survival within a matter of days or, in some cases, only minutes. Many never even see their parents. Yet, among humans, an infant is utterly helpless—not for days but for up to several years after birth.

youve already asked, Ive already answered

 Which is the myth, God or evolution?

God 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


MrRage
Posts: 896
Joined: 2006-12-22
User is offlineOffline
Anonymousmaster

Anonymousmaster wrote:
Fucking idiot.
One of the greatest mysteries in all of science is how the first life arose. ho really??

Ok, so then if Evolution doesn't try and explain our origin, then why don't you be so kind as to tell me what it does try to explain? Hmmm?I did  ask you  first    punk  so  "answer me"  nigga













Anonymous master

  I'M the case against evolution , god ,satan, christiamity,judaism,and islam and or any other bull shit crap ...

Get bent, troll.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
HA! What a fucking idiot.

HA! What a fucking idiot. Thats it. thats your response to the whole post? Did you read what followed that sentence. Are you a comatose brain-dead vegetable.

You are proof that some indeed do evolve faster than others. 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


American Atheist
American Atheist's picture
Posts: 1331
Joined: 2006-09-03
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote: HA! What

deludedgod wrote:

HA! What a fucking idiot. Thats it. thats your response to the whole post? Did you read what followed that sentence. Are you a comatose brain-dead vegetable.

You are proof that some indeed do evolve faster than others.

Don't worry about it, my brotha. It's a troll.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Yeah, I can tell

Yeah, I can tell

I'M the case against evolution , god ,satan, christiamity,judaism,and islam and or any other bull shit crap ...

Anyone want to tell me what the fuck that means? Seems a little mutually exclusive to me... 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Anonymousmaster
Anonymousmaster's picture
Posts: 16
Joined: 2007-03-10
User is offlineOffline
hen what does evolution explain?

Then what does evolution explain?

  Alright, just a quick one for the pro-evolutionists.
If Humans evolved from apes, why are there still apes?
I guess those stubborn Apes just refused to Evolve....
Then what does evolution explain? Evolution explains the origin of Life through abiogenesis. I am surprised at your statement (except u've got your own version of evolution).
The explanation of the origin of life offered by evolution theory is roughly this: Once upon a time, there was no life. Purely by chance, there came to be simple organisms capable of reproducing themselves. Random mutations introduced variety into the population of these organisms, with the result that some of them were better suited for competition than others. A scarcity of the natural resources necessary for these organisms to survive introduced competition for those resources. Those least fit for competition were unable to secure the resources that they needed to survive, and died without reproducing. Those best able to compete multiplied, with random mutations again introducing further variety. As this process was repeated, the organisms developed on an upward curve: each round of mutations introduced better organisms, and each round of competition killed off the weaker organisms. We are the result of the repetition of this process over millions of years.


American Atheist
American Atheist's picture
Posts: 1331
Joined: 2006-09-03
User is offlineOffline
Anonymousmaster wrote:

Anonymousmaster wrote:
Then what does evolution explain?
  Alright, just a quick one for the pro-evolutionists.
If Humans evolved from apes, why are there still apes?
I guess those stubborn Apes just refused to Evolve....

Ohhhhhh man, not this shit again. I didn't bother reading the rest of this crap.

I'm leaving this thread. I don't know about the rest of you guys.

Bye.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
My God ananymousmater, you

My God ananymousmater, you fucking idiot.

The answers are in the link I gave you, but since you are too fucking lazy to look yourself, Ill put it in here:

 

Fallacy #7 The prototype/synchronicity error, aka “if man evolved from monkeys why are they still here” aka “50 organisms must undergo the same mutation for it to take hold” fallacy

Evolution works on individuals not species. This is one so many people don’t understand. For instance, I often hear people say synchronized random mutations do not exist in nature, then they uphold this as proof of intelligent design/creationism. They do not understand the fundamental axiom of genetic mutation every mutation has a prototype. We’ve been through this already. An organism has an advantageous mutation. It reproduces more than the other organisms because of this. The mutation gets passed to his children, they reproduce more because of it, they pass it to their children…mutations are not synchronized. With each generation, it will become more and more prominent in the pool, until it is universal. This gives the illusion of genetic synchronicity.

This brings us to another stupid argument: I often hear the argument, “if humans evolved from chimps, why are they still here”. A foolish argument. We can apply the previous axioms to this. Evolution by gene drift works on individuals, not species. If the new combination is successful, the individual will have a greater survival chance and reproduce more, passing the new gene to his children. As long as a gene exists in the pool, the individual and his offspring have the chance for further advantageous mutations to occur (and occur they will, for mutation happens during every single undergoing of mitosis, which happens millions of time per day). The survival of an organism matters little so long as s/he had reproduced, is the gene that matters. An old species does not “disappear” if a new one arises. It might disappear only if the new species is superior and destroys its predecessors (early humans most certainly undertook genocide against the Neanderthals).

 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Right now I'm wearing my

Right now I'm wearing my shirt that has a caricature of GWB with the caption "Best evidence against intelligent design." I think Anonymousmaster's pic could go there, too.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Anonymousmaster
Anonymousmaster's picture
Posts: 16
Joined: 2007-03-10
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod Fucking idiot.nigger

 deludedgod hey you    Fucking nigger idiot.

 

Evolution Is Impossible

The main scientific reason why there is no evidence for evolution in either the present or the past (except in the creative imagination of evolutionary scientists) is because one of the most fundamental laws of nature precludes it. The law of increasing entropy—also known as the second law of thermodynamics—stipulates that all systems in the real world tend to go "downhill," as it were, toward disorganization and decreased complexity.

This law of entropy is, by any measure, one of the most universal, best-proved laws of nature. It applies not only in physical and chemical systems, but also in biological and geological systems—in fact all systems, without exception.

No exception to the second law of thermodynamics has ever been found—not even a tiny one. Like conservation of energy (the `first law&#39Eye-wink, the existence of a law so precise and so independent of details of models must have a logical foundation that is independent of the fact that matter is composed of interacting particles.5

The author of this quote is referring primarily to physics, but he does point out that the second law is "independent of details of models." Besides, practically all evolutionary biologists are reductionists—that is, they insist that there are no "vitalist" forces in living systems, and that all biological processes are explicable in terms of physics and chemistry. That being the case, biological processes also must operate in accordance with the laws of thermodynamics, and practically all biologists acknowledge this.

Evolutionists commonly insist, however, that evolution is a fact anyhow, and that the conflict is resolved by noting that the earth is an "open system," with the incoming energy from the sun able to sustain evolution throughout the geological ages in spite of the natural tendency of all systems to deteriorate toward disorganization. That is how an evolutionary entomologist has dismissed W. A. Dembski's impressive recent book, Intelligent Design. This scientist defends what he thinks is "natural processes' ability to increase complexity" by noting what he calls a "flaw" in "the arguments against evolution based on the second law of thermodynamics." And what is this flaw?

Although the overall amount of disorder in a closed system cannot decrease, local order within a larger system can increase even without the actions of an intelligent agent.6

This naive response to the entropy law is typical of evolutionary dissimulation. While it is true that local order can increase in an open system if certain conditions are met, the fact is that evolution does not meet those conditions. Simply saying that the earth is open to the energy from the sun says nothing about how that raw solar heat is converted into increased complexity in any system, open or closed.

The fact is that the best known and most fundamental equation of thermo-dynamics says that the influx of heat into an open system will increase the entropy of that system, not decrease it. All known cases of decreased entropy (or increased organization) in open systems involve a guiding program of some sort and one or more energy conversion mechanisms.

Evolution has neither of these. Mutations are not "organizing" mechanisms, but disorganizing (in accord with the second law). They are commonly harmful, sometimes neutral, never beneficial (at least as far as observed mutations are concerned). Natural selection cannot generate order, but can only "sieve out" the disorganizing mutations presented to it, thereby conserving the existing order, but never generating new order. In principle, it may be barely conceivable that evolution could occur in open systems, in spite of the tendency of all systems to disintegrate sooner or later. But no one yet has been able to show that it actually has the ability to overcome this universal tendency, and that is the basic reason why there is still no bona fide proof of evolution, past or present.

From the statements of evolutionists themselves, therefore, we have learned that there is no real scientific evidence for real evolution. The only observable evidence is that of very limited horizontal (or downward) changes within strict limits. Evolution never occurred in the past, is not occurring at present, and could never happen at all


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Wow, you're dumb. And why

Wow, you're dumb. And why are you droppin N-bombs? This is the first time I've seen someone drop N-bombs in an argument against evolution.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Fuck you troll

Fuck you troll

Have you ever studied thermodynamic biophysics?

The entropy function only works in fully closed systems without the influx/outflux of free energy. Life feeds on an axiom of entropy called Gibbs free energy, on a reverse function called Negentropy. Using adenosine triphosphate to correct the entropy.

Do you understand anything about anything?

How do you explain prkaryotic evolution?

How do you explain mTDNA migration

How do you explain endosymbiotic functions?

How do you explain Endogenous Retroviral gene insertion?

How do you explain retrotransposons?

How do you explain the fact that you are so fucking stupid?

 

Fallacy #2 Advantageous mutation is impossible

This one is ridiculous. To understand why, a short overview of genetic mechanisms and biochemistry is necessary.

DNA is made up of polymerated strings of bases, which are nucleotides bound to sugar-phosphate backbones. DNA has two functions:

Holds the code to create various proteins from amino acids

Regulating the rate of producing proteins: By definition, one gene is a string of nucleotides that codes for one protein

The language of DNA is base-pairs. DNA is entirely comprised of four molecules. Cytosine, Guanine, Adenine and Thymine. These are the nucleotides. The nucleotides are complementary. Like magnets, they will only fit to a certain opposite. G fits with C and A fits with T (A also fits with U, Uracil, but that is an RNA base). So there are only four possible base-pairs: CG, GC, TA and AT. But these four pairs will dictate every single protein imaginable.

Chemistry has absolutely everything to do with nucleic pairing. A fits with T and C with G. They are dipolar covalents. One side is slightly positively charged, the other negative. They will bind to each other much more easily if they correspond. Trying to fit A with C or T with G is sort of like trying to force two north magnets together. This kind of error can only happen in an abundance of adenosine triphosphate. It's like protons. Have you ever wondered why they don’t repel? They smash into each other with such force that they bind (gluons). (DNA doesn’t smash into each other of course, but you get the idea. So if you have a CGAT on one string, you will of course have GCTA on the other. This is called complementary encoding, and is the basis of DNA.

There are four ways that DNA can innovate.

Intragenic mutation: Errors during mitosis can swap base-pairs around, creating new strings of bases, and a new gene

Segment Shuffling: Two different genes can recombine and form two new hybrids

Duplication error: Sometimes during mitosis, a parent cell will by accident only pass part of it’s genome to the daughter cell, thus it retains a redundant copy of a gene string. This copy is completely free to mutate based on random frequency probability.

Horizontal/vertical Transfer: During sexual reproduction, organisms exchange genes. If the organism is a diploid meaning that it’s offspring has the code of two parents, then it’s offspring will have a completely new genome, combing both parents. This is the most successful method of innovation. Or an organism, particularly prokaryotes, can actually exchange genes by means of one actually encoding a packaged gene for another, which incorporates it into the genome. This is horizontal transfer, a tool that Eukaryota do not have

There are two types of genes. Introns and exons, which have these separate functions. Exons code for proteins. Introns are mostly junk or redundant, but they flank all the exons. Sometimes they are just punctuation, dictating where a gene starts and stops, but their most important function by far is to regulate the speed of protein transcription, a mechanism we will look at it more detail later. Exons dictate how a protein will be assembled. They do this because a protein is essentially a string of amino acids or a polypeptide. Therefore, exons dictate the order of amino acids in a protein. They do this by representing each amino acid with a codon. A codon is three nucleotides. Three nucleotides make up an amino acid. There are 20 possible amino acids, but 64 possible codons, therefore, exons are highly sensitive. They are also sensitive because they are ordered very precisely. For instance, let’s look at a simple string of three codons in a gene: AGG CTT GCC. Now let’s assume that an extra base is accidentally inserted (Like a G for example). The new string would be totally different, it would look like this. GAG GCT TTG CC, so every base would be shifted down one, and the entire gene would change. This would be completely devastating. This is why DNA repair mechanisms quickly target such errors.

On the other hand, Introns, which are not so sensitive or precisely executed, or are sometimes just junk or redundant, mutate based solely on random frequency. As there are 44 codons that don't correspond to an amino acid, these are used in introns. Therefore, the next axiom of evolution is that evolution is driven by the Introns. Obviously it is more complicated, Introns can become exons during shuffling/shifting, and exons can become Introns, and sometimes exons can be mutated harmlessly, so long as the mutation changes only a tiny chunk of the gene, but this rule still applies.

Now that you understand genetic mutation mechanisms, this can be applied to how advantage mutation works.

Intron mutation can change more than just transcription rate. It can change the protein fold. So, in all likelihood an organism won’t end up with one enzyme or protein morphing into another, but an identical polypeptide folding into a new enzyme. Only exon mutation will "change" an enzyme because it will change some codons, thereby changing the protein string order. From a probability standpoint, the odds of gaining a useful mutation because you can fold a protein in a new way vastly outweigh the possibility that you can get from producing a new protein. Mutations can have chain reactions on the cycle. Same string but different protein will produce a different catalytic function therefore will change another intron somewhere else down the line, or perhaps change an exon and make a new protein which, because it is bound to the cycle, not random, will be useful. If mutations operated independently, and outside the cycle, evolution would never get off the ground.

It can be understand like this:

A useless mutation occurs: Nothing happens

A bad mutation occurs: The cell dies, or the error is targeted because it is disrupting the cycle

A good mutation occurs: A new protein, rate of transcription or fold function is made. This is useful. It alters the cycle, producing a knock on effect.

For a mutation to occur which can be preserved, junk must be turned into non-junk. It is really easy to play with the introns. The prokaryotes that are the basis of life have almost no junk DNA. It is evident that such small organisms evolved to have conservative genomes. They have useful introns. It may seem extremely unreasonable in terms of probability but DNA mutates all the time. If the shift is Duplicate error, a popular method, then the gene advantage can be conserved, because it is a redundant piece. Evolution is just mathematics. As long as a gene exists, it will fight to survive...at the chemical level there exists a ruthless primal battle in which the best of the best are constantly being selected, and the weak crushed. The only phenotype affecting genes that are conserved are the ones that affect reproductive capacity. That will cause it to be conserved and cumulatively mutated upon. This is the mathematics of evolution.

Genetic drift drives evolution. Some mutations are good, some are bad, most do nothing, but through the endless cycles, organisms evolve. The analogy I like to use is the telemarketer. About 90% of people hang up on them, but the 10% who say yes make the enterprise quite profitable.

The statement advantage mutation is impossible is a confusion of possibility and probability. Advantage mutation almost never happens…the operative word being ALMOST. But if you have mutations working at quantum speed and three billion years on your hand, your odds improve dramatically.

The knock-on effect is a good demonstrator. All proteins do only one thing, they act as a catalyst for the body's catabolic chemical reactions. Without proteins, you would have to set yourself on fire to release enough energy to perform respiration. This is obviously not practical. All proteins lower the activation energy for a chemical reaction by providing an active site which works like a lock and key model. The chemical fits into the protein receptor and is broken into smaller molecules. Therefore, one can imagine that a different fold will mean that protein will have a different catabolic function which could offer a significant advantage if it allows an organism to synthesize a new chemical. The most effective way to do this would probably be base-pair swap exon mutation, which will only change a small chunk of an exon. Normally, the amino confirmation will predispose a protein to fold in a certain way, although this process is not understood (that would be the Levinthal Paradox). Natural selection, it seems, has selected a chemical interaction set which encourages the protein to fold, because in it's primary and secondary state, it is useless.

Protein folding is also a useful demonstrator of life's autoregulatory weirdness. They fold into elegant shapes after being translated from mRNA only for a tiny piece of it to serve as an active site. The hemoglobin molecule is the bizarre case and point. It is a colossal macromolecular protein snugly wrapping a single haemite (iron). This is somewhat akin to building a nuclear powered transformer to plug in a lamp.
There are 100 nucleic acids and 300 amino acids that exist in nature, we use only 4 and 22. The sugars and phosphates snap together to form the base backbone in the exact same way that nucleic acids bond together. From a chemical standpoint, the phosphorylate-saccharide (ribose)-nucleic acid structure is sensible. There are 100 nucleic acids and 300 amino acids that exist in nature, we use only 4 and 22. There is no reason why life could not be based on other amino acids and nucleic acids. The sugars and phosphates snap together to form the base backbone in the exact same way that nucleic acids bond together. From a chemical standpoint, the phosphorylate-saccharide (ribose)-nucleic acid structure is sensible.

We can look at the knock-on effect with respect to folding like this:

1) A small mutation changes a few codons

2) A different protein is made with a new fold

3) This catalyzes a chemical in a different fashion, most likely a new product

4) This new product has a different effect on the cell membrane receptors, which keep up the autocatalytic cycle. It causes a different command to be followed, as transcription is driven when a stimuli causes a protein to bind to the introns that flank the necessary exon.

Transgenic technology has revealed that changing a gene can start making a gene down the line do bizarre things. Why? Simple. Genes can control each other. The knock-on is established by introns controlling exons which in turn produce proteins which control introns which control exons which… you understand. If evolution operated like individual genes doing individual things, it would not get on the ground.

Knock-on effects work all across the genome. After all, what do genes do, they produce proteins, or they regulate the production of proteins. What do those proteins do? Well...everything: The big functions are of course:

-Catabolism of biochemical families (nucleotides, coenzyme factors, carbohydrates)

-Anabolism (glycogen synthesis, lipid synthesis)

-RNA synthesis control

-Ion channels and membranes (cell membranes, nerve membranes, particularly oligolipoproteins for myelin) , transport mechanisms including inorganic transport, ion flux and carrying

-Exocrine systems and secretory pathways/chemical production

-endocrine systems and hormone control Autocatalysis

-Maintenance of cell signal transduction and energy release metabolic pathways

The thing to notice about all of these is they are all dependant on biochemical triggers. You change one thing, you change a cascade. Making a new ion channel will change the electrochemical gradient or allow a different material influx, which will affect how protein receptors bind to introns. A new ion channel could trigger a hitherto unused intron. There are so many complex factors to genetic evolution, it is not a clear cut process.

The discovery of genes was probably one of the most important in the history of science. Before genomic sequencing, the human body or indeed any organism or indeed a single celled organism seemed unbearably complex. Of course, with the advent of new molecular biology techniques that was swept away. Everything can be explained in terms of metabolic pathways building macromolecules with remarkable properties. There are only thirteen families of Biochemicals (Terpenoids, Flavanoids, Carotenoids, Polyketides, Alkaloids Peptides, Polypeptides, Amino Acids, Nucleic Acids, Steroids, Enzyme Cofactors, Carbohydrates, Lipids and Tetrapyrroles). Everything can be explained in terms of these, and the manufacture, regulation, secretion and synthesis of these…can be explained by DNA. This explains everything from simple sugar metabolism all the way to the Progenitor…the stem cell with the potential to make a human body.

Fallacy #3 The probability of advantage mutation taking place is too low.

This error is almost exactly the same as the second.

With regard to probability, think about this. Things work at quantum speed at the size of molecules. Cells are always undergoing mitosis, copying, shifting, transcription, translation, receiving and processing chemical signals. Imagine the genome as a supercomputer and the environment, the determinate of what constitutes a genetic advantage that causes more reproduction like the password. The supercomputer has to guess the password. It does so by brute force. Go through the permutations. Mutations are happening so fast, so often, some are being chucked out in a blur, some are useless and ignored, the ones that are chucked out are automatically repaired because they are getting in the way, and then finally, the computer finds a permutation. Since this is not a disruptor, it is retained in much the same way that a useless mutation would be, passed on to children, who reproduce more...etc etc.

The environment is always playing around with genes, it just takes millions of years to nurture the ones it likes.

From a probability and mathematical standpoint, evolution makes perfect sense. There is a good example of this for contemporary society. The survival advantage of trait is inversely proportional to the amount of time it takes. It is relatively easy to observe genotype transition today. For instance, in parts of Africa where malaria is most prevalent, the allele containing the single copy of sickle-cell anemia can be found in almost 100% of the population. Another good instance of this is common lawn grass. Consider dandelions, a totally nuisance type of weed. As people of suburbia ruthlessly take their lawnmowers to the grass, the dandelions that happens to have genetic combinations that inhibit it’s Auxin growth factors find it useful because they are far more likely to survive, too short to be cut by the blades. These pass their genotype to their children who in turn will be unusually short and survive the lawnmower blades while their tall counterparts perish and in time, a new species, the lawnlion, may arise.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


qbg
Posts: 298
Joined: 2006-11-22
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote: Yeah, I

deludedgod wrote:

Yeah, I can tell

I'M the case against evolution , god ,satan, christiamity,judaism,and islam and or any other bull shit crap ...

Anyone want to tell me what the fuck that means? Seems a little mutually exclusive to me... 


It comes from a misunderstanding that people as stupid as him couldn't exist if evolution was true Sticking out tongue

"What right have you to condemn a murderer if you assume him necessary to "God's plan"? What logic can command the return of stolen property, or the branding of a thief, if the Almighty decreed it?"
-- The Economic Tendency of Freethought


qbg
Posts: 298
Joined: 2006-11-22
User is offlineOffline
Not the entropy crap

Not the entropy crap again...

Quote:

Claim CF001:
The second law of thermodynamics says that everything tends toward disorder, making evolutionary development impossible.
Source:
Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 38-46.
Response:
The second law of thermodynamics says no such thing. It says that heat will not spontaneously flow from a colder body to a warmer one or, equivalently, that total entropy (a measure of useful energy) in a closed system will not decrease. This does not prevent increasing order because


the earth is not a closed system; sunlight (with low entropy) shines on it and heat (with higher entropy) radiates off. This flow of energy, and the change in entropy that accompanies it, can and will power local decreases in entropy on earth.
entropy is not the same as disorder. Sometimes the two correspond, but sometimes order increases as entropy increases. (Aranda-Espinoza et al. 1999; Kestenbaum 1998) Entropy can even be used to produce order, such as in the sorting of molecules by size (Han and Craighead 2000).
even in a closed system, pockets of lower entropy can form if they are offset by increased entropy elsewhere in the system.
In short, order from disorder happens on earth all the time.

The only processes necessary for evolution to occur are reproduction, heritable variation, and selection. All of these are seen to happen all the time, so, obviously, no physical laws are preventing them. In fact, connections between evolution and entropy have been studied in depth, and never to the detriment of evolution (Demetrius 2000).

Several scientists have proposed that evolution and the origin of life is driven by entropy (McShea 1998). Some see the information content of organisms subject to diversification according to the second law (Brooks and Wiley 1988), so organisms diversify to fill empty niches much as a gas expands to fill an empty container. Others propose that highly ordered complex systems emerge and evolve to dissipate energy (and increase overall entropy) more efficiently (Schneider and Kay 1994).

Creationists themselves admit that increasing order is possible. They introduce fictional exceptions to the law to account for it.

Creationists themselves make claims that directly contradict their claims about the second law of thermodynamics, such as hydrological sorting of fossils during the Flood.
References:
Aranda-Espinoza, H., Y. Chen, N. Dan, T. C. Lubensky, P. Nelson, L. Ramos and D. A. Weitz, 1999. Electrostatic repulsion of positively charged vesicles and negatively charged objects. Science 285: 394-397.
Brooks, D. R. and E. O. Wiley, 1988. Evolution As Entropy, University of Chicago Press.
Kestenbaum, David, 1998. Gentle force of entropy bridges disciplines. Science 279: 1849.
Han, J. and H. G. Craighead, 2000. Separation of long DNA molecules in a microfabricated entropic trap array. Science 288: 1026-1029.
Demetrius, Lloyd, 2000. Theromodynamics and evolution. Journal of Theoretical Biology 206(1): 1-16. http://www.idealibrary.com/links/doi/10.1006/jtbi.2000.2106
McShea, Daniel W., 1998. Possible largest-scale trends in organismal evolution: eight live hypotheses. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 29: 293-318.
Schneider, Eric D. and James J. Kay, 1994. Life as a manifestation of the second law of thermodynamics. Mathematical and Computer Modelling 19(6-8): 25-48. http://www.fes.uwaterloo.ca/u/jjkay/pubs/Life_as/lifeas.pdf
Further Reading:
Atkins, P. W. 1984. The Second Law. New York: Scientific American Books.

Kauffman, Stuart A. 1993. The Origins of Order. New York: Oxford. (technical)

Lambert, Frank L. 1999. The second law of thermodynamics. http://www.secondlaw.com
See for Yourself:
You can see order come and go in nature in many different ways. A few examples are snowflakes and other frost crystals, cloud formations, dust devils, ripples in sand dunes, and eddies and whirlpools in streams. See how many other examples you can find.

"What right have you to condemn a murderer if you assume him necessary to "God's plan"? What logic can command the return of stolen property, or the branding of a thief, if the Almighty decreed it?"
-- The Economic Tendency of Freethought


Anonymousmaster
Anonymousmaster's picture
Posts: 16
Joined: 2007-03-10
User is offlineOffline
hey you Fucking idiot.nigger

"If you don't know the conditions on the early Earth, how can you be sure about how cells first formed?"

Pg. 10 of Evolution Exposed by Roger Patterson.

Responses? I'm just trying to get a balanced view here.  Fucking idiot.nigger


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Where would he be without

Where would he be without insults, nonsense and cutting/pasting from creationist websites? I can't wait until Yellow and Tondagst show up here. By the way, as far as I know nobody here who posted so far is even black. Nutcase.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


MrRage
Posts: 896
Joined: 2006-12-22
User is offlineOffline
Please, don't feed the

Please, don't feed the trolls.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Judging by the fact,

Judging by the fact, anonymous master, that your writing has been completely lacking in grammer or intelligence, you've got your fingers (the ones that are not up your ass) stuck on the Ctrl-C-V keys on creationist websites.

Go away, troll, or be a little more polite

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Anonymousmaster
Anonymousmaster's picture
Posts: 16
Joined: 2007-03-10
User is offlineOffline
the Anonymous case

I can't wait until Yellow and Tondagst show up here. ho really ???


Anonymousmaster
Anonymousmaster's picture
Posts: 16
Joined: 2007-03-10
User is offlineOffline
you facking filthee kike jew nigger

imagine no evolutoin no god no bull shit
Go away, troll, or be a little more polite hoo really?? swhome how you stupid kike nigger


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Racist shit isn't tolerated

Racist shit isn't tolerated here by the way. I think he'll be gone soon anyway (so by the way, we are all atheist, jewish and black? news to me.)

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
I dont quite follow, If you

I dont quite follow, If you dont believe in God, how do you think life arose if you don't accept evolution?

can we ban this guy for obscene trolling?

I can guarantee you that if you do not stop being rude, ignorant, flaming, trolling and ignoring contradictory posts from this website's evolutionary biologists, you will be banned by the mods.

Now are you going to respond to my questions regarding endogenous retrovirals, mtDNA insertions, retrotransposons and genomic sequencing? 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


MrRage
Posts: 896
Joined: 2006-12-22
User is offlineOffline
Anonymousmaster wrote:

Anonymousmaster wrote:
"If you don't know the conditions on the early Earth, how can you be sure about how cells first formed?"

Pg. 10 of Evolution Exposed by Roger Patterson.

Responses? I'm just trying to get a balanced view here.  Fucking idiot.nigger

Besides the "Fucking idiot.nigger" part, this post was copied from this thread.


Anonymousmaster
Anonymousmaster's picture
Posts: 16
Joined: 2007-03-10
User is offlineOffline
hey felthy nigger do i have a choice???

do i have a choice?  here?

can we ban this guy for obscene trolling?

I can guarantee you that if you do not stop being rude, ignorant, flaming, trolling and ignoring contradictory posts from this website's evolutionary biologists, you will be banned by the mods.

Now are you going to respond to my questions regarding endogenous retrovirals, mtDNA insertions, retrotransposons and genomic sequencing?


Anonymousmaster
Anonymousmaster's picture
Posts: 16
Joined: 2007-03-10
User is offlineOffline
http://www.rationalresponders.com/user/anonymousmaster

hey you stupid nigger i wrote  that I'm the real deal you facking

kike nigger filthy  homo


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
In that case, troll, are you

In that case, troll, are you going to answer my questions?

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


MrRage
Posts: 896
Joined: 2006-12-22
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote: In that

deludedgod wrote:
In that case, troll, are you going to answer my questions?

No, he/she is not. Our troll just wants attention.


Anonymousmaster
Anonymousmaster's picture
Posts: 16
Joined: 2007-03-10
User is offlineOffline
anonymousmaster

you have no case here   you facking nigger  homo filthy kike


Anonymousmaster
Anonymousmaster's picture
Posts: 16
Joined: 2007-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Would you say that it is

Would you say that it is safe to stop debating this guy because i have destroyed him? I just want your opinion.


Ophios
Ophios's picture
Posts: 909
Joined: 2006-09-19
User is offlineOffline
Anonymousmaster wrote: you

Anonymousmaster wrote:
you have no case here you facking nigger homo filthy kike

 

I take it you don't have a case since you just want to whine and throw ad homs. 

AImboden wrote:
I'm not going to PM my agreement just because one tucan has pms.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
lol Ok, you think you have

lol

Ok, you think you have destroyed me? Answer my Questions!!

How do you explain endogenous retroviral insertion, MtDNA insertion and retrotransposons? 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


American Atheist
American Atheist's picture
Posts: 1331
Joined: 2006-09-03
User is offlineOffline
Good news, everyone. The

Good news, everyone.

The Troll is banned!

Yay!